# ESA Letter in South Dakota: The State Wrote Down What Counts

> SDCL 43-32-35 says a South Dakota ESA letter must come from a licensed provider that does not exist only to certify animals. The strictest such rule anywhere.

- Source: https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/
- Publisher: Support Animal (supportanimal.com)
- Updated: 2026-09-05
- License note: informational content; not legal or medical advice.

**Summary:** South Dakota is the state that put the emotional support animal into a statute by name, and then told you who may sign for it. SDCL 43-32-33 provides that, for the purposes of the rental documentation sections, "the term, service animal, refers to any animal that serves a role for an individual with a disability as an emotional support animal, any therapy animal, or any assistance animal." SDCL 43-32-34 lets a landlord ask for reliable supporting documentation, and SDCL 43-32-35 says what it must be: it must confirm the disability and the relationship between the disability and the need for the animal, and it must originate from a licensed health care provider "who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals." The right to the animal itself comes from the federal Fair Housing Act and from SDCL 20-13-23.7's good-faith accommodation duty; South Dakota's own contribution is the paperwork standard, and it is the strictest in this corpus.

## South Dakota did the unusual thing: it described the bad letter

Most states leave the emotional support animal unmentioned and let landlords and
tenants argue about paperwork with nothing to argue from. A few define the animal.
South Dakota went one step further, in 2018, and wrote down what the documentation
has to be: including a clause aimed squarely at the businesses that sell
certificates.

SDCL 43-32-35, in full:

> "The supporting documentation shall confirm the tenant's disability and the
> relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested
> accommodation. The documentation shall originate from a licensed health care
> provider **who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification
> for service or assistance animals.**"

Read that last clause slowly, because it is doing something no other statute
in this corpus does. Alabama lists licence types. Montana says nothing at
all. South Dakota disqualifies a provider by describing its **business
model**: if the whole of what you do in South Dakota is issue certificates
for animals, the documentation you produce does not satisfy the section.

That is not a rule against telehealth, and it is not a rule against out-of-state
clinicians: the words are "does not operate in this state solely to provide
certification," and they are about the shape of the practice, not its address. A
South Dakota-licensed clinician who sees patients and also writes housing
determinations is comfortably inside it.

## And it wrote the emotional support animal in by name

The definition that governs those documentation sections is SDCL 43-32-33:

> "For the purposes of §§ 43-32-34 to 43-32-36, inclusive, the term, service
> animal, refers to any animal that serves a role for an individual with a
> disability **as an emotional support animal**, any therapy animal, or any
> assistance animal…"

South Dakota's neighbour Montana wrote the emotional support animal *out* of its
service-animal definition in 2019. South Dakota had written it *in* the year
before.

But notice the opening six words. "For the purposes of §§ 43-32-34 to 43-32-36".
The definition is bolted to the three documentation sections and travels nowhere
else. It does not amend SDCL 20-13, where the same phrase means something much
narrower, and anyone who quotes 43-32-33 as though it were a general South Dakota
definition is over-reading it by a wide margin.

## What the landlord may ask, and when they may not

SDCL 43-32-34 gives a South Dakota landlord an express statutory right to ask:

> "A landlord may require reliable supporting documentation be provided by a
> tenant of a rental dwelling unit, if the tenant asserts a disability requiring
> under any provision of law that a service animal or assistance animal be allowed
> as an accommodation on the rented premises."

There is no arguing with that. A South Dakota landlord who asks for documentation
is doing what the code permits, and a tenant who treats the question as an insult
starts the conversation badly.

The same section closes the door in one situation:

> "A landlord may not require supporting documentation from a tenant if the
> tenant's disability or disability-related need for a service animal or assistance
> animal is **readily apparent or already known** to the landlord."

Three words in the first sentence carry the rest of this page: "**under any
provision of law**." Section 43-32-34 does not create the right to keep the animal.
It regulates the proof of a right that comes from somewhere else, which raises the
obvious question of where.

