Author Archives: admin

U.S. Department of Justice Issues Letter re: ADA Service Dog / Animal Violations against Student by School District

Posted on by

ORIGINAL LETTER (Click to view PDF):

gates-chili_lof

THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE LETTER ARE ALSO INCLUDED BELOW:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section – NYA
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 1 April 13, 2015
VIA EMAIL:DOakes@HarrisBeach.com David W. Oakes, Esq. Harris Beach, PLLC
99 Garnsey Road Pittsford, New York 14534

Re: Investigation of Gates-Chili Central School District, DJ No. 204-53-128

Dear Mr. Oakes:

We write concerning the United States Department of Justice’s (Department) investigation of Gates-Chili Central School District’s (District) service animal policies, practices, and procedures under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. pt. 35. The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities by public entities, such as the District. Our investigation focused on the District’s refusal to permit a student, D.P., to bring her service dog (Service Dog) to school unless D.P.’s mother (Parent) also provides a full-time handler. In response to the complaint, the District asserts that D.P. cannot handle her own Service Dog, that the ADA does not require the District to act as the handler, and that therefore D.P. may only bring her Service Dog if the Parent provides a full-time handler. D.P.’s Parent counters that she is not asking the District to provide a full-time handler and, rather, asks the District to provide minimal and intermittent assistance to D.P., such that the child herself can handle her dog. Indeed, for years D.P.’s Parent has attempted to educate the District about her child, her Service Dog, and the minimal level of support or assistance D.P. would need with respect to using and benefitting from her Service Dog while at school. At the same time, having determined that D.P.’s Service Dog is critical to D.P.’s safety, autonomy, and independence, D.P.’s Parent has incurred costs in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to pay for a handler so that D.P. would not suffer any harm caused by being separated from her Service Dog. There is no dispute that D.P. is a person with a disability or that the Service Dog is individually trained to perform tasks for the benefit of D.P. There also appears to be little dispute that D.P. is making strides in handling her Service Dog but, during the course of the 2 school day, requires intermittent assistance in tethering and untethering the dog when necessary or vocalizing a limited number of commands. After investigation and consideration, the Department finds that the District is in violation of title II by failing to reasonably modify its policies, practices, and procedures to permit D.P. to handle her Service Dog with assistance from staff. Set forth below are the Department’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under title II of the ADA, as well as minimum steps the District must take to meet its legal obligations and remedy the violations the Department has identified.1 I. Background and Findings of Fact This matter came to the Department’s attention through a complaint filed by the Parent of D.P., a student attending elementary school in the District. D.P. has Angelman Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, asthma, and hypotonia.2 The complaint alleged that the District refused to permit D.P.’s Service Dog in school unless the Parent provided a separate adult handler. In August 2013, the Department notified the District that we were opening an investigation of the District for alleged violations of title II of the ADA and, on September 19 and 20, 2013, we interviewed District staff, the Parent and the Handler, as well as observed D.P. with her service animal in the classroom. In addition, the Department reviewed documents provided by both the Parent and the District. In January 2011, D.P. obtained a service dog. The Service Dog, a hypoallergenic breed selected to accommodate D.P.’s asthma, is trained to perform numerous tasks directly related to D.P.’s disabilities. It can detect an oncoming seizure before humans can and is capable of alerting others that D.P. is going to have a seizure. With regard to D.P.’s autism, the Service Dog is trained to prevent wandering (elopement), to apply deep pressure to prevent or limit meltdowns, and to disrupt stimming. 3 In addition, the Service Dog provides mobility support for D.P.’s core body weakness.

