A federal lawsuit filed by the former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi against two Louisiana-based rental property companies over a disabled tenant’s right to live with an emotional support dog is scheduled to go to trial on December 7.
The lawsuit, filed June 13, 2025, in federal district court in Louisiana, alleges that the defendants – Five Properties, LLC, and APMT, LLC, a company doing business as Tonti Management – violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against one of its tenants Dory Turnipseed, a woman with mental disabilities.
In the lawsuit, the government faults the defendants for failing to make a reasonable accommodation for Turnipseed to live with her emotional support dog at Sunlake Apartments, a multi-family complex that the defendants either owned or operated. It also accuses the defendants of retaliating against Turnipseed when she exercised rights protected under the FHA. Turnipseed is described as having generalized anxiety disorder and attention-deficit/
The current lawsuit stems from a complaint that Turnipseed filed with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in June 2018. The agency determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants had violated the FHA and authorized the Attorney General to file the federal lawsuit on Turnipseed’s behalf.
In addition to the HUD complaint, Turnipseed also filed a lawsuit against Tonti Management in 2018, but that lawsuit was dismissed in December 2022. Monica Gilroy, principal and managing attorney at The Gilroy Firm, finds the current case unusual given its long history. “It’s very, very unusual to see a case be kept alive this long,” she said in an interview. Gilroy added that fair housing discrimination lawsuits of this nature rarely go to trial, saying there’s a chance the parties may ultimately settle.
Shortly after moving in, Turnipseed requested that her 35-pound dog, Sasha, be permitted to live with her as her assistance animal. Her physical and mental health had deteriorated to the point where she was unable to sleep and needed the dog to manage her symptoms the government said in the lawsuit. Prior to receiving permission, however, Turnipseed retrieved her dog and brought it to her apartment, saying in a note to Tonti Management that the “anxiety of waiting” was such that she feared becoming a danger to herself. The property manager responded by levying a non-refundable animal fee of $600 and additional security deposit of $450 and threatened to evict Turnipseed. In May 2018, the defendants filed an eviction petition in state court, saying Turnipseed had breached the lease and was in default by permitting an unauthorized dog to live in her apartment, the lawsuit said. In June 2018, Turnipseed vacated her apartment.
The defendants’ lead lawyer, Elizabeth Roussel of the law firm Adams and Reese, did not respond to a request for comment. Gilroy offered a few takeaways for property managers. She reminded them that tenants must be treated under the same criteria to avoid a fair housing claim, looking only at “non-discriminatory factors,” such as credit score and bankruptcy history. Gilroy explained that when dealing with a request for a disability accommodation, property managers need to consider whether the request is reasonable and ask for documentation. If a tenant provides valid documentation, then the property manager “needs to be very careful in denying a request that is both reasonable and well-documented,” she said.
John Bradford, CEO of Pet Screening added the commentary below:
HUD’s 2020 guidance prohibited housing providers from charging any “deposit, fee, or surcharge for an assistance animal.” While this guidance has been withdrawn, we believe it reflects a general principle: a housing provider should not charge a tenant as a condition for granting a reasonable accommodation. In the Henderson case, a federal district court in Louisiana held that the pet fee was a distinct issue from the request for the support animal. Since the tenant was already allowed to keep the animal at the property, she would need to separately request a fee waiver and demonstrate that the waiver was both “reasonable” and “necessary” based on several factors. We understand that the court’s ruling is not binding precedent for any other court.
Some fair housing attorneys we’ve spoken with are critical of the court’s analysis in Henderson, and view the case as an outlier. Advocates, including those at state and local agencies tasked with investigating fair housing claims, will likely continue to view any fee as a discriminatory burden on a disabled individual. Other courts across the country may decide that a fee or surcharge for an assistance animal undermines the core protections of the federal Fair Housing Act or similar state fair housing laws.
No matter how a property manager decides to run their business, the Henderson case does not affect PetScreening’s review process. We continue to seek reliable confirmation that an individual is disabled and has a disability-related need for an assistance animal. Whether to charge a fee after PetScreening completes its review is solely up to our property manager customers. PetScreening does not collect pet fees, rent, or deposits on behalf of property managers or owners, and any collection is handled outside of our platform. We think it’s important for customers to consult with their local tenant/landlord specialized attorneys about the merits of this case as well as understanding if your specific state prohibits charging fees for assistance animals.
Leave A Comment