## Where the South Dakota right actually comes from

Two places, and the first one is federal.

**42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)**, the Fair Housing Act's reasonable-accommodation
duty, applies to South Dakota rentals on its own terms. Nothing in the South Dakota
code narrows it. For most tenants it is the load-bearing provision.

The state provision is a single sentence, SDCL 20-13-23.7:

> "For purposes of employment, public accommodation, public service, and education
> **or housing**, good faith efforts shall be made to reasonably accommodate the
> disabled person unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship."

And here is the complication an honest South Dakota page has to handle rather than
hide. Thirteen sections earlier sits SDCL 20-13-21.1:

> "Nothing in this chapter requires any person selling, renting, or leasing
> property … to **modify the property in any way, incur any additional expenses or
> exercise a higher degree of care** for a person having a disability than for a
> person who does not have a disability."

At first reading those two sentences fight. They do not, and the session-law
citations are why: 20-13-23.7 is section 4 of chapter 170 of the 1986
session laws, and 20-13-21.1 is section 14 of that same chapter. One
legislature, one bill, ten sections apart. Read together, section 4 imposes
the good-faith accommodation duty and section 14 marks out three things it
does not require: modifying the property, incurring additional expenses,
exercising a higher degree of care.

Waiving a no-pets rule is none of those three. It alters a rule, not the building.
It costs the landlord nothing. It asks for no heightened standard of care.

That reading is not decided law, no South Dakota case construing the two sections
against each other was read for this page. What supports it from inside the code is
the remedies section. SDCL 20-13-35.1 provides that "punitive damages may be awarded
under § 21-3-2 for a violation of §§ 20-13-20 to 20-13-21.2, inclusive, **20-13-23.4,
20-13-23.7**, or 20-13-26," and that attorneys' fees and costs may go to the
prevailing party in housing matters. A legislature does not attach punitive damages
to a section that requires nothing of anyone.

## The section that looks like your answer and is not

SDCL 20-13-23.4 bars a landlord from prohibiting "the keeping of a service animal"
in a rented residence. It is the obvious place to look and it will not help you:

> "No landlord may prohibit by lease or otherwise the keeping of a service animal
> by a person who is **totally or partially physically disabled, totally or
> partially blind, or totally or partially deaf** in an apartment or other rented
> or leased residential property."

The list of covered people ends there. Psychiatric and mental disability are not in
it, and that is not an oversight of a bygone era. In 2020 the legislature amended
the *public accommodations* section, SDCL 20-13-23.2, to insert the words "or has a
psychiatric disability or mental disability." It did not touch 20-13-23.4, which has
stood unamended since 1995.

So a South Dakota tenant with a psychiatric disability has the documentation
sections, the good-faith duty in 20-13-23.7, the terms-and-conditions
prohibition in 20-13-20(2), and the federal Act. They do not have
20-13-23.4.

## Money: the cap, and the fee South Dakota never banned

SDCL 43-32-6.1 caps a residential security deposit at one month's rent, and does
it with a phrase worth knowing:

> "A lessor of residential premises may not demand or receive a security deposit,
> **however denominated**, in an amount or value in excess of one month's rent
> except that a larger deposit may be agreed upon between the lessor and the lessee
> where special conditions pose a danger to maintenance of the premises."

"However denominated" means a pet fee cannot be stacked on top of a full
deposit by calling it something else. The exception above the cap needs
agreement and a genuine danger to the premises; it is not a landlord's
unilateral surcharge.

But be precise about what that section is. It is a **cap**, not a fee bar. South
Dakota has no statute saying an assistance animal may not be charged for. The charge
comes off, where the animal is a genuine accommodation, through SDCL 20-13-20(2),
discrimination because of disability "in the terms, conditions, or privileges" of a
rental, and through the federal Act. That is an argument, and it wins in the
ordinary case, but it is an argument.