With the assistance of the Service Dog, the quality of D.P.’s life significantly improved and she began to gain independence. Because of her core body weakness and inability to perceive danger, D.P., prior to having her Service Dog, had to constantly hold the hand of an adult and be transported long walking distances (to the school bus, for example) using a wheelchair or being carried. Today, D.P. walks herself to the bus holding the harness of her Service Dog, which provides both guidance and support. The pair is also connected by a leash, or tether. 4 If D.P. attempts to wander or elope, the Service Dog sits down and prevents D.P. from moving forward. D.P.’s history of prolonged grand mal seizures has been significantly mitigated by the presence of her Service Dog. The Service Dog sleeps next to D.P. and alerts her Parent to oncoming seizures during the night. The same is true during school hours. Documents provided by the District establish that the Service Dog has effectively notified school staff of seizure activity on numerous occasions, enabling a nurse to administer emergency seizure medication early enough to prevent the seizure from progressing. Preschool During the 2011-12 school year, the Service Dog began to accompany D.P. on the school bus and at school. Her teacher’s written comments that year stated, “… [the Service Dog] is providing support that provides [D.P.] with much more autonomy, and keeps everyone[’s] hands from constantly handling her. [The Service Dog] is helping [D.P.] make transitions smoothly, helping to support her in walking through the halls.”5 Kindergarten and First Grade After completing preschool in the spring of 2012, D.P. was scheduled to begin school in the fall of 2012 at Terry Taylor Elementary. At a meeting with the Parent on September 4, 2012, the District told the Parent that it would not allow staff to assist D.P. in handling her Service Dog despite having done so in the past. The District also informed the Parent that D.P. could no longer bring her Service Dog to school unless the Parent provided a separate adult handler. As a result, the Parent hired a handler (Handler). Beginning in September of 2012 and continuing through the present, the Parent has paid the Handler approximately $1,400 a month to accompany D.P.’s Service Dog to school. D.P.’s Service Dog is trained to go through the school day without needing to be walked, eat, or relieve itself. The Handler tethers and untethers the Service Dog from D.P. and assists D.P., who is nonverbal, in issuing commands to the Service Dog. The Handler reported that that there are at most five commands used with the Service Dog during the school day: “down,” “down hold,” “let’s go,” “wait,” and, very rarely, “bring her.” The Handler estimated that she primarily uses two commands during the school day (“down” and “let’s go”) approximately 15 times a day and that issuing a command takes about three seconds. The Service Dog is untethered and tethered about 15 times day (during gym, for example), which takes approximately three seconds each to accomplish. Throughout the school day, D.P. is always accompanied by her 1:1 Aide (provided by the District). When D.P. goes to various places on school grounds, she is also accompanied by the Service Dog, and the Handler. As noted above, the Service Dog has proven effective in alerting school personnel that D.P. is going to have a seizure. The Nursing Notes provided by the District indicate that the Service Dog has alerted that D.P. was having seizure activity on numerous occasions, enabling the District to follow the proper seizure protocol in a timely manner. D.P.’s 1:1 Aide ensures that the seizure protocol is followed. The District’s seizure protocol instructs staff to ensure D.P. is safe by, among other things, issuing the command “snuggle” to the Service Dog to encourage it to stay close to D.P.6 Since the Service Dog started accompanying D.P. to school, D.P. is learning nonverbal ways to issue commands. For example, D.P. can: (1) jiggle the Service Dog’s collar to indicate, “let’s go;” (2) put out her hand to indicate “wait” or “settle;” and (3) touch its posterior area to tell it to “sit.” D.P. gives the Service Dog rewards when she performs her tasks. D.P. is also learning to use an iPad and a Dynavox – – a device that allows D.P. to respond to or express messages (“yes, please,” “no, thank you,” “more, please,” “my turn”). 7 Currently, the Dynavox includes the commands, “go to gym,” and “go to cafeteria” for use with the Service Dog. The District also works with D.P. to develop communication skills for handling the Service Dog. In a letter to the District dated December 19, 2012, the Parent requested that the District permit D.P. and her Service Dog to attend school without a separate adult handler. The Parent asked the District to permit D.P.’s 1:1 Aide to assist D.P. in issuing commands and tethering and untethering the Service Dog (two functions currently performed exclusively by the Handler). Since receiving the Parent’s request, the District continues to refuse to allow the Service Dog at school or school-related activities without a separate adult handler provided by the Parent. The District also refuses to permit D.P. to use her Service Dog without a separate adult handler on her school bus, which, in addition to a bus driver, is staffed with a bus monitor and a nurse. We find that providing the requested assistance to D.P. falls well within the range of support and assistance that school staff provides to young children day in and day out. Accordingly, the District must reasonably modify its current “hands off” policy with respect to D.P.’s Service Dog. II. Conclusions of Law and Recommended Remedial Measures Discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities, such as local school districts, is prohibited by title II of the ADA. Specifically, title II mandates that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a). The title II regulation, set out at 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, reflects and implements the statute’s nondiscrimination mandate. 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (directing the attorney general to promulgate regulations). Under title II, local school districts must afford students with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from any aid, benefit, or service provided to others. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). The District is specifically prohibited from providing a student with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(iii). Public entities must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination, unless the public entity can demonstrate that doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). Moreover, as is the case here, a public entity shall modify its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability. 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(a). A public entity may properly exclude a service animal if: (1) the dog is out of control and the animal’s handler does not take effective action to control it; or (2) the dog is not housebroken. 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(c). A service animal shall be under the control of its handler and shall have a harness, leash, or other tether unless because of a disability that is not possible, in which case the service animal must otherwise be under the handler’s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means). 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(d). A public entity is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal. 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(e).8 The District has not established that any of the permissible factors for exclusion of a service dog have been met. To the contrary, the District acknowledges that the Service Dog has never had an incident where it was out of control or exhibited any indication of not being house broken in the four years that it has been coming to school with D.P. Moreover, the Parent’s request that District staff assist D.P. in handling her Service Dog by performing the types of tasks described above is reasonable. D.P.’s 1:1 Aide already currently escorts D.P., her Service Dog, and the Handler around school property and ensures that D.P.’s seizure protocol is followed, including the Service Dog’s role in that seizure protocol. And school staff already work with D.P. in learning how to communicate when handling her Service Dog. Staff assistance in issuing the few verbal commands necessary for D.P. to control the Service Dog would involve only minimal effort but would significantly further D.P.’s ability to use the assistance of the Service Dog. Following from the above, the District must permit D.P. to bring her Service Dog to school without also having to provide a separate adult handler. The ADA mandates that students with disabilities be afforded the same access to, and enjoy the same benefits of, the services, programs, and activities as students without disabilities and the District has not established that the provision of reasonable modifications to assist D.P. would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. 42 U.S.C 42 § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1) and (b)(7). To remedy the violations discussed above and to protect the civil rights of D.P., the District must take the following minimal steps:  Permit D.P. to act as the handler of her Service Dog.  Direct staff assigned to D.P.’s classroom and on the bus (i.e., the bus monitor) to provide reasonable modifications and to work with the communication-related aids and services (iPad or Dynavox) already being provided to D.P. as she handles her Service Dog, including but not limited to tethering and untethering D.P.’s Service Dog, issuing the commands used with the Service Dog during the school day, escorting D.P. throughout the school grounds when accompanied by her Service Dog; and using the Service Dog in accordance with D.P.’s seizure protocol.  Pay compensatory damages, including damages for pain and suffering, in an appropriate amount for injuries suffered as a result of the District’s failure to comply with the ADA.  Make reasonable modifications to District policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination against a student with a disability who uses a service animal unless the District can show that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. Reasonable modifications, depending on the individual circumstances, include, but are not limited to, providing assistance to a student with a disability in tethering or untethering the service animal and escorting a student with a disability throughout the school or campus as he or she is accompanied by a service animal, and assisting a student with a communication disability in issuing commands to the service animal.  Ensure that schools within the District do not impose a surcharge for the use of a service animal on District property.  Publish an announcement and description of the District’s revised ADA service animal policy at http://www.gateschili.org.  Hire a trainer to develop and deliver training to the following District staff members on the District’s obligations under title II of the ADA, including obligations with respect to service animals: all Principals, Assistant Principals, Teachers, and Teachers’ Aides and appropriate transportation personnel. III. Conclusion We hope to work with you to resolve our outstanding concerns with respect to the District’s service animal policies, practices, and procedures. We are obligated to advise you that, in the event that we are unable to reach a resolution regarding our concerns, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit pursuant to the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12133-34; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. Please contact Paula Rubin at 202-305-2191 within two weeks of the date of this letter if you are willing to resolve this matter voluntarily in a manner that will bring the District into full compliance with title II, or if you have any questions regarding this letter.9

