Federal
Title![]() |
Summary |
---|---|
Edwards v. Shanley |
|
Empacadora de Carnes de Fresnillo, S.A. de C.V. v. Curry |
|
Endangered Species Act Listing | |
Endangered Species Act Split-Listing Chart for Chimpanzees | |
Fabrikant v. French |
|
Fabrikant v. French |
|
Fair Housing of the Dakotas, Inc. v. Goldmark Property Management, Inc. | Plaintiffs bring this action against Goldmark Property Management alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The alleged discriminatory policy is a mandatory application fee, non-refundable deposit, and monthly charge that Goldmark imposes on tenants with disabilities who reside with a non-specially trained assistance animal (i.e. a companion pet). These same fees are waived for tenants with disabilities who reside with a trained assistance animal (i.e. a seeing eye dog). The FHA encompasses all types of assistance animals regardless of training; therefore, Goldmark's policy implicates the FHA. Further, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a prima face case of discrimination and have presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues for trial on the questions of the necessity and reasonableness of the requested accommodation and whether Goldmark's alleged objective for the policy is permissible under the FHA and not pretextual. Therefore, Goldmark's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to Plaintiffs' claim of disparate treatment because no proof was offered of a discriminatory intent. It is denied as to Plaintiffs' claims of disparate impact and failure to make a reasonable accommodation. |
Fallini v. Hodel |
|
FAQ on Service Animals and Air Travel | This FAQ provides a short explanation of the law and regulations related to service animals on U.S. commercial airlines. |
FAQ: Can I sell an old fur made from an endangered animal? |