Getting the deposit back is better regulated than most states manage. Under SDCL
43-32-24, amended this year, the lessor has **twenty-one days** from termination and
receipt of your address to return the deposit or furnish written reasons, must
provide an itemised accounting within forty-five days on request, and (the sentence
that matters), a lessor who fails to comply "forfeits all rights to withhold any
portion of the deposit."

The honest other half: damage the animal actually does sits inside
43-32-24's restoration ground. An accommodation is permission to keep the
animal despite a rule. It is not indemnity for what the animal does.

## The fraud section, and why it is the reason to do this properly

SDCL 43-32-36:

> "If a person is found to have **knowingly** made a false claim of having a
> disability that requires the use of a service animal or assistance animal or of
> knowingly providing fraudulent supporting documentation in connection with such a
> claim, a lessor may evict a lessee and the lessor is entitled to a damage fee, not
> to exceed one thousand dollars…"

The word to hold onto is "knowingly." A request that is genuine and fails is
not within this section. A document you knew to be manufactured is, and it
costs you the tenancy plus up to a thousand dollars.

Put 43-32-35 and 43-32-36 side by side and South Dakota's whole design
shows: the state told you what a real letter looks like, and then told you
what happens if you bring a fake one.

## If a South Dakota landlord says no

A charge goes to the Division of Human Rights, inside the Department of Labor and
Regulation. SDCL 20-13-31 sets the window:

> "Any charge filed under this chapter shall be filed **within one hundred and
> eighty days** after the alleged discriminatory or unfair practice occurred."

180 days, and unlike Montana's equivalent there is no discovery language
anywhere in it. The clock runs from the refusal.

One structural feature to know before you file. Under SDCL 20-13-35.1, within twenty
days of the notice requiring an answer, **either party** may elect to have the claim
decided in a civil action instead, and once that election is made the Division "has
no further jurisdiction over the parties." A landlord can move your charge into court
whether you wanted that or not. The civil action must then be filed within one year of
the election.

## What has to happen first

South Dakota is the state where the letter itself is regulated, which
changes the order of operations. Elsewhere the question is whether a
landlord will accept your documentation. Here the question is first whether
your documentation meets SDCL 43-32-35: confirms the disability, confirms
the relationship between the disability and the need, and comes from a
licensed health care provider whose South Dakota activity is not solely the
issuing of certificates.

If you already see a therapist, counsellor or prescriber, start there. They
know your history, they satisfy 43-32-35 without anyone having to think
about it, and it costs nothing beyond the appointment. That route is
genuinely harder in South Dakota than almost anywhere: outside Sioux Falls,
Rapid City and the university towns many counties have no practising mental
health clinician at all, waits run to months, and some practices decline to
write housing documentation as a matter of policy. Those frictions are real
and they are why this route fails for people who would otherwise take it.

Where it is closed, a licensed evaluation is the same examination arranged
deliberately. A licensed clinician assesses whether you have a disability
and whether this animal is connected to it, and then either writes the
determination or explains that they cannot. Both endings are real. A service
whose answer is fixed before you arrive is exactly the operation SDCL
43-32-35 describes and excludes, and in South Dakota, unusually, you can
point at the sentence that says so.

