Renter Faced Discrimination At Morris Co. Apartment Complex, Authorities Say

PARSIPPANY, NJ — State officials said a Parsippany apartment complex violated state law against discrimination when a tenant requested to have an emotional support animal.

This allegation was one of six announced by the state Attorney General's Office against property owners or rental management companies in New Jersey, for reportedly failing to properly accommodate emotional support animals, or ESAs, for tenants or applicants with disabilities.

The housing providers are accused of violating the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), with the AG's Office saying it has "sufficient evidence" that each one violated prohibitions against disability discrimination.

The Division on Civil Rights issued a Finding of Probable Cause involving the Rutgers Village Apartments rental complex on Rutgers Avenue, which is between Edwards Road and U.S. 46.

Officials said the property management company did not meet its lawful obligation to "engage in a good-faith interactive dialogue" with a tenant who was seeking to live with an emotional support animal, and failed to prove why his request was unreasonable.

Patch has reached out to the apartment complex for comment.

State officials said the apartment managers approached the tenant about filling out an application for an emotional service animal in late 2022 — pets are not allowed in the complex, but residents may apply for an ESA accommodation based on disability. The tenant had his doctor write a letter detailing how his mental health would benefit from having a dog in his residence as an emotional support animal.

In April 2023, the tenant filed a complaint saying that the complex didn't accept that letter. A representative of the rental company said it was "insufficient" but did not give the tenant reasons why after he asked, according to the Division on Civil Rights finding.

Rutgers Village wanted the doctor to fill out another form stating that he was “willing to testify in any court action or related proceeding” about the tenant's request, according to the investigation. The doctor refused.

The complex had denied his request and told the tenant that he'd have to remove the dog, or he might be fined or evicted.

The letter from the doctor "was sufficient" to accommodate the tenant's request, according to the DCR. Even it if wasn't, apartment managers "failed to advise" the tenant as to why they would not accept the letter.

"The evidence at this stage supports a reasonable suspicion that (Rutgers Village) failed to meet its obligation to engage in the interactive process required under the LAD, and likewise did not meet its burden under the LAD to show that the requested accommodation was unreasonable," the finding said.

The finding adds that during the course of the DCR's investigation, the man's spouse applied for an ESA, and it was approved.

The Findings of Probable Cause are not final judgments, and the Superior Court or Office of Administrative Law will make a final adjudication on whether or not each housing provider did break the law.

If there is a conclusive finding that the respondent did violate the LAD, they may be required to pay up to a $10,000 penalty for every violation if it is the first such judgment agains them, and up to $50,000 per violation if they commit multiple adjudicated violations within a five-year period.