Service and Emotional Support Animals

Complainant alleged that Respondent discriminated against her based on the disabilities of closely associated children she had temporary custody of.  Complainant alleged her sister’s children have a dog that is a service animal for one child and an emotional support animal for the other.  Complainant began receiving notices to quit shortly after the dog and children moved in, that required her to remove the dog.  Eviction proceedings were filed in Alaska Superior Court.  Respondent denied the allegations, asserting that the dog had lunged at someone causing them to pepper spray the animal, and had bitten another resident, neither residing with Complainant.  Respondent provided evidence of animal control impound notice, a photo of the asserted dog bite, and evidence of the interactive process that eventually denied the animal due to the animal posing a direct threat to a person.  Complainant insisted the dog was not the one that causing the problems and it was a different pit bull, with animal control having cleared her dog.  Respondent disputed that as well and showed further evidence indicating Complainant’s dog had a second bite notice right before she vacated the unit December 26, 2024.  Her vacating of the unit caused the dismissal of the court proceeding but Respondent was pursuing Complainant for $6,300 for various items and issues.  Complainant admitted that there was a “No Pet” rule and that others with emotional support animals or service animals were not targeted. When asked why the manager would target Complainant otherwise, Respondent revealed several valid and nondiscriminatory reasons.  Finding the matter would not result in substantial evidence of discrimination or public policy concerns, the Commission then conducted an informal negotiation between the parties in which Complainant agreed to withdraw her case in exchange for Respondent dropping the pursuit of all fees and/or collections against her.  A Closing Order was issued on March 28, 2025.