## Key statutes

- **SDCL 43-32-33** (Service animal and disability defined: the ESA written in): Provides that "for the purposes of §§ 43-32-34 to 43-32-36, inclusive, the term, service animal, refers to any animal that serves a role for an individual with a disability as an emotional support animal, any therapy animal, or any assistance animal," and defines disability as a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting a major life activity. Added by SL 2018, ch 259. Note the opening words: the definition is locked to the three documentation sections and does not travel to SDCL 20-13. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/43-32-33)
- **SDCL 43-32-35** (Documentation requirements: the certificate mill excluded): Requires that supporting documentation "confirm the tenant's disability and the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested accommodation," and that it "originate from a licensed health care provider who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals." South Dakota is the only state in this corpus to disqualify a provider by describing its business model rather than by listing licence types. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/43-32-35)
- **SDCL 43-32-34** (When a landlord may ask for documentation, and when they may not): Permits a landlord to require reliable supporting documentation where a tenant "asserts a disability requiring under any provision of law that a service animal or assistance animal be allowed as an accommodation," and bars the request where the disability or the disability-related need "is readily apparent or already known to the landlord." The phrase "under any provision of law" matters: this section regulates proof of a right created elsewhere. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/43-32-34)
- **SDCL 43-32-36** (False claims and fraudulent documentation: eviction and a damage fee): Where a person is found to have knowingly made a false claim of disability requiring an assistance animal, or knowingly provided fraudulent supporting documentation, the lessor may evict and is entitled to a damage fee not exceeding one thousand dollars. The operative word is "knowingly"; a request that simply fails is not within the section. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/43-32-36)
- **SDCL 20-13-23.7** (Good faith efforts to reasonably accommodate: housing included): Provides in a single sentence that "for purposes of employment, public accommodation, public service, and education or housing, good faith efforts shall be made to reasonably accommodate the disabled person unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship." It names no animal. SDCL 20-13-35.1 makes punitive damages available for its violation, which is the clearest sign in the chapter that it imposes a real obligation. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/20-13-23.7)
- **SDCL 20-13-20(2)** (Discrimination in the terms and conditions of a rental): Makes it an unfair or discriminatory practice to discriminate because of disability "in the terms, conditions, or privileges" of a rental or lease of real property. This is where a pet deposit or monthly pet charge imposed on a required accommodation is caught. The section's owner-occupied exemption is unusually narrow: dwellings with living quarters for no more than two families where the owner occupies one. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/20-13-20)
- **SDCL 20-13-21.1** (What the chapter does not require: and why it does not defeat you): Provides that nothing in the chapter requires a landlord "to modify the property in any way, incur any additional expenses or exercise a higher degree of care" for a person with a disability. Read alongside SDCL 20-13-23.7 (both were enacted by the same 1986 act), it marks out three things the good-faith duty does not reach. Waiving a no-pets rule is none of the three: it changes a rule, not the building, and costs nothing. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/20-13-21.1)
- **SDCL 43-32-6.1** (Security deposit cap: one month's rent, however denominated): Deems any deposit securing performance of a residential rental agreement to be a security deposit, and bars a lessor from demanding or receiving one "however denominated" in excess of one month's rent, except by agreement "where special conditions pose a danger to maintenance of the premises." The phrase "however denominated" pulls a relabelled pet fee inside the cap. South Dakota has no statute barring such a fee outright. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/43-32-6.1)
- **SDCL 43-32-24** (Return of the deposit: twenty-one days, and forfeiture for missing it): Requires the deposit to be returned, or a written statement of reasons furnished, within twenty-one days of termination and receipt of the tenant's address; permits withholding only to remedy rent and other defaults and to restore the premises, ordinary wear and tear excepted; requires an itemised accounting within forty-five days on request; and provides that a lessor who fails to comply "forfeits all rights to withhold any portion of the deposit." Amended by SL 2026, ch 179. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/43-32-24)
- **SDCL 20-13-31** (Time for filing a charge: 180 days, no discovery rule): Requires any charge under the chapter to be filed "within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged discriminatory or unfair practice occurred." Unlike Montana's equivalent, South Dakota's clock has no discovery language on its face. It runs from the practice, not from when you learned of it. Charges go to the Division of Human Rights within the Department of Labor and Regulation. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/20-13-31)
- **SDCL 20-13-23.4** (Animals in rented housing: and the disabilities it leaves out): Bars a landlord from prohibiting "the keeping of a service animal by a person who is totally or partially physically disabled, totally or partially blind, or totally or partially deaf." The list stops there. The parallel public-accommodations section, SDCL 20-13-23.2, was amended in 2020 to add "a psychiatric disability or mental disability"; this housing section was not amended and has stood unchanged since 1995. [Text](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/20-13-23.4)

**Registration myth:** South Dakota has no registry of assistance animals, no certificate, no state identification card and no licensing body, SDCL chapters 20-13 and 43-32 were read section by section for this material and none of them creates one. What South Dakota has instead is a documentation standard, and it points in the opposite direction from a registry. SDCL 43-32-35 requires the documentation to originate from "a licensed health care provider who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals." A site whose entire South Dakota business is issuing certificates is described by that clause, not exempted from it. The state did not build a database; it wrote down what a real letter looks like and excluded the mills by name.

