Every community association board in New Jersey needs at least a basic working understanding of the state’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD). LAD is most relevant to community associations in concern of residents who claim to be disabled. In this regard, LAD may require community associations to make “reasonable accommodations” in that community’s rules when that accommodation is necessary to afford the resident equal use and enjoyment of his dwelling.
However, as illustrated by a significant victory recently obtained by Ansell.Law’s David Byrne and Nicole Miller, the protections and rights that LAD provides to disabled individuals are not transferable. Specifically, in Player’s Place II Condominium Association, Inc. v. Pozniewski, et al., the Superior Court held that a disabled resident’s non-disabled spouse does not have a LAD claim because he may have been negatively impacted by the alleged discrimination against the disabled individual.
Ansell.Law represented the condo association with respect to its handling of or its dog-related rule in connection with a disabled resident. The resident sought an entitlement with respect to her dog, that the resident characterized as an emotional support animal (ESA).
After Ansell was successful at trial, the litigation ended up before the New Jersey Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of ESAs in New Jersey condominiums generally:
“A resident of a condominium complex is entitled under state and federal law to request an accommodation to a pet policy in order to keep an emotional support animal. The individual must first demonstrate they have a disability under the LAD. In addition, they must show that the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford them an ‘equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’ The housing provider then has the burden to prove the requested accommodation is unreasonable.”
Even though he is not disabled, the disabled resident’s spouse also sought money in relation to LAD. However, the spouse’s LAD claim was not based on anything related to him. It rested entirely on his wife’s LAD claim. The spouse suffered no actual, personal harm concerning anything contemplated by LAD.
Following the Supreme Court decision and on behalf of the association, Byrne and Miller filed a motion for summary judgment as to the spouse’s LAD claim. The Superior Court granted that motion. The court agreed with the association that the LAD is not applicable to him. Additionally, the court concurred that just because a spouse, sibling, or parent may be “sorely distressed” by discrimination suffered by their family member, that distress does not make the spouse the functional equivalent of an aggrieved person who can bring a claim under LAD.
If you have any questions about this decision or how LAD applies to your New Jersey community association, please contact Nicole Miller or David Byrne at Ansell.Law.
