276 A.3d 393
R.I.2022Background
- Curtis Andrade rented a low‑income unit at Westminster Lofts in August 2011; management (Westlo) enforced a breed‑restricted pet policy that excluded pit bulls.
- Andrade owned Enzo, an American Staffordshire terrier; he brought Enzo briefly to the building in December 2011 and an elevator incident with neighbor Neil Abate followed; testimony about the encounter was sharply conflicting.
- Andrade thereafter submitted medical documentation and letters (December 2011–February 2012) seeking an accommodation to keep Enzo as an assistance/emotional‑support animal; management denied the requests citing the breed policy and the elevator incident.
- Andrade filed a fair‑housing charge; the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights found probable cause and later intervened as co‑plaintiff. Andrade was later evicted for nonpayment of rent and sued (third‑amended complaint included counts alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation under federal and state fair‑housing laws).
- The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on counts 1, 2, 3, and 7 against Westlo (liability for refusing a reasonable accommodation) but denied summary judgment on the statutory “service animal” count; defendants appealed.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court quashed the Superior Court’s grant of partial summary judgment as to Westlo’s liability and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact as to (a) whether Enzo posed a direct threat and (b) whether the animal was necessary to ameliorate Andrade’s disability; the Court could not meaningfully review the commission’s intervention because necessary transcripts were not provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether partial summary judgment on Westlo’s liability for refusing a reasonable accommodation was proper | Andrade: no genuine issue of material fact; all elements of reasonable‑accommodation claim met | Westlo: factual disputes (animal training, reasonableness, direct threat, necessity) preclude summary judgment and raise jury issues | Reversed as to liability; summary judgment improper because disputed material facts remain |
| Whether Enzo posed a "direct threat" so accommodation could be denied | Andrade: incident was non‑violent and did not show a direct threat | Westlo: Abate’s testimony that he felt threatened and facts (unleashing) support a direct‑threat determination | Genuine factual dispute exists about direct threat; inappropriate for summary judgment |
| Whether the assistance animal was "necessary" (ameliorates disability) | Andrade: medical note and affidavit show the dog alleviates anxiety and is necessary for equal use/enjoyment | Westlo: Andrade lived over a year in the building without the dog, accepted offer to terminate lease, and evidence undermines necessity | Genuine factual dispute exists about necessity; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights properly intervened | Commission: timely intervention under Rule 24; public‑interest role justifies intervention | Westlo: statutory basis improperly cited and procedural/timeliness defects; challenge to commission’s standing | Court could not resolve on appeal—appellate review impeded by missing transcripts; issue left for Superior Court proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo Condominium Association v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 821 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2016) (elements of reasonable‑accommodation claim under FHA)
- Astralis Condominium Association v. Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010) (reasonable‑accommodation framework)
- Dubois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2006) (reasonable‑accommodation inquiry is fact‑specific)
- Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2014) (necessity means alleviates effects of disability)
- Warren v. Delvista Towers Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (no‑pets policy must accommodate assistance animals unless direct threat exists)
- Katz v. City Metal Co., Inc., 87 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1996) (medical testimony not always required to establish disability)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1998) (ADA and FHA disability/handicap definitions construed similarly)