On December 27, 2016, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment in Arnal v. Aspen View Condo. Ass’n (D. Colo.), a lawsuit alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. The plaintiff, the owner of a condominium unit, alleges that his condominium association improperly denied a reasonable accommodation to its “no dogs” policy to allow his tenant to keep a service dog that assisted her with her epilepsy, and that the condo association retaliated against him for allowing the tenant to keep the dog by issuing fines. The United States had filed a Statement of Interest arguing that a plaintiff may maintain a retaliation claim even in the absence of an underlying discrimination claim and that evidence that defendants imposed fines on a unit owner for allowing a tenant the requested accommodation supported a prima facie case of retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. The court ruled, consistent with the Statement of Interest, that plaintiff’s retaliation claim was not dependent upon his reasonable accommodation claim and that a reasonable jury could conclude that the fines were imposed in retaliation for allowing his tenant to live in the condo unit with her dog and assisting his tenant in exercising her fair housing rights.