One of the most common housing discrimination mistakes: applying breed restrictions to emotional support animals and service animals. Federal law explicitly prohibits this. "No Pit Bulls" does not apply to your ESA Pit Bull.
The Legal Foundation
The Fair Housing Act requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities — including allowing animals of breeds that would otherwise be banned. The "direct threat" exception requires an individualized assessment of the specific animal, not breed generalizations.
The "Direct Threat" Defense Is Narrow
- "Pit Bulls are dangerous as a breed" — NOT sufficient (generalization)
- "Your specific dog bit someone last month" — potentially sufficient (individualized evidence)
- Insurance company breed exclusions — NOT a valid reason to deny an ESA
- Blanket building policies against large dogs — NOT applicable to ESAs
Insurance Carrier Argument Is Not a Defense
Courts have consistently held that a landlord's obligation to provide reasonable accommodation doesn't evaporate because of their insurance carrier's underwriting decisions. The landlord may need to seek different coverage — that's their problem, not the disabled tenant's.
NYC: The Gold Standard
NYC Admin Code §27-2009.1 explicitly bans breed restrictions for service animals and ESAs by name — one of the strongest local protections in the country.
Most Commonly Targeted Breeds
American Pit Bull Terriers, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Chow Chows, Akitas — all breed restrictions are legally invalid when applied to documented ESAs.
What To Do If Your Landlord Denied Based on Breed
- Get the denial in writing with the specific reason
- Provide ESA documentation explicitly addressing the breed restriction issue
- Send a formal accommodation request citing HUD guidance
- If denied again, file immediately with HUD