Access to Care, One journey to become a Veterinarian

May 20, 2024

Do the Right Thing: Embrace differences in adoption programs

November 23, 2024

July 1, 2024

Hidden Housing Discrimination:
My Experience as a Black Queer Woman with a Pit Bull Service Animal

By: Dr. Megan Covington

Note: This blog post is intended for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

Southern American cities like Houston and Atlanta are known for their affordability, potential for upward mobility, large size homes at cheaper prices, and potential for professional growth and networking opportunities, and the southern hospitality of the residents compared to more expensive metro cities like Washington, DC, New York City, or Seattle, Washington. However, for people who are Black, queer, disabled, or a member of any other marginalized or protected class, the benefits may not even be accessible, and the costs may outweigh those benefits.

The current housing market in America hosts a nuanced and pervasive form of housing discrimination that is sanctioned, supported, and executed by landlords, property owners, and real estate professionals. These practices are harmful and play a key role in the disenfranchisement of communities who are not white, wealthy, straight, or in possession of local political power.

Despite making more than enough money to qualify, holding the highest degree of anyone in any real estate transaction with my Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), and possessing a scholarly level of knowledge about the housing laws, the potential for housing discrimination and how to avoid it, I still recently experienced discrimination upon seeking to rent a home. The harm from these interactions is often irreparable, leaving those who experience it with trauma and emotional and spiritual scars that take a lifetime to heal.

Offense #1: Failing to Disclose Rental Qualification Criteria

Upon applying for a beautiful single-family home, I quickly began encountering subtle experiences which felt like discrimination. They grew in blatantness and severity as the transaction continued. First, I noticed that the rental qualification criteria were not disclosed prior to beginning my screening despite State Rental Screening Laws that require real estate professionals to disclose their criteria before beginning to process an application. When I asked my real estate agent about it, she stated, “The landlord is an individual and is not required to disclose that.”

Why This is Wrong: While the landlord is indeed an individual, his decision to advertise his home using a real estate brokerage certainly subjects him to the federal, state, and local laws and guidelines. By not disclosing the rental criteria, the listing real estate broker positions themselves to change the criteria to eliminate an applicant who may otherwise fully qualify, which could be considered discriminatory.

Offense #2: Over-scrutinization of my application

Next, I noticed that the broker scrutinized my application much more closely than standard. She initially communicated that she contacted my former landlord and was “only awaiting to contact my employer” for income verification. However, after my employer sent in the verification only hours later, she still stated that she hadn’t heard from my former landlord where she had previously stated she easily contacted them on her first try. When I asked for clarification she stated, “I reached them over the phone and asked for their email to send the form and have not received it.”

my landlord violated my privacy by forwarding my confidential medical information out to his listing agent, who previously stated she was no longer a part of the transaction
Dr. Megan Covington

Why This is Wrong: By this point in the transaction, both the listing broker and the landlord have received enough information to conduct an internet search which will reveal pertinent information such as my appearance, including my race, gender presentation, previous employment, and political stance. By requiring additional verification, it slows the application process which delays the applicant’s ability to receive confirmation of their housing and allows the landlord and their agent to continue accepting applications from other applicants.

Offense #3: Rental Application Questions that Require Disclosure of Disability Status

Third, the rental application posed questions which required those seeking housing who use assistance animals to identify their disability as a part of the application process. The rental application asks if there will be any animals residing on the property, asks the applicant to identify any assistance animals, and requires them to provide a request for accommodations at the time of applying. Since assistance animals are not considered pets and are reserved solely for people with disabilities, requiring a person to disclose whether they have animals (including assistance animals) is the same as asking “do you have a disability?” Phrased this way, the question could subject applicants with disabilities to potential discrimination in the application process.

Why This is Wrong: According to the Fair Housing Act (FHA), landlords generally cannot ask whether you have an assistance animal (service animal or emotional support animal) during the rental application process nor can they ask questions that would force a person to disclose their disability status. The FHA prohibits discrimination based on disability, and assistance animals are reserved as a reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. While a property owner cannot and likely would not explicitly state that they did not want to rent to a disabled person because of their assistance animal or disability, they don’t have to disclose their reason for denial. Therefore, through this questioning, an applicant could receive a response that there was a more qualified candidate or be given another nonapparent reason when the real reason is the owner doesn’t want their service animal or them on the property.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a person may make their request for accommodations before or after moving into the property. Many choose to request after their housing is confirmed to protect themselves from possible discrimination which could occur if disclosed too early.

Offense #4: Questions that Require Disclosure of Disability Status from Former Landlords

Upon answering “no” to the question which asks about animals, the rental verification form then presents the question again. Most applicants don’t see this form as it goes directly to their former landlord and is returned directly to the listing agent. Where the form should ask about any pets, it presents the question again about animals instead, which would also include assistance animals (service animals or emotional support animals). If an applicant was aware of their rights and declined to disclose their disability status and use of a service animal on the application, their former landlord likely would disclose the information for them by honestly answering the improperly phrased question causing their application to flag.

