Wanted to throw this out there as well: a service/companion animal's breed can be restricted:

Can a landlord refuse a service dog based on breed?
In some specific cases, yes. For example, if the landlord can show that permitting a dog of a certain breed to reside on the premises would substantially increase his insurance premiums or cause his insurance carrier to drop him, then it would generally be considered an undue burden on the landlord and he can refuse to permit the dog even if it is a fully trained service dog.

This is the case with the company I work with. We cannot allow a few breeds regardless of whether they are a service/companion animal because our insurance would discontinue our coverage.

I went around looking for the information about this because the company I worked with when I originally started used to send me to fair housing seminars hosted by forrent.com and the lady we worked with stated, ecactly as you did, that we cannot restrict the breed of the animal.

I don't agree with this 100%, but. I don't own the company, so what can you do?

Reference: servicedogcentral.org/content/files/2006...20accommodations.PDF

No one shoot me as I am just trying to throw somethings out there. Now I do not know if there is a new version and I am thinking there is. This is from 2011 and at that time there were some changes which were addressed: mapbd.org/blog/2011/03/14/new-ada-servic...-effective-03152011/

The link may be of use and give moment to look at the whole picture. So, lets take 10 and let those emotions go :unsure:

Johnny, you don't have to debate me on every post that I make, they're not related to you or what you're sharing.

However, I get the impression that you don't want to understand the context of what I'm saying and intend to keep hammering away until someone concedes. So if it makes it a little easier for you to accept: no one is disputing what you've shared.

I'm not in the position to dictate to the owner of my company so there won't be any "hey you were right" accolades. And yes, sometimes people do have to learn the hard way.

Jenette, I would typically agree that learning the 'hard way' is the best way for most things; but when learning something this way calls MY work ethic, professionalism, credibility, or competence into question, or has the potential to affect my bank account in a negative manner; this is most definitely a case where it is not okay to learn the hard way. These are things that I take very seriously, and yes; I am very aggresive at protecting these things.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

OK now I think I understand where you're coming from - so I'll put it this way - you're not part of it and none of this is about you.

As stated in the beginning, I was relaying how my company handles this. No one is running back to the owner and telling him this guy on a website says thus and such. Johnny, sometimes people have to learn the hard way and until then that's the way it is, whether right or wrong or anyone agrees or disagrees.

I hope this puts it into perspective.

Jennette; this will be my last comment on this thread.

Please accept my apologies for what it is worth.


In the state of California; if an animal is denied as a companion/service/therapy animal as a verified reasonable accomodation request made by a resident or prospective resident; OR special restrictions/conditions are placed on that animal on the sole basis of size/breed/type of animal for fear of additional damages or potential injury based on the fact that the animal may be on a restricted breed list is not an acceptable response under Fair Housing or ADA guidelines. I have had dogs in my life for most of my life; which have included dogs that ARE on a typical restricted breed list and ALL of them have been very docile and never once caused anyone harm.

If this happens, the person making the request has every right to file a complaint against the property and all those involved in making the decision, setting or abiding by the policy, INCLUDING the site manager. When the defense of 'We made this decision because (our attorney/property owner/supervisor) TOLD us to do it this way', even IF those involved knew or should have known that it was not a proper response is made; it is viewed by many judges or arbitrators as the equivalent of ignorance of the law, and will likely rule against the property.


I have worked for large companies with in house legal teams, and for small companies who farm out their legal needs and the legal defense of any claim made that names ME as the site manager is MY responsibility and not the company or the owner.

Simply put, if I am part of a decision that could be determined wrong in court/arbitration and I am a named party, I am on my own for my defense and could be held accountable.

It is not a matter of whether or not I accept a response or decision, I just don't want to be held accountable for a questionable one.