## What South Dakota landlords can and cannot do

**Cannot:**
- May not require documentation at all where the disability or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known to them, SDCL 43-32-34, second sentence.
- May not discriminate because of disability in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental, SDCL 20-13-20(2). A pet deposit or monthly pet charge on a required accommodation is caught here.
- May not take a security deposit above one month's rent "however denominated", SDCL 43-32-6.1, so a pet fee cannot be stacked on top of a full deposit by renaming it.

**Can:**
- May require reliable supporting documentation where a tenant asserts a disability requiring an assistance animal, SDCL 43-32-34. This is an express statutory right and arguing that a South Dakota landlord may not ask is simply wrong.
- May insist the documentation confirm both the disability and the relationship between the disability and the need for the animal, and that it come from a licensed health care provider who does not operate in South Dakota solely to certify animals, SDCL 43-32-35.
- Must make good faith efforts to reasonably accommodate a person with a disability in housing, unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship, SDCL 20-13-23.7, with punitive damages available under SDCL 20-13-35.1.
- Must return the deposit or give written reasons within twenty-one days of termination, and forfeits all right to withhold anything by failing to, SDCL 43-32-24.
- May evict and claim a damage fee of up to one thousand dollars where a tenant knowingly makes a false claim of disability or knowingly supplies fraudulent documentation, SDCL 43-32-36.
- Is not required by the chapter to modify the property, incur additional expenses or exercise a higher degree of care, SDCL 20-13-21.1. Waiving a no-pets rule asks for none of those things.

## How to get an ESA letter in South Dakota

1. **Check that you qualify**, Answer a short screening about how your condition affects daily life in South Dakota. No diagnosis paperwork needed up front. (About 5 minutes: free)
2. **Connect with a licensed professional**, You are matched with a provider licensed for South Dakota clients who reviews your situation in a telehealth evaluation. (Telehealth evaluation)
3. **Complete your evaluation**, The professional evaluates whether an emotional support animal alleviates symptoms of a condition recognized in the DSM-5. Honest evaluations, not everyone qualifies. (Most of Our Applicants Qualify)
4. **Receive your signed letter**, Your letter arrives on the professional's letterhead with their license number: the documentation South Dakota landlords may lawfully request. (Typically within days of approval)
5. **Send it to your landlord**, Submit the letter with a short reasonable-accommodation request. Pet fees, pet deposits, and breed limits no longer apply to your animal in South Dakota. (Protection under FHA + state law)

## Conditions that can qualify for an ESA

No fixed government list exists. A licensed professional evaluates whether an animal alleviates symptoms of a DSM-5-recognized condition, commonly:

- Generalized anxiety disorder
- Major depressive disorder
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
- Panic disorder
- Social anxiety disorder
- Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
- Bipolar disorder
- Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
- Phobias with housing impact
- Chronic stress affecting daily function

## City guides in South Dakota

- [ESA letters in Sioux Falls](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/sioux-falls.md)
- [ESA letters in Rapid City](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/rapid-city.md)
- [ESA letters in Aberdeen](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/aberdeen.md)
- [ESA letters in Brookings](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/brookings.md)
- [ESA letters in Watertown](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/watertown.md)
- [ESA letters in Yankton](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/yankton.md)
- [ESA letters in Mitchell](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/mitchell.md)
- [ESA letters in Huron](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/huron.md)
- [ESA letters in Box Elder](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/box-elder.md)
- [ESA letters in Spearfish](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/spearfish.md)
- [ESA letters in Pierre](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/pierre.md)
- [ESA letters in Vermillion](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/vermillion.md)
- [ESA letters in Brandon](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/brandon.md)
- [ESA letters in Harrisburg](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/harrisburg.md)
- [ESA letters in Tea](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/tea.md)
- [ESA letters in Sturgis](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/sturgis.md)
- [ESA letters in Madison](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/madison.md)
- [ESA letters in Belle Fourche](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/belle-fourche.md)
- [ESA letters in Dell Rapids](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/dell-rapids.md)
- [ESA letters in Hot Springs](https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/hot-springs.md)

