JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
AN ACT CONCERNING EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS AND HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS.
Vote Action:
Joint Favorable Substitute
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Rep. Fred Camillo, 151st Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
To make the misrepresentation of a dog as a service animal an infraction.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
Requires that the Department of Consumer Protection develop and distribute and/or make available a pamphlet concerning reasonable accommodations that certain housing providers must allow for those people with mental and emotional disabilities who live with emotional support animals.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Dan Williams of Bridgeport Supports this bill because he is allergic to animals and lives in a multi-family home, and staying in close proximity to animals for more than an hour can be a death sentence. Additionally, he is a real estate agent and is often involved in owner/tenant relations. Williams believes that “owners of multi-family [homes]… should be allowed to restrict animals in their property if they live in it.”
Stephanie Johnson Supports this bill, but respectfully requests that the following requirements be added to the bill: that the maximum amount of animals be limited to one or two; that a standard is created defining what can be deemed a support animal; that a licensed medical professional prescribe the need for such an animal; and that the law comes to terms with insurance companies ' lists of restricted breeds.
Maryanne Melley of West Hartford Supports this bill and “firmly believes that a fine must be imposed of $500 and/or community service to truly make an impact on these people who take [impersonation of a service animal] so lightly.”
Margaret Boisture of Windsor Supports this bill because “as a breeder and owner of dogs, [she] finds it very troubling that some irresponsible people try to pass their pets off as service dogs.”
American Kennel Club Vice President Shiela Goffee Supports this bill because “service dogs are trained to behave passively when they encounter another service dog… [whereas] untrained animals fraudulently presented as service dogs in public places have been known to start fights, get up on restaurant furniture, relieve themselves in stores, and damage property. A disturbing result is that those with legitimate service dogs are being denied access to public places where they have a right to go. Owners who pass their dogs off as service dogs [run the risk of those dogs] displaying poor behavior without proper training, thereby creating a hostile environment for legitimate service animals.
Connecticut Coalition of Property Owners Michael Rell Supports this bill, but suggests that: a landlord should be able to require the medical provider to provide more than a contrived letter for these accommodation requests; the medical provider should define their expertise in the medical field which gives rise to their qualifications to provide a disability opinion; the medical provider should provide a nexus between the requested accommodation and the disability which would give rise to the need for accommodation; and that the service animal should be certified as a service animal with appropriate training and credentialing or if a comfort animal, a vet or other qualified party should certify that the animal is safe and does not present a danger to others or the landlord or present health or other hazards to the public.
Connecticut Airport Authority Executive Director Kevin Dillon Supports this bill because “this legislation would protect the protect the legitimate use of service animals while sending a message to those who seek to abuse the system.”
Jack Wesa of Voluntown Supports this bill, but respectfully requests that the following requirements be added to the bill: the maximum amount of animals be limited to one or two; a standard is created defining what can be deemed a support animal; a licensed medical professional prescribe the need for such an animal; and the law comes to terms with insurance companies ' lists of restricted breeds.
Richard Dubina Supports this bill because he believes this issue on support animals needs regulation because tenants take advantage of landlords too often. The practice needs to stop.
National Federation of the Blind Connecticut President Elizabeth Rival Supports this bill and asks the committee to “seriously consider passing some regulations in Connecticut that would enact a penalty to those who would try to falsely represent their ' pets ' to have them gain access to [places such as] airline cabins by fraudulent means.”
Craig Barletta Supports this bill and recommends that the committee include language that requires that those bringing animals into apartments “put up a separate deposit of $3,500 to protect the landlords from property damage.” The deposit would ensure that those who fraudulently pass off their animals as service animals hesitate before doing so, as this fine should not negatively affect those with true service animals
The Connecticut Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners President Laurie Maulucci Supports this bill.
Ken Burkamp Supports this bill
Liz Pretty of Kent Supports this bill
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Ronald Combe of Honeycombe Properties, LLC Opposes this bill because “support animals are not service animals [as] all pets give you love and support.”
Deboarah Lutz of South Pasadena, California Opposes this bill because “the burden [it would place] on landlords is unreasonable. A person with a real disability deserves some reasonable accommodations,” she wrote, “but as the law stands way too many people are abusing ESA status.” She respectfully requests that changes be made to the current laws to require face to face ongoing treatment from a local therapist.
Connecticut Legal Rights Project Executive Director and Keep the Promise Coalition Co-Chair Kathleen Flaherty Opposes this bill because “it is unnecessary [and] purports to solve a problem that does not exist. It is dangerous, as it will become a vehicle for discrimination based on disability.”
Edwards Balfour of Foster, Rhode Island Opposes this bill in its current iteration. “Emotional support dogs are dogs that provide comfort and support in forms of affection and companionship for an individual suffering from various mental health conditions. [Under The Fair Housing Amendments Act] individuals [have the right to live] with their emotional support dogs regardless of any buildings or residences with a no-pet policy. While evidence of a medical or emotional condition for the owner may require a document from a licensed health care provider, special training is not required for the animal so registered.” If this legislation is passed, Balfour urges the committee to recognize emotional support dog information and insert the appropriate language to allow continued recognition of these animals as necessary.
Connecticut Legal Services Raphael Podolsky Opposes this bill. “As drafted, the bill penalizes persons with a disability who innocently mischaracterize an ' emotional support ' animal as a ' service ' animal, even if they are eligible for an emotional support animal as a reasonable accommodation for disability. The bill shares the common confusion among lay people that anyone can get a reasonable accommodation by claiming that they ' need ' a pet for support. The bill ignores the principle source of the problem, which is an online industry that markets disability and dog certificates by falsely representing or implying that they are legal or that they meet the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. [And] the bill would require the issuance of citations, which would apparently require police intervention.”
Reported by: Cassandra L. Hobbs
Date: May 8, 2018