May 17, 2012

Accommodating Service Animal Requests

Increasingly, service providers are incorporating the use of animals to assist in the education and treatment of disabled children. Under the American's with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), use of a service animal may be an accommodation for a person with a disability. A recent case out of Illinois illustrates the challenges some school districts face in handling a disabled child's request to bring such animals into the education environment.

In August 2009, an Illinois circuit court issued a temporary injunction requiring a school district to allow an autistic student ("Carter") to bring his dog into the classroom during the time needed for the court to hold a formal hearing on whether the animal qualified as a service dog under the ADA. Carter's mother testified the dog was hypoallergenic, and was specifically trained to handle Carter's impulses to eat things that are not food, running impulsively, and tantrums. However, the School District contended that the dog violated the IEP of another child planning to attend the same school who had a rare lung disease. That child's IEP guaranteed she would not be exposed to any animals.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the circuit court made the temporary injunction effective three weeks after its entry to allow the School District sufficient time to accommodate the competing interests of the two special needs children. The court also noted that the School District presented no evidence that the IEP student with the lung disorder would be allergic to the specific type of dog that Carter intended to bring to school. Therefore, the appellate court held that the injury Carter would suffer if denied the right to bring his dog to class outweighed any hardship to the School District or the general public.

The case was remanded back to the circuit court, which still must decide if Carter's dog qualifies as a "service animal". To meet the ADA's definition of a "service animal", the dog must be individually trained to perform tasks for the person with the disability. The court must decide if the above-referenced tasks qualify Carter's dog as a "service animal", which according to the court could take "months" to decide.

In the interim, the Department of Justice is expected to issue new regulations shortly regarding what is considered a "service animal". It is likely the new regulations will clearly state that animals used solely for an individual's comfort are not "service animals" and are not covered by the ADA. The new regulations will also likely limit the scope of service animals to dogs. We will keep you posted when these new regulations are promulgated.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

David Lampe is a Partner in the Labor and Employment Law Department and Education Law Practice Group. David has extensive experience counseling public boards of education on a variety of education law issues, with an emphasis on labor negotiations, employment matters, civil litigation and workers' compensation. In addition to his legal practice, David is a frequent presenter at various law school forums across the State of Ohio.
 

513-977-8234

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.