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

1. 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) ↩
2. The Appellate Court decision below, AC 46774, 231 Conn. App. 121 (March 4, 2025) — its “necessity” analysis was vacated ↩
3. SB 1014 (2025), CHRO and DCP investigation of executive boards — died in committee ↩