Sincerely,
Rebecca B. Bond
Chief Disability Rights Section

cc: Kristin Small, Esq. Empire Justice Center Attorneys for the Complaining Party

 

1 We note that students with disabilities enrolled in elementary and secondary school settings may be eligible for and thus entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the U.S. Department of Education’s regulation implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33-104.36, and a FAPE under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. This letter does not address the District’s obligations, or the remedies available to students and their parents, under these laws. Further, because the IDEA and ADA have different standards, whether or not the IDEA’s requirements have been met does not determine whether a valid ADA claim would exist. 20 U.S.C. 1415(l); K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting argument that “the success or failure of a student’s IDEA claim dictates, as a matter of law, the success or failure of her [ADA] Title II claim”); Ellenberg v. New Mexico Military Inst., 478 F3d 1262, 1282 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Even if plaintiffs conceded that [defendant] fully satisfied its IDEA obligations…, they could pursue claims under the ADA….”). 2 Angelman Syndrome is a lifelong disorder with manifestations that include developmental delay, lack of speech, seizures, and walking or balance disorders. Angelman Syndrome Foundation, “What is Angelman Syndrome?” http://www.angelman.org/ (last visited February 2, 2015). Autism inhibits D.P.’s ability to perceive danger and she has a tendency to wander (elope). Hypotonia means decreased muscle tone. MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003298.htm (last visited February 2, 2015). D.P. also has a history of prolonged grand mal seizures that, if allowed to progress to their full force, could be fatal. 3 Stimming refers to repetitive body movements or repetitive movement of objects (e.g., flapping arms over and over). Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Signs and Symptoms, http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/signs.html (last visited January 30, 2015).

