Fed. Dist. Court in MI Finds the Question of How Many Emotional Support Chickens a Person Could Possess Could Not be Determined at the Summary Judgement Phase

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

Plaintiff, Christopher Whiteaker appeared in the 28th District Court of Michigan to defend himself, and he claimed a right to maintain the chickens under Michigan’s Right to Farm Act, just as he had successfully done previously while he lived in Wyandotte. Shortly thereafter, Whiteaker learned that Michigan’s Right to Farm Act was inapplicable to his matter because the chickens and their coop were within 250 feet of a dwelling. Whiteaker has suffered from depression and anxiety for many years, and claimed the prospect of losing his chickens exacerbated these conditions. Whiteaker learned about emotional support animals (“ESAs”) and sought counseling from a mental health provider who conducted testing and diagnosed him with Acute Stress Disorder. Whiteaker filed then this action against Defendant, the City of Southgate, Michigan for violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PDCRA”). During the course of litigation, the City conceded that Whiteaker was disabled and that a chicken was an acceptable emotional support animal, but argued that six chickens was unreasonable.

The court first noted that Whiteaker claimed a disability and provided evidence of this disability. While the City claimed to be burdened financially and administratively by Whiteaker’s disability, it provided no supporting evidence. The court found that Whiteaker’s claim he was keeping his chickens safely, and the City’s claim he was not, were questions of fact for the jury. Without any evidence from the City proving their burden outweighed Whiteaker’s benefit, summary judgment was improper. Even if the court found that the City’s burden outweighed Whiteaker’s benefit, the City would still fail to prove the remaining elements of necessity and equal opportunity. Here, the City failed to provide any testimony, affidavits, or evidence of any kind in support of its claims; instead, the City merely questioned the therapeutic benefits of chickens and the quantity Whiteaker possessed. Accordingly, the court denied the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Whiteaker v City of Southgate, 2023 WL 317457 (ED MI 1/19/2023)