Background
Justin Engstrom, a veteran receiving treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, was on a waitlist for an assistance dog when he searched for housing in Maine in 2016. He called Darrell Sproul, owner and operator of D&L Apartments, about a Hermon apartment and asked whether dogs were allowed.
Sproul said no dogs were allowed. After Engstrom asked about federally protected or service dogs, Sproul again said no dogs were permitted and told Engstrom not to apply. The Maine Human Rights Commission sued, alleging that D&L unlawfully refused to permit a service animal, made a disability-based discriminatory statement, and refused to rent because of a service animal.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment for the Commission. It held that a landlord’s unqualified rule barring service animals is a statement indicating a disability-based preference, limitation, or discrimination under 5 M.R.S. § 4581-A(1)(C). The relevant test is how an ordinary listener would understand the statement; the landlord’s subjective intent to discriminate is not determinative.
The Court also held that 5 M.R.S. § 4582-A(3) protects prospective use of a service animal. The statute separately prohibits refusing to permit a service animal and discriminating against a person who uses one; its present-use language in the latter clause does not limit the former. Thus, D&L violated both provisions by telling Engstrom that no dogs, including service dogs, were allowed.
Key Takeaways
- An unqualified refusal to allow service animals can itself constitute unlawful housing discrimination.
- Liability for a discriminatory housing statement turns on its effect on an ordinary listener, not the speaker’s asserted subjective intent.
- Maine’s service-animal housing protection extends to prospective tenants who may use a service animal.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that landlords cannot rely on a general no-pets policy to reject service animals or discourage applicants who need them. The Court affirmed the trial court’s remedies, including fair-housing training, an assistance-animal policy, and a $10,000 civil penalty.