Cohen v. Clark

945 N.W.2d 792 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P has a severe allergy to pet dander that causes nasal congestion, swollen sinuses, excess coughing, and, at times, a swollen throat. The reaction is more severe when she is exposed to cats, compared to dogs. P had to carry an EpiPen to protect against anaphylactic shock if she is exposed to cat dander. P's allergy to cats used to be the same as her allergy to dogs but progressed through repeated exposure. P is worried that her allergy to dogs would similarly progress if she were repeatedly exposed to their dander. P sought an apartment building that did not allow pets. P rented an apartment from D. P relied upon section 53 of the written agreement, which states: No pets are allowed in the building or on the Premises at any time. Tenants may be assessed labor cleanup charges (if applicable) for each violation. Tenants agree to an increase in the rental deposit up to the maximum allowed by law in the events of non-compliance with pet prohibitions. Reasonable accommodations accepted. Two months after P entered into her lease, D entered into a written lease agreement with the same no-pets provision as P's lease. D then presented the landlord with a letter from his psychiatrist on which explained D's chronic mental illness causing 'impairment in his ability to function.' It pleaded for D to include a pet on his lease. The property manager, Jeffrey, notified the other tenants in the building of the request to accommodate the ESA and inquired about whether any tenant had allergies to dogs. P responded, detailing her allergies to cats and dogs and the symptoms associated with those allergies. Jeffrey contacted the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) and requested the ICRC's review or a formal agency determination even though no party ever filed a complaint. Jeffrey explained to the ICRC employee that the landlord had apartments in other buildings available that allowed pets and could accommodate D's request by renting him a different apartment in a different building. The ICRC staffer advised Jeffrey that moving D to another building was not a reasonable accommodation and informed Jeffrey that he had to try to reasonably accommodate both P's allergies and D's ESA rather than deny Clark's ESA request. The landlord allowed D to have his dog join him on the apartment premises while trying to mitigate P's allergies. P and D were to use separate assigned stairwells. The landlord also purchased an air purifier for P's apartment to minimize her exposure to pet dander inside the apartment. The efforts were a complete failure. P was 'constantly coughing or trying to get excess mucus out of her vocal fold area,' as if she had a permanent cold. P brought small claims action against Ds seeking one month's rent as damages. P alleged a breach of the express covenant of her lease that provided for no pets and the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment by allowing D to have his dog on the premises. The small claims court dismissed the case holding that the landlord had made reasonable accommodations. The district court concluded that the landlord should have asked D to eventually move to another building. Even so, the district court dismissed P's claims because, at the time these developments took place, the law was 'not clear' referring to the Civil Rights laws on the matter. Both parties appealed.