## Facts

- Auburn Woods I was a condominium development governed by CC&Rs that prohibited dogs while permitting some other pets.
- Unit owners Jayne and Abdelfatah (“Ed”) Elebiari had serious, long-term mental health impairments; Ed also had brain damage and related disorders after a car accident.
- The Elebiaris obtained a small dog and asserted that caring for it alleviated symptoms and improved daily functioning.
- The homeowners association demanded removal of the dog under the no-dogs rule.
- Jayne’s physician provided a letter stating the dog was medically recommended as an accommodation related to their conditions; the association sought additional information through counsel.
- After a board meeting, the association refused to permit an exception for the dog.
- The Elebiaris filed an administrative housing discrimination complaint; the FEHC found (1) both owners were disabled under FEHA, (2) the association had notice of disability-related need, and (3) allowing the dog was a necessary and reasonable accommodation; it concluded the refusal was unlawful discrimination.
- The association obtained a superior court writ of mandate setting aside the FEHC decision; the FEHC and the Elebiaris appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether FEHA required the association to make an exception to a no-dogs rule as a reasonable accommodation necessary to afford disabled owners equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the FEHC’s findings on disability, notice, and reasonableness/necessity, such that the superior court erred by overturning the FEHC decision on administrative mandamus review.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s judgment and reinstated the FEHC’s decision.
- Substantial evidence supported the FEHC’s findings that both Elebiaris were disabled under FEHA.
- Substantial evidence supported the FEHC’s finding that the association had adequate notice of the disabilities and the disability-related request for accommodation.
- Substantial evidence supported the FEHC’s finding that permitting a single small companion dog was a reasonable and necessary accommodation and did not impose an undue burden or fundamentally alter the association’s operations.
- The superior court improperly reweighed the evidence rather than applying the substantial evidence standard.

## Legal Principles

- FEHA makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- In administrative mandamus review of FEHC decisions, an abuse of discretion is shown if the agency failed to proceed as required by law or its findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
- Reviewing courts must view the record in the light most favorable to the agency’s findings and may not reweigh evidence or substitute their own credibility determinations.
- A medically supported request to modify an HOA rule (including pet restrictions) may be a required accommodation where it is tied to the disability and imposes no undue financial or administrative burden and no fundamental alteration.

## Conclusion

The court held that the FEHC’s discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence and that FEHA required the homeowners association to allow a companion dog as a reasonable accommodation, so the trial court’s writ setting aside the FEHC order was reversed and the agency decision reinstated.


Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass’n v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm’n, 121 Cal. App. 4th 1578 (Ct. App. 2004)