Connecticut Supreme Court: being “regarded as” disabled does not earn an assistance animal
Connecticut Supreme Court: being “regarded as” disabled does not earn an assistance animal
2026-09-09 · Connecticut · Courts
A Connecticut resident who is only “regarded as” having a mental disability is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the state's fair housing statute, the Connecticut Supreme Court held in a decision officially released March 31, 2026.1
The decision matters to community associations for a reason that has nothing to do with its facts: it is the only Connecticut Supreme Court word on assistance animals in housing in either 2025 or 2026, and part of what it does is take a lower-court standard boards had begun relying on off the books.
One caveat, stated up front
The defendant in Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, LLC, SC 21111, is an apartment complex owner, not a condominium association. This is not an HOA case.
It is nonetheless the governing Connecticut authority on the elements of a failure-to-accommodate claim under § 46a-64c(a)(6), and the Appellate Court's analysis beneath it was built partly on CHRO v. Savin Rock Condominium Assn., Inc. and on the Eleventh Circuit's Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn. The standard it sets is the standard a Connecticut association applying a no-pets rule will be measured against.
What happened
Tenants asked for two emotional support dogs as an accommodation to a no-pets policy. The landlord permitted one and sought further documentation, including medical records, to justify the second. The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities brought an enforcement action; the trial court found disability discrimination.
The Appellate Court reversed in an opinion released March 4, 2025 (231 Conn. App. 121). The Supreme Court, after argument on December 5, 2025, upheld the reversal but vacated part of the Appellate Court's judgment.1
The holding
The trial court had found the tenant was “regarded as” having a mental disability. The Appellate Court treated that as an implicit finding that she also had “a record of” one under § 46a-51(20). The Supreme Court declined to imply a finding the trial court never made, and the commission conceded that “regarded as” status alone cannot support a failure-to-accommodate claim.
The consequence, in the court's own words:
“because W was a person who was only ‘regarded as’ having a mental disability, W and R were not entitled to an accommodation, and the Appellate Court did not need to address whether permitting W and R to have two dogs versus one dog was ‘necessary’ to afford them with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the apartment complex within the meaning of § 46a-64c (a) (6).”1
The vacated half is the part boards need to know about
Because the entitlement question disposed of the appeal, the Supreme Court held the Appellate Court had no need to reach the “necessity” question — and vacated that portion of its judgment.
The practical effect is easy to state and easy to get wrong. The March 2025 Appellate opinion contained reasoning about when a second animal is necessary to afford equal opportunity. That reasoning was circulated in 2025 as guidance. It is no longer good law on that point. Connecticut has no binding appellate standard on multi-animal necessity, and a board denying a second animal on the strength of the Appellate Court's discussion is relying on a vacated holding.
What a Connecticut association can take from it
Disability status is a real element, and it has three branches. Section 46a-51(20) reaches a person who has a mental disability, has a record of one, or is regarded as having one. After Pizzoferrato, only the first two support a request for accommodation. That is a narrowing, and it is the holding.
It is not a licence to demand medical records. The court decided the case on what the trial court found, not on the propriety of the landlord's documentation requests. Nothing in the decision authorises an association to require medical records, and a request for them remains a risk-laden step under both state and federal fair housing law.
Nothing here touches the association's other exposures. The decision construes Connecticut's own statute. It does not address the federal Fair Housing Act, Section 504, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it does not affect a resident's right to bring a private federal action.
How it sits with the federal shift
Connecticut boards are being pulled in the same direction from two places at once, and the two are not the same instrument.
The Supreme Court's holding is state law on who is entitled to ask. Separately, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development withdrew its long-standing assistance-animal guidance in September 2025 and, in May 2026, limited reasonable-cause findings in animal cases to animals trained to perform disability-related work.
A board that reads those two developments as a general permission to deny emotional support animals is making a mistake in both directions: the CHRO continues to enforce Connecticut's own statute, which is broader than HUD's enforcement posture, and a private action in court is unaffected by either. The safe reading is that the entitlement element got harder to satisfy in Connecticut, and nothing else did.
What to watch next
The open question is what fills the vacated space. With no binding Connecticut standard on when an additional animal is “necessary,” the next case to raise it will be argued on the statutory text and on persuasive authority — including Bhogaita, which arose in a condominium.
The second is whether the legislature responds. Connecticut has introduced no bill on assistance animals in associations in either the 2025 or 2026 session, and the nearest analogue — a 2025 proposal to let the CHRO investigate complaints that an executive board violated residents' civil rights — died in committee without a hearing.3
Related Connecticut HOA Topics
- Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, LLC, SC 21111, 354 Conn. 273 — slip opinion, Connecticut Supreme Court (officially released March 31, 2026) ↩
- The Appellate Court decision below, AC 46774, 231 Conn. App. 121 (March 4, 2025) — its “necessity” analysis was vacated ↩
- SB 1014 (2025), CHRO and DCP investigation of executive boards — died in committee ↩
Stay on top of Connecticut HOA law
Every week: new Connecticut legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.