When my former landlord marked that I had an [assistance] animal, her responses to the rental verification form slowed the process as it then required the overzealous realtor the need to inquire more deeply into the responses to the improper question on the form. It took days to get those responses back from them.

Asking about animals instead of pets allows property owners the opportunity to
discriminate in the application process.

Even after receiving the corrections and additional context to the form from my former landlord, I heard nothing back for two more days. I suspect the listing agent and the landlord were attempting unsuccessfully to find an applicant they considered better. The worst part was being aware what was happening in this process and not having the power to advocate for myself. I was represented by a real estate agent who was more concerned with not upsetting her fellow real estate broker and would not engage the proper follow up to move the process along and stop any potential discrimination.

You’re Approved! Except Not Really

Finally, I received approval! However, it would be two additional days before I received the lease to review and sign despite having requested a move-in date of three days prior.

Why This is Wrong: Until a lease is signed by both the owner and the tenant, the owner still has the right to show the home and can continue to take applications. In my state, if an owner cannot legally find a reason to deny an applicant within the seven days, they may stall to allow others the opportunity to apply within that time as the property does not become removed from the market until the lease is signed.

If at first they don’t succeed, they’ll try your service animal

The first business day after moving in, I emailed a request for reasonable accommodations for my service animal per the instructions provided by my doctor, which are based upon guidelines from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Later that day, I was horrified to find that my landlord violated my privacy by forwarding my confidential medical information out to his listing agent, who previously stated she was no longer a part of the transaction. As I prepared to go to bed that night, I found an email from the listing agent, which stated:

Why This is Wrong: According to Joint Statement from HUD and DOJ, p. 14, n. 18 (“Once a housing provider has established that a person meets the Act’s definition of disability, the provider’s request for documentation should seek only the information that is necessary to evaluate if the reasonable accommodation is needed because of a disability. Such information must be kept confidential…”). Instead of re-forwarding my completed leasing application and my own accommodation request letter, or posing additional questions, as a licensed realtor, the broker should have advised her client to keep my private medical information confidential and to follow the HUD guidelines for granting the reasonable accommodation request. The listing broker was not the property manager and should not have continued to be included in the transaction beyond the signing of the lease.

In her email, the listing broker referenced my service dog accommodation letter and even reattached it. The letter contained all the information required to determine my eligibility for the accommodation request, including my diagnoses and the tasks my service animal does to mitigate my symptoms. As such, the listing agent chose to ask for more information than necessary. Despite reattaching the accommodation letter for my service animal, the realtor continued to mislabel my service animal as a pet. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Service animals are not considered pets and pet question don’t apply. This is stated on the lease (See Below) that the realtor developed, which was signed by myself and my landlord. The answers to any additional follow up questions were included in the detailed accommodation letter or could be obtained by contacting the provider.

Most importantly, at the bottom of the email the broker continued to ask eight questions further inquiring into my service animal despite my having established my animal’s status as a service dog through the proper documentation. According to HUD, property owners can ask two questions if a disability isn’t apparent: 1) is it a service animal for a disability and 2) what is she trained to do? All of this information was included in the detailed accommodation letter. Thus further questioning was unnecessary.

Answering Invasive Service Animal Questions

I responded by politely informing the listing broker of the distinction between service animals and pets. I informed her of the protections against forcing people with disabilities to disclose their status and provided several resources to help her understand the service animal, disability, and fair housing laws. I also responded that the pet deposit she mentioned would not apply since my service animal was there to assist me in my daily functioning and was not considered a pet. Lastly, I supplied responses to her eight questions as I understood this to be a part of an assistance animal addendum, which I have completed in the past with former landlords. She did not bother to so much as apologize for her mistake or acknowledge receipt of my email.

An Aggressive Attorney Enters the Chat

If having my private medical information sent out and repeatedly being prompted to disclose details of my disability status wasn’t enough, I then received an email from someone who identified themselves as counsel for my landlord a day later. The email read:

Dear Ms. Covington,

I am counsel for the landlord and we are attempting to find a solution to your pet Justice residing at the property.

The owner is attempting to accommodate your breed of dog and has so far been unsuccessful in finding reasonable insurance. The issue is the breed, and while the landlord is willing to make a reasonable accommodation, he cannot do it at the expense of loss of coverage or increased cost. Due to the mortgage on this property, insurance is required. After conducting some research, he requests that you carry pet liability insurance with a minimum liability coverage of $300,000.

To maintain your lease, you will need to obtain insurance the covers any issues with Justice (bites, etc.) in this amount. You may be able to get an endorsement from your current insurance provider, or you may need to purchase another policy. The insurance will need to name the landlord as an additional insured also. Please provide proof of insurance in the next 15 days. If you cannot find insurance to cover any potential liability for Justice, we will need to terminate the lease.

Here are some insurance companies that provide the necessary coverage:.

