Against law to advertise "no pets?""

[cbg]

Discouraging someone with a service animal from applying is also a violation.

 

[startedone]

Stating a preference is not saying no. I prefer lager, but I'll drink an ale if that is all that's available.

Wouldn't the law only be broken if the potential applicant filled out an application and was then denied because of the service animal?

I would not say that an actual application needs to be filled out, just the desire to have a lease by the service animal person.

Right now, the OP does not indicate this ... at least at this time.

 

[Zigner]

I would not say that an actual application needs to be filled out, just the desire to have a lease by the service animal person.

Right now, the OP does not indicate this ... at least at this time.

Again, you'd be wrong. Congrats on the streak.

 

[asiny]

Someone posing as an interested tenant phoned and asked my brother-in-law if he would rent to someone with a "service" dog.

First, drop the 'someone posing'. Someone looking for a rental calls to inquire about the 'no pets' posting in the ad- however the conversation went- they felt they were discriminated against because of their disability and filed a complaint with the OCRC. What part of that makes you get the idea that it was 'entrapment'?

He stated he would prefer not to rent to anyone with animals; which is why the ad read "no pets."

As you can see, the discussion has gone back-and-forth... it all depends on how firm his 'prefer not to' was given. For example, if I was told 'I prefer not to..' the conversation would not have just ended there. I would have inquired further...

They received some sort of finding by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with a $3000 penalty attached for violating some type of Fair Housing Law which they clearly weren't familiar with! The call was made by someone from the agency so they feel that first of all, this is entrapment. Some people think it could be a scam. Is It?

To answer your question. Probably not... what makes you think it is?
Is there no such thing as the OCRC?
Has your Sister or Brother-in-Law contacted the OCRC in inquire about the finding?

It would be best for your Brother-in-law to post as it is difficult to get the story after it is filtered 2nd or 3rd hand.

 

[antrc170]

I would be interested in finding the exact wording of this "fine" that was issued.

The OCRC does not have the authority to fine anyone for violations of the discrimination laws. It only has limited authority to pass on findings that indicate someone is in violation of those laws.

The OCRC shall do one of the following:

1. Notify the the complainant that there is no probable cause.
2. Schedule a hearing to handle the matter in an informal setting.
3. Refer the matter to the Attorney General, where it will be processed by that office as a criminal matter.

I would be willing to guess that the letter that OP's brother obtained has something to do with a hearing and the fine is a notice of the severity of the charge rather than a payable amount.

If it is a payable amount, then I believe that they are the victims of a scam because the OCRC only has authorito to issue fines AFTER the respondent has the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.

 

[startedone]

Again, you'd be wrong. Congrats on the streak.

A person could call 1000 people who prefer no pets & has no intention of renting could make $$ just suing people who talk on the phone in an informal setting ...

My only streak is correcting your inaccurate information. Others posting on this thread have the same opinion..go troll them.

 

[ecmst12]

The landlord in this case is NOT being sued. He is being FINED by the government for violating the law. There would be no benefit to the person making the call - a person making a complaint to the government about a violation does not get the money that the landlord is being fined. All they would stand to gain is the opportunity to apply for the apartment in question. But an agent of the OHRC is allowed to make calls like the one here - it is not any more illegal than an agent of the liquor control board going into a liquor store or bar and attempting to get served without ID.

 

[antrc170]

The landlord in this case is NOT being sued. He is being FINED by the government for violating the law. There would be no benefit to the person making the call - a person making a complaint to the government about a violation does not get the money that the landlord is being fined. All they would stand to gain is the opportunity to apply for the apartment in question. But an agent of the OHRC is allowed to make calls like the one here - it is not any more illegal than an agent of the liquor control board going into a liquor store or bar and attempting to get served without ID.

As I've pointed out I'm not sure that the government has actually fined anyone...yet. The OCSC doesn't have the authority to issue fines without hearings.

 

[Zigner]

As I've pointed out I'm not sure that the government has actually fined anyone...yet. The OCSC doesn't have the authority to issue fines without hearings.

You may be right. This is more likely a notice for a hearing and the possible penalties are laid out on the notice.

 

[ecmst12]

But it's also not some dude with too much time on his hands trying to win the lawsuit lottery by making these calls.

 

[startedone]

But it's also not some dude with too much time on his hands trying to win the lawsuit lottery by making these calls.

You never know.

 

[Pacer41]

The landlord in this case is NOT being sued. He is being FINED by the government for violating the law. There would be no benefit to the person making the call - a person making a complaint to the government about a violation does not get the money that the landlord is being fined. All they would stand to gain is the opportunity to apply for the apartment in question. But an agent of the OHRC is allowed to make calls like the one here - it is not any more illegal than an agent of the liquor control board going into a liquor store or bar and attempting to get served without ID.

THanks - your response has been the most help and makes sense in particular about the agent calling to make sure landlords are compliant. I agree with the majority - they should understand the law or not handle properties. Perhaps this was their "wake-up" call!

 

[Qwerk]

Discouraging someone with a service animal from applying is also a violation.

This is true. It does not have to be an outright refusal, and no one has to be on the verge of signing a lease. I believe in most states that it's against the law to even tell a potential tenant that the apartment is in a "predominantly Asian area" or "perfect for a childless couple." Here is the applicable law in Ohio: Lawriter - ORC - 4112.02 Unlawful discriminatory practices.

Note that it permits even "inquiring" about whether someone has a disability or needs accommodation before agreeing to rent the apartment.

 

[sefnfot]

how to answer

what would be the safest legal response to a caller?

could I respond with the following?

caller asks "what’s your pet policy?"
Landlord "no pets"
caller "what about service pets for disabled persons?"
LL " I’m not sure, but we only do what is legal" (does answering I'm not sure mean it is discriminatory?)
caller " this isn’t a service pet , it a emotional support/companion animal, do you allow those?"
LL " I don’t understand your question, please send me a written request with all the information so that I can ask my advisers?"

 

[sandyclaus]

what would be the safest legal response to a caller?

could I respond with the following?

caller asks "what’s your pet policy?"
Landlord "no pets"
caller "what about service pets for disabled persons?"
LL " I’m not sure, but we only do what is legal" (does answering I'm not sure mean it is discriminatory?)
caller " this isn’t a service pet , it a emotional support/companion animal, do you allow those?"
LL " I don’t understand your question, please send me a written request with all the information so that I can ask my advisers?"

I suppose you could do that. But as a LL, you should already be aware of the law as it applies to disabled tenants, and the difference between a service animal and a pet. (And if you're not, then re-read through the responses in this thread to educate yourself.)

A disabled tenant with a qualified service animal doesn't need to bother asking about "No Pet" policies - because they do not apply to service animals.