## Facts

- A tenant with severe, medically documented pet-dander allergies leased an apartment in a building with a strict no-pets policy, selecting the building for that reason.
- The lease barred pets but allowed an exception for “reasonable accommodations.”
- A later tenant in the same building, supported by psychiatric documentation, requested an emotional support animal (a dog) as a reasonable accommodation.
- The landlord sought informal guidance from a civil rights agency staff member, who suggested trying to accommodate both tenants; no formal agency determination issued.
- The landlord permitted the dog and attempted mitigation by separating the tenants’ stairway use and providing an air purifier to the allergic tenant.
- The mitigation measures failed; the allergic tenant continued experiencing allergic attacks and alleged interference with use and enjoyment of her apartment.
- The allergic tenant sued the other tenant and the landlord for breach of the lease’s no-pets provision and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, seeking one month’s rent as damages.

## Issues

1. Whether permitting an emotional support dog despite a prior tenant’s severe allergies constituted a “reasonable accommodation” under the Iowa Civil Rights Act housing provisions.
2. If the accommodation was not reasonable, whether the landlord was liable for breach of the no-pets lease term and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and for what damages.

## Decision

- The court held the landlord’s accommodation allowing the emotional support dog was not reasonable on these facts.
- The court emphasized a highly fact-specific balancing of competing needs, giving weight to the allergic tenant’s priority in time, documented severity of allergies, and continued reactions despite mitigation.
- The court concluded the dog’s presence created a direct threat to the allergic tenant’s health in this setting.
- The court rejected the view that good-faith reliance on informal agency guidance or legal uncertainty barred contractual liability when the accommodation was not reasonable.
- The court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the allergic tenant, including an award of one month’s rent (the damages requested).

## Legal Principles

- Reasonable-accommodation determinations in housing involving emotional support animals require a highly fact-specific inquiry that balances the affected parties’ needs.
- A tenant’s temporal priority and reliance on an existing no-pets policy may weigh against granting a later request that materially conflicts with that interest.
- Where an accommodation exposes another tenant to medically documented, uncontrolled allergic reactions, the animal’s presence may constitute a direct threat to health, rendering the accommodation unreasonable in that context.
- A landlord’s good-faith efforts or informal agency advice do not eliminate liability for breach of lease terms and quiet enjoyment when the accommodation ultimately fails the statutory reasonableness standard.
- The remedy for an unreasonable accommodation that breaches lease protections may include contract-based damages consistent with the tenant’s proven and requested loss.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that allowing a later tenant’s emotional support dog was not a reasonable accommodation where it foreseeably and persistently triggered a prior tenant’s severe allergies despite mitigation, and it ordered judgment and rent-based damages for breach of the lease’s no-pets provision and quiet enjoyment.


Cohen v. Clark, 945 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa 2020)