The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development notified an administrative law judge that it plans to proceed with a civil suit against a Cranberry Township-based business, accusing it of discriminating against people with mental disabilities.

In a Feb. 23 filing with a HUD administrative law judge, the department announced it has elected to bring a civil action against Perry Homes Inc. and Whittington & Whittington with respect to HUD's allegation that the companies denied prospective renters' “reasonable accommodation requests” for emotional support animals, a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

According to the Feb. 10 charge filed before the administrative judge, Southwestern Pennsylvania Legal Services Inc. conducted a series of discrimination tests between October 2018 and Feb. 19, calling Perry Homes and asking whether the company would waive its no-pet policy for emotional support animals at three properties in Cranberry, Harmony and Zelienople.

On five separate occasions, the charge alleged, the company refused to allow emotional support animals.

Perry Homes' attorneys called the case a “clear government overreach,” saying it stems not from actual instances of discrimination, but rather “a campaign of phone calls attempting to entrap Perry Homes by use of highly technical legalese.”

“The campaign by the legal services group started in 2018 and did not produce a single instance of discrimination against any actual prospective tenant,” the company's attorneys, from Gilliland Vanasdale Sinatra Law Office, said in a statement. “Perry Homes does not engage in discrimination of any type and has a 50-year record of serving Butler County to back that up.”

The potential civil suit stems from the legal services group's test callers asking whether they would be permitted to have emotional support animals in a rental unit, despite Perry Homes' no-pet policy.

When the nonprofit called with respect to a rental at 322 German St. in Harmony, a tester told an agent her husband had an emotional support dog and offered documentation from a psychologist. The agent, however, said Perry Homes would only accept service dogs with specific training, according to the charge.

Another tester called the company about renting a unit at 312 McKim St. in Zelienople, saying her husband had post-traumatic stress disorder and had an emotional support dog. An agent, according to the charge, asked if the dog was registered as a service dog, to which the tester replied only a letter “documenting the need for the animal” was required.

The “agent replied that (Perry Homes) would only accept registered service animals that had been trained for a specific duty,” the Feb. 10 charge states. “Tester No. 2 offered to supply a letter, but (the) respondents' agent said that unless it was a registered support animal, respondents 'would not be open to accepting the emotional support animal.'”

On two separate occasions, a tester called Old Towne Homes in Cranberry and asked whether an emotional support animal would be permitted under the no-pet policy. The first time, an agent said the company saw a difference between emotional support and service animals, according to HUD.

The second time, the tester told the agent his wife had a stroke and needed an emotional support animal, and was told Perry Homes could not prohibit a “service-specific function support animal,” the charge states.

“When Tester No. 6 asked if there would be any increase in rent, assuming the emotional support animal was allowed, the agent replied that Tester No. 6 would know when he submitted his application,” the charge states.

No lawsuit in the matter has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania as of yet, and it is unclear what relief HUD or Southwestern Pennsylvania Legal Services will seek.

“The administrative case has already been terminated and, should this proceed further, Perry Homes intends to vigorously defend,” the company's attorneys wrote.

In the original administrative charge, HUD requested that the administrative judge declare the company's practices discriminatory, enjoin them from future discrimination, award damages to the legal services group and assess a civil penalty for each violation.