## Frequently asked questions

### Does South Dakota law actually recognise an emotional support animal?

Yes, and by name, with one limit you must read. SDCL 43-32-33 provides that "the term, service animal, refers to any animal that serves a role for an individual with a disability as an emotional support animal, any therapy animal, or any assistance animal." That definition opens with the words "for the purposes of §§ 43-32-34 to 43-32-36, inclusive," so it governs the rental documentation sections and does not carry over to SDCL 20-13's public-accommodation provisions. Within its own field it is as clear a recognition as any state in this corpus gives.

### Can a South Dakota landlord ask me for documentation?

Yes. SDCL 43-32-34 says so expressly: a landlord "may require reliable supporting documentation" where a tenant asserts a disability requiring an assistance animal as an accommodation. The same section closes the door where the disability or the need is "readily apparent or already known to the landlord", someone whose landlord has known them for three years is not obliged to prove what the landlord already knows. Outside that, expect the request, and expect it to be lawful.

### What does South Dakota require the letter itself to say?

Two things and a source. Under SDCL 43-32-35 the documentation must confirm your disability and confirm "the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested accommodation", so a letter that says you have a condition, without connecting it to the animal, fails on its face. And it must originate from a licensed health care provider "who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals." That last clause is what disqualifies the certificate mill.

### Is there a penalty in South Dakota for a bad ESA letter?

There is, and it is specific. SDCL 43-32-36 provides that where a person is found to have knowingly made a false claim of a disability requiring an assistance animal, or knowingly provided fraudulent supporting documentation, the landlord may evict and is entitled to a damage fee of up to one thousand dollars. The word doing the work is "knowingly." A request that is genuine but unsuccessful is not within the section; a document you knew to be manufactured is.

### Can a South Dakota landlord charge a pet deposit for my assistance animal?

Not where the animal is a genuine accommodation, though South Dakota has no sentence saying so directly. The charge is caught by SDCL 20-13-20(2), which makes it unlawful to discriminate because of disability in "the terms, conditions, or privileges" of a rental, and by the federal Fair Housing Act. Separately, SDCL 43-32-6.1 caps any residential security deposit at one month's rent "however denominated," so a pet fee cannot simply be stacked on top of a full deposit under another name.

### Does SDCL 20-13-23.4 protect my emotional support animal in a rental?

No, and this is the easiest South Dakota mistake to make. That section bars a landlord from prohibiting a service animal kept by a person "totally or partially physically disabled, totally or partially blind, or totally or partially deaf." Psychiatric and mental disability are not in the list. The legislature added exactly those words to the public-accommodations section, SDCL 20-13-23.2, in 2020 and left the housing section alone; it has not been amended since 1995. Your route is the documentation sections plus the federal Fair Housing Act.

### How long do I have to complain if a South Dakota landlord refuses?

180 days. SDCL 20-13-31 requires any charge under the human rights chapter to be filed "within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged discriminatory or unfair practice occurred," and South Dakota's clock has no discovery language in it. It runs from the refusal itself. Charges go to the Division of Human Rights inside the Department of Labor and Regulation. Under SDCL 20-13-35.1 either party may then elect to move the claim into a civil action, after which the Division loses jurisdiction.

---

Get evaluated by a licensed provider: https://my.supportanimal.com/qualify?sa_source=blog&sa_medium=blog&sa_campaign=esa-guides&sa_content=markdown&ref=blog&sa_term=south-dakota-emotional-support-animal