4 When working, service dogs often have a harness with a handle as well a leash. See 28 C.F.R. 35.136(d). Some individuals use the harness, some the leash, and some use both. In this case, D.P. uses both. The harness provides D.P with the support she requires to ambulate independently and the leash is used to tether D.P. to her Service Dog to prevent her from eloping. 5 March 1, 2012, document provided by Gates-Chili Central School District.

6 “Snuggle” is the command for the Service Dog to press its body against D.P. 7 Although not directly addressed in this analysis, the ADA’s effective communication requirements also have relevance here. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

8 Care and supervision is a distinct responsibility and different from handling. Care and supervision relates to the animal’s health and wellbeing and includes such things as proper veterinary care as well as feeding, walking, and grooming the animal. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.136(e) and accompanying guidance at Appendix A § 35.136. The care and supervision of the Service Dog is not at issue here since the Service Dog does not require any walking, feeding, grooming, or veterinary care while D.P. is at school.

9 Please note that this Letter of Findings is a public document and will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website.

Student has the right to have his service dog with him at school – Settlement by the U.S. and the Delran School District

Posted on by

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND
DELRAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT
DJ# 204-48-284

BACKGROUND

    1. The parties to this Settlement Agreement are the United States of America and the Delran Township School District (School District).
    2. This matter was initiated by a complaint filed with the United States Department of Justice (Department) pursuant to title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134.  Complainant is the parent of an 8-year old child who was a student in the School District during the 2012-13 school year.  The child has several disabilities, including autism, developmental coordination disorder, and encephalopathy.  Complainant alleged that the School District refused to permit the child to be accompanied in school by his service animal when the Complainant is present as the dog’s handler.
    3. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(e), the Department has exercised its discretion to retain this complaint for investigation under title II of the ADA.  The Department is authorized to bring a civil action to enforce title II of the ADA where a violation is found and efforts to secure voluntary compliance are unsuccessful.  42 U.S.C. § 12133; 28 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart F.  This Agreement does not address rights and responsibilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794, or any other laws.

TITLE II

    1. Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.  42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. §35.130(a).  The School District is a public entity within the meaning of title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and therefore is subject to the requirements of title II, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.
    2. Title II of the ADA requires public entities, generally, to modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability. 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(a).  Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a public entity’s facilities where members of the public, participants in services, programs or activities, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go. 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(g).  A public entity may properly exclude a service animal if (1) the dog is out of control and the animal’s handler does not take effective action to control it; or (2) the dog is not housebroken (i.e. trained so that absent illness or accident, the dog controls its waste elimination).  Under title II of the ADA, a public entity is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.  28 C.F.R.  § 35.136(e).
    3. The term “service animal” means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.  28 C.F.R. § 35.104
    4. Under title II of the ADA, a public entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether a dog qualifies as a service animal: (1) whether the dog is required because of a disability and (2) what work or task the dog has been trained to perform.  Generally, a public entity may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that the dog is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.  A public entity shall not require documentation, such as proof that the dog has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal.  28 C.F.R. § 35.136(f).  Nor shall a public entity ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge for using a service animal. 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(h).

