Question

A young woman with a "visual impairment" wants to live in an apartment building with her seeing eye dog. The building has a policy that requires the landlord to collect a "pet deposit" for any tenant regardless of their protected class. The woman refuses to pay the deposit. Which of the following is correct:

A) Because the deposit is charged equally and fairly to all tenants, the landlord can require the deposit.
B) The landlord should not charge the deposit to the visually impaired woman, but can increase the amount of her security deposit for damage that the dog might cause.
C) The landlord may not charge her the deposit because the animal is not a "pet".
D) The landlord must rent her the unit, but can require that the dog be kept outside of the unit.

Answer 1

The correct answer is that the landlord may not charge the visually impaired woman a pet deposit because her seeing eye dog is not considered a pet but a trained service animal, and federal law requires such accommodations without extra fees.The correct option is C.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question you asked pertains to the legality of a landlord requiring a visually impaired woman to pay a pet deposit for her seeing eye dog. The correct answer is: C) The landlord may not charge her the deposit because the animal is not a "pet". Seeing eye dogs are trained service animals and are not considered pets. Federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities, which includes allowing service animals like seeing eye dogs without additional charges. Since the dog is not a pet but rather an essential aid for the woman's disability, it would be unlawful to charge her a pet deposit for her seeing eye dog.