design_mom
probably more like my dad than I care to admit
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
As between the ADA and the FHA for an ESA (enough acronyms for you? LOL), the law would come down against the person who "came second" if you will. Using the OP's fact situation, where the four roommates have lived together, one can presume, since the beginning of the academic year, and NOW one of the four creates a conflict between one of the roommates ADA allergy, and her ESA, I believe the court would say "ESA person....you created the problem by ADDING your animal, you are the one who must move" vs. the roommate who has the allergy all along and it wasn't an issue. re ample subleases available for the second semester, always.
My experience is with the ADA, not the FHA... but in the case I'm familiar with, I think you're right about the person who "came second" being the one who is less accommodated... but I'm not sure you're correct about who came first vs. second.
My experience was somewhat different -- was a work situation (ADA vs FHA) and it was a true service animal, not an ESA -- but it was still a dog vs. an allergy sufferer.
In my case, an employee asked for accommodation via the ADA to use his service animal. Another employee claimed to have terrible dog allergies. However, since the employee with the dog had requested accommodation first, we had to consider his accommodation first. The allergy sufferer did not have an accommodation request "on file" prior to the dog request being filed. And, at the time, it was pretty unusual to see a dog in an office building (so even if she did have horrible dog allergies, I'm not sure anyone would have thought to document them at work in an office building). I think dogs in office buildings are much more common now, whether they're service animals or "just visiting."
Anyway, we were able to move the allergy sufferer to the other end of the floor (as far as possible from the dog), and installed high powered (and expensive) air purifiers around the guy with the dog's desk in an attempt to accommodate both. However, the allergy sufferer was still very unhappy because she had to sit away from the rest of her team. However, apparently it was acceptable to move the allergy away from the allergen -- but it would have been discriminatory to ask the guy and his dog to move away from the allergy sufferer. (I think it might have been different if the allergy sufferer had a "no dog" accommodation request on file prior to the guy with the dog being hired (I think he was a new hire). His service animal would definitely have to have been accommodated, but we might have been able to position him away from the allergy sufferer or put him in an office with walls, etc. However, I'm not 100% sure on that because there is specific language in the ADA about how service animals must be accommodated and I'm not an expert. I'm not sure exactly what the FHA says about service animals vs allergy sufferers either, but I'm guessing that the dog would be considered to have "come first" if the allergy sufferer didn't have formal documentation of her allergy-related disability already documented.)