InsureMyK9

Einhorn Insurance Company

Please feel free to contact me or the property manager if you have any questions.

Why This is Wrong: First, to my understanding, it isn’t standard for a lawyer to contact someone directly to verify their disability and need for a service animal, especially when the accommodation request letter in question provides more than enough information. Next, this lawyer was again, mislabeling my service animal as a pet. As asserted by HUD, service animals are not pets. However, even more problematic was the request for me to acquire liability insurance for my service animal as requiring additional fees or insurances for a service animal align with housing discrimination through breed discrimination against my service animal.

Service animals are not considered pets and pet question don’t apply.

The only reason information about my service animal’s breed was gathered was because the real estate broker posed those eight unnecessary invasive questions in her email. I took the time to respond and inform this lawyer of the service animal laws and that to me, the demand for pet liability insurance indicated discrimination against me via my service animal. According to the HUD memo issued June 12, 2006, both the owner and the insurance carrier are subject to both state and federal fair housing laws. If the insurance company has a policy that does not have an exception for an assistance animal, an investigation may be launched against the insurance company for potential disability discrimination. Furthermore, the property owner must provide documentation of the current insurance carrier, cost of insurance, and proof of costs of comparable insurance companies.

My Response to the Attorney’s Assertions

First, I provided a thorough response informing the lawyer of my rights and the landlord’s responsibilities. I provided screenshots and links to help him understand that he could not discriminate against me through my service animal by requiring additional insurance. The lawyer then replied with more questions, asking me to prove my service dog’s training and certifications. This is another example of inquiring into more information than is necessary to determine the need for the accommodation, which had already been established through the reasonable accommodation request letter. When I replied again per my doctor’s advice and informed him that per State Disability Law, people who use service animals are not required to show proof of training because service animals can be owner trained, the attorney doubled down, sending the following response:

Considering the attorney, who can easily access service animal and fair housing laws continued to double down on his unreasonable requests, I realized his intent was to intimidate and acquire information he was not privy to, not to actually grant the reasonable accommodation request. This became more apparent when he stated the following after I had already mentioned the state laws and referenced my service dog’s training and certifications:

Please provide the certification for the training you assert the dog has. At the moment, you have an unauthorized pet in the property and the landlord is willing to make a reasonable accommodation if possible. We look forward to reviewing the documents.

I spent an entire day, fighting for my rights, and trying to help legal and real estate professionals who have a duty to know state and local Fair Housing Laws to understand them. They still attempted to required me to purchase pet liability insurance for an animal that is not classified as a pet, has no tendency or history of aggression, and is here to assist me with my daily functions. Interestingly, the same landlord who claimed a financial and administrative burden prevented him from granting my reasonable accommodation request offered to reduce the rent by $25, and the two real estate brokers would contribute the remaining cost of the policy. These actions suggested that all parties knew the insurance requirement was something they could not reasonably or legally enforce.

Ultimately, I decided not to acquire a pet liability policy for my service animal unless legally necessary as it placed an undue financial and administrative burden onto me, a person with a documented disability. I contacted a public interest law firm to respond on my behalf and to no one’s surprise, never heard anything further about the insurance requirement or the threat of eviction after that.

Housing Discrimination, Breed Discrimination, and People of Color with Disabilities who use Pit Bulls as Service Animals

Discriminatory experiences are a part of the reality of being Black, queer, disabled, and owning a dog breed that America has stigmatized as aggressive and unworthy of housing despite their actual individual characteristics. As a researcher concerned with equity in animal welfare and the CEO of a company with a mission for addressing breed discrimination against pit bulls, there are few people more prepared for discrimination against themselves or their dog’s breed than me. Yet, the preparation doesn’t prevent the potential for prejudice and discrimination. What’s worse is I will never be compensated for the harm that this caused me. The hypervigilance, the insomnia, the general feeling of being unsafe that stays with me after experiences like this. The way my body stores the trauma from being targeted, mistreated, disrespected, denigrated, and dehumanized in my shoulders, hips, lower back, and neck. Not to mention the long-term toll which hasn’t revealed itself yet. No one in the transaction considered how it might’ve made me feel to wake up to an email from a lawyer threatening eviction as someone who has faced housing insecurity my entire life because of America’s history of racism, prejudice, and discrimination.

While housing may be affordable in some metro cities in America for some, it’s not affordable or afforded to people like me who society deems unworthy of equitable housing because of their race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, body type, disability status or even the breed of dog they choose to use to mitigate their symptoms. For people like me since the start of time systems have worked to keep us disenfranchised. Even as discriminatory or predatory practices are outlawed to protect people like me, new loopholes are created to justify housing discrimination and inequity.

Dr. Megan Covington is a Senior Director of Research & Development at C.A.R.E. who draws from her extensive personal and research experiences with systemic barriers such as housing discrimination through breed discrimination to support C.A.R.E’s research perspective and approaches. Learn more about Dr. Megan and her work here.