ESA Fee Waivers: Necessary and Reasonable, Not Guaranteed With Liz Roussel

Liz Roussel is a Partner at Adams & Reese, a law firm offering multidisciplinary legal services across the Southern United States. She is the Litigation Practice Group Leader in the firm’s New Orleans office and advises employers and managers in labor, employment, commercial, and directors/officers litigation. Liz joined the firm in 2002 and is ranked by Chambers USA in Labor & Employment law. She also serves on the firm’s Executive Committee and has been recognized by Best Lawyers and Super Lawyers for her legal work. In this episode… The rules around emotional support animal fees have long left landlords and property managers confused and cautious. Many believe federal law requires automatic fee waivers whenever a tenant presents an ESA letter. But is that really what the law demands, or is it simply widely misunderstood guidance? According to Liz Roussel, a seasoned litigator who manages a nationwide litigation practice, the law does not require landlords to automatically waive pet fees for emotional support animals. She highlights that a recent federal court ruling clarified HUD’s 2020 guidance is not binding law and that courts must evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis. This shift follows the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision, which curbed automatic deference to agency interpretations. Liz explains how landlords can now require tenants to prove both the necessity and reasonableness of a fee waiver, and why this ruling gives property managers a clearer roadmap for handling ESA requests without fear of violating fair housing laws. In this episode of The Same Day Podcast, host Mat Zalk sits down with Liz Roussel, Partner at Adams & Reese, to talk about breaking common myths around ESA fee waivers. They discuss how the Henderson v. Five Properties case challenged HUD guidance, why the Loper Bright ruling changes how courts view agency notices, and how landlords can confidently evaluate ESA accommodation requests. Liz also shares how this decision may influence future fair housing disputes.