Federal ESA Lawsuit Headed to Trial. What Property Managers Need to Know.
A federal lawsuit over a disabled tenant's right to live with her emotional support dog is headed to trial on December 7. If you manage residential property, this one is worth paying attention to.
The case involves two Louisiana-based rental property companies: Five Properties, LLC, and APMT, LLC (doing business as Tonti Management) — and a tenant named Dory Turnipseed who says she was denied a reasonable accommodation for her emotional support dog at Sunlake Apartments, a multi-family complex in Kenner, Louisiana.
The lawsuit was filed on June 13, 2025 by former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. The government alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against Turnipseed and retaliating against her when she exercised rights protected under the FHA.
The Backstory
Here's what happened, according to the lawsuit:
Turnipseed moved into her unit at Sunlake in April 2018 after signing a lease addendum specifying that an animal is only permitted after mutual written agreement.
Shortly after moving in, Turnipseed requested that her 35-pound dog, Sasha, be permitted to live with her as an assistance animal. Her physical and mental health had deteriorated (she has generalized anxiety disorder and ADHD, conditions that substantially limited her in major life activities) and she needed the dog to manage her symptoms.
Before receiving permission, however, Turnipseed retrieved her dog and brought it to her apartment, noting in a message 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 an additional security deposit of $450, and threatened to evict Turnipseed.
In May 2018, the defendants filed an eviction petition in state court, claiming Turnipseed had breached the lease by permitting an unauthorized dog.
In June 2018, Turnipseed vacated her apartment.
A Long Road to Trial
This case has been winding through the system for a long time. Turnipseed filed a complaint with HUD back in June 2018. HUD determined that reasonable cause existed to believe the defendants violated the FHA and authorized the Attorney General to file the federal lawsuit on Turnipseed's behalf.
Turnipseed also filed her own lawsuit against Tonti Management in 2018, but that was dismissed in December 2022.
There's also a related case worth knowing about. Another tenant, Michaela Henderson, filed a complaint against the same defendants in 2024, alleging they discriminated against her by declining to accommodate her request to use her assistance dog. That case was dismissed in July 2025 — the court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Henderson failed to prove the fee waiver was "necessary" because the defendants offered an alternative payment plan she could afford.
The Henderson ruling was actually a landmark decision — the first in the country to squarely address whether landlords must automatically waive pet fees for tenants with emotional support animals. The court said no, at least not in every case. That's a big deal for our industry.
But the current Turnipseed case is different — it involves alleged denial of the accommodation entirely, plus retaliation. And it's the federal government bringing it.
I spoke with Monica Gilroy, principal and managing attorney at The Gilroy Firm and a nationally recognized subject-matter expert on fair housing and property management law (she also serves as outside national counsel for NARPM). She finds this case unusual, given its long history.
"It's very, very unusual to see a case be kept alive this long," she told me.
Gilroy added that fair housing discrimination lawsuits of this nature rarely go to trial - there's a chance the parties may ultimately settle.
The defendants' lead lawyer, Elizabeth Roussel of Adams and Reese, did not respond to a request for comment.
What This Means for Property Managers
Gilroy offered a few takeaways for property managers:
Treat all tenants under the same criteria. To avoid a fair housing claim, look only at non-discriminatory factors — credit score, bankruptcy history, that kind of thing.
Take accommodation requests seriously. When dealing with a request for a disability accommodation, consider whether the request is reasonable and ask for documentation.
Be very careful denying well-documented requests. If a tenant provides valid documentation, the property manager "needs to be very careful in denying a request that is both reasonable and well-documented," Gilroy said.
This is where a lot of operators get it wrong. The instinct is to default to the lease language and treat any unauthorized animal as a policy violation. But under the Fair Housing Act, an assistance animal is not a pet - and the accommodation process exists for a reason. You don't have to accept every request blindly, but you do need to evaluate it fairly and document your process.
The Pet Fee Question
I also spoke with John Bradford, CEO of PetScreening, and he offered some important context on the pet fee side of things.
HUD's 2020 guidance (FHEO-2020-01) prohibited housing providers from charging any deposit, fee, or surcharge for an assistance animal. That guidance has since been withdrawn by HUD in September 2025, but Bradford believes 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, the court 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 demonstrate that a fee waiver was both "reasonable" and "necessary." That's a narrower ruling than many expected.
But here's the thing: some fair housing attorneys 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 Fair Housing Act or similar state fair housing laws.
No matter how you decide to run your business, the Henderson case does not affect PetScreening's review process. They 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 the property manager. PetScreening does not collect pet fees, rent, or deposits on behalf of property managers or owners.
Bradford's strong recommendation: consult with your local tenant/landlord specialized attorney about the merits of this case, and make sure you understand whether your specific state prohibits charging fees for assistance animals.
My Take
This case is worth watching for a few reasons.
First, it's a federal lawsuit brought by the DOJ Civil Rights Division - not a tenant suing on their own. That signals the government is taking these claims seriously, even in a regulatory environment where HUD has pulled back on some of its guidance.
Second, the facts here are pretty stark. A tenant with documented mental health conditions requested an accommodation, and the response was to charge her $1,050 in fees and threaten eviction. Whether or not you agree with how she handled it (bringing the dog before getting permission), the FHA exists specifically to protect people in this situation.
Third, and this is the big takeaway: the regulatory landscape around ESAs and assistance animals is shifting. HUD withdrew its 2020 guidance. The Henderson case created new precedent around pet fees. But the Fair Housing Act itself hasn't changed. The law still requires reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, including the right to keep an assistance animal.
If you don't already have a clear, documented process for handling accommodation requests (one that's been reviewed by a fair housing attorney), now is the time to build one. You don't want to be the next case study.
I'll keep you updated as this case moves along. Thank you to Monica Gilroy and John Bradford for their contributions to this research.
-Peter