The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled in favor of the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) against D&L Apartments, affirming that the apartment complex unlawfully discriminated against a veteran seeking to rent an apartment due to his need for a service dog. This decision, made on August 4, 2026, is significant as it reinforces the protections for individuals with disabilities under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The case arose when Justin Engstrom, a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sought housing in 2016. He was in the process of acquiring a service dog to assist him with his mental health challenges. Engstrom contacted D&L Apartments, owned by Darrell Sproul, to inquire about an apartment. During the conversation, Sproul stated that dogs were not allowed and advised Engstrom not to apply for the apartment after Engstrom mentioned service dogs. This interaction led the MHRC to file a complaint against D&L for discrimination.
The dispute escalated through the legal system, culminating in a trial where the court found that D&L had violated the MHRA by refusing to accommodate Engstrom's request related to his service dog. The ruling highlighted the importance of understanding and adhering to laws designed to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in housing.
The Maine Human Rights Commission, a state agency responsible for enforcing laws against discrimination, filed the complaint against D&L Apartments on March 30, 2018. The complaint alleged that D&L violated the MHRA in three ways: by refusing to permit the use of a service animal, making a discriminatory statement based on disability, and unlawfully refusing to rent the apartment. The Commission sought various forms of relief, including damages and penalties.
D&L Apartments attempted to dismiss the case by filing a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. The case then proceeded to a nonjury trial in January 2024, where both Engstrom and Sproul testified. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the MHRC, concluding that D&L had engaged in unlawful housing discrimination.
The court's ruling detailed specific violations of the MHRA. It found that D&L's refusal to allow a service animal constituted a direct violation of the law, which protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination in housing. The court stated, "A landlord’s rule against service animals constitutes a statement of 'preference, limitation or discrimination based upon ... physical or mental disability' in violation of the statute." This finding was crucial in affirming that the law applies not only to current use of service animals but also to prospective tenants who may need them.
The court also addressed D&L's argument that the MHRA's provisions did not apply since Engstrom did not yet have a service dog at the time of his inquiry. The court rejected this argument, stating that the law clearly prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their potential need for a service animal. The ruling emphasized that the MHRA aims to prevent discrimination against individuals who may require assistance animals in the future.
As a result of the court's decision, D&L Apartments was ordered to undergo fair housing training, develop an assistance animal policy, and pay a civil penalty of $10,000. This outcome serves as a reminder of the legal obligations landlords have to accommodate tenants with disabilities.
The ruling has broader implications for housing rights in Maine and could influence how landlords approach requests related to service animals. It reinforces the notion that discrimination based on disability is unacceptable and that prospective tenants should not be deterred from seeking housing due to their need for assistance animals.
Moving forward, this case may set a precedent for similar cases in Maine and potentially influence other jurisdictions. The ruling clarifies the interpretation of the MHRA regarding service animals and reinforces the legal protections afforded to individuals with disabilities.
As for the future of this case, D&L Apartments has the option to appeal the ruling, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may also impact ongoing discussions about housing discrimination and the rights of individuals with disabilities in Maine.