Exemptions to requirements for accepting service dogs

[Greg G]

Jurisdiction

California

I know that in California, service dogs are not treated as pets, and "no pets" policies do not apply. I've read that a landlord has to accept tenants with service dogs that address a particular disability.

In the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), there is a clause that says there is an exemption to this requirement for " private owners who do not own more than three single family houses, do not use real estate brokers or agents, and do not use discriminatory advertisements."

Is this true in California, or does California law override this exemption?

 

[army judge]

The federal law exception as you posted would PROBABLY supersede CA state law.

It might not protect a person from proscution, but would be an afgirmative defense.

 

[zddoodah]

I know that in California, service dogs are not treated as pets, and "no pets" policies do not apply. I've read that a landlord has to accept tenants with service dogs that address a particular disability.

How exactly do you purport to "know" this? What have you read in this regard?

In the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), there is a clause that says there is an exemption to this requirement for " private owners who do not own more than three single family houses, do not use real estate brokers or agents, and do not use discriminatory advertisements."

I assume you're quoting from 42 U.S.C. section 3603(b) (section 803(b) of the Fair Housing Act). The actual language is as follows: "Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- (1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time. . . ." The point is that section 804 of the FHA does not apply to single family residential rental properties owned by persons who are not primarily in the business of being landlords.

Is this true in California, or does California law override this exemption?

It's not entirely clear what this question means.

Certainly, the FHA applies in California, but I don't think that's what you're asking. What I think you're asking is a question about the interplay between the FHA and California law.

In this regard, California law cannot "override" federal law. Stated differently, California law has nothing to do with how the FHA applies to any given situation. However, California law may provide more protection than does federal law. I haven't looked at the relevant California law, but it's possible that California law provides similar protection as section 804 of the FHA but does not include an exemption of the sort found in section 803(b).

 

[Greg G]

zddoodah is correct that I'm interested in whether there is California law that grants the same protection as FHA sec 804 but doesn't mention the exemption for small landlords such that in California those protections DO apply to single family residential rental properties owned by persons who are not primarily in the business of being landlords..