FINDINGS OF FACT

    1. On October 5, 2012, the Complainant signaled an interest in her child being able to be accompanied by his service animal in school.  In an email, Complainant wrote that she would like to keep the door open for her child to bring the service animal to school, but that she was not planning on starting right away.  The child’s service animal is trained to perform numerous tasks directly related to the child’s disabilities.  For the child’s autism, the service animal is trained to prevent elopement (wandering), to disrupt stimming, and to apply deep pressure to prevent or limit meltdowns.  In addition, the service animal is trained to provide mobility support for the child’s core body weakness, alert others that the child is going to have a seizure, and perform search and rescue functions in the event the child wanders off.
    2. On October 8, 2012, in response to the Complainant’s request, the School District Psychologist asked the Complainant to submit copies of the child’s medical records to document the child’s need for a service animal, and indicated that the School District would need to determine whether the child is able to benefit from instruction without the service animal. The Complainant submitted documentation from the child’s treatment team at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, explaining that the service animal is “an important part of the treatment program for [the child] in all settings, school, home, and community.”
    3. On October 16, 2012, the School District sent an email to the Complainant stating that a service animal would only be admitted if added to the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) pursuant to IDEA and deemed necessary by the child’s IEP team.  The School District indicated that the dog would “have to be  . . . absolutely essential for some specific purpose related to a specific disabling problem (i.e. what will a dog be able to do, that is required, that school staff and program cannot).”  The School District also cited concerns about student allergies, pupil fears, parental concerns, and supervision and transportation of the service animal.
    4. On October 19, 2012, the Complainant objected to the School District’s assertion that IDEA offered the only process through which the child’s use of a service animal could be evaluated.  The Complainant clarified that she sought her child’s use of a service animal pursuant to title II of the ADA and requested a copy of the School District’s relevant written policy.  Because the District had no service animal policy at the time, no policy was provided.
    5. On November 5, 2012, in a letter to the Complainant, the School District stated that the dog would not be considered under the child’s IEP, but rather, as a “general accommodation.”  The School District requested that the Complainant respond to two inquiries regarding the child’s service dog: (1) Is the dog required due to [the child’s] disability; and (2) What task or work has the dog been completely trained to perform for [the child]?  The District’s letter went on to state that it would be inappropriate to bring the dog onto school grounds without the School District’s approval.
    6. On November 9, 2012, the Complainant submitted documents related to her son’s use of a service animal to the School District.
    7. On November 21, 2012, the School District sent a letter to the Complainant; citing to state law, the School District requested additional information, including documentation of a dog license, as well as certification directly from a veterinarian that the dog is properly vaccinated and free of contagious diseases.  The School District also requested – a specific response as to whether the service animal is “required due to [the child’s] disability,” and “what task or work the dog has been completely trained to perform for [the child].”
    8. On December 19, 2012, the Complainant sent an email to the School District stating that the service animal is “a fully trained service animal” with “more th[a]n 500 hours of intensive training.”  The Complainant provided a list and description of tasks that the dog is trained to perform, with adult control, including behavior disruption and mobility support.  The Complainant referenced Dr. Mintz’s letter stating that the service animal is medically necessary.  The Complainant formally requested access for the service dog to attend school functions, trips, etc., when the Complaint is present as the service dog’s handler.
    9. On January 10, 2013, the School District asked for clarification about the circumstances in which the Complainant (the child’s parent) was requesting access.
    10. On February 26, 2013, the Complainant reiterated, by email to the School District, her request that the child be permitted to use the service animal at school events when the Complainant is present as the handler.  The Complainant specifically referenced an upcoming class trip, in April, to an aquarium and asked whether any decision had been made regarding her previous request.
    11. On March 22, 2013, the School District responded to the Complainant with a letter requesting clarification on whether, for the pending class trip, the Complainant was requesting to ride the bus with the child and service animal, or whether the Complainant was requesting permission for the child and service animal to meet the class at the aquarium for the field trip.  The letter also requested additional information in response to the School District’s letter dated January 10, 2013.
    12. On March 25, 2013, the Complainant responded to the School District and stated her belief that she had submitted all required documents.  With regard to the pending field trip, the Complainant stated that she expected to be treated like any other chaperone and that her child would “ride the bus with his peers as there is no reason to exclude him.” The School District did not reply.
    13. On April 15, 2013, the Complainant again contacted the School District seeking an answer regarding the class trip on April 18.  The School District responded, by letter dated April 16, 2013, requesting verification that the service animal was licensed and a statement from a veterinarian that the service animal does not have a contagious disease.
    14. On April 17, 2013, the Complainant’s advocate submitted a copy of the service animal’s license as well as a letter from Mercerville Animal Hospital stating that the service animal is free of communicable diseases and parasites and is current on all required vaccinations.  In a letter, dated April 17, the School District stated that the service dog (with the Complainant as handler) would not be permitted to accompany the child on the bus for the April 18 aquarium trip.  The School District’s articulated reason for its refusal was that it did not have adequate time to prepare for the presence of the service animal on the bus and field trip, or to address any concerns of other students and staff.  As a result, the child went on the bus without his service animal while the Complainant followed the bus in her own car with the dog.
    15. Internal School District emails demonstrate that School District officials considered improper factors such as generalized concerns about student allergies and fear of dogs as justification for refusing to grant the child’s request for a reasonable modification.
    16. The School District does not have a policy that specifically addresses service animal requests under title II of the ADA.
    17. The facts establish that during the 2012-13 school year the School District never allowed the child to be accompanied by his service dog at school or during school-related activities.  Over at least a six-month period, the School District lodged a series of unnecessary and burdensome requests for information and documentation, some of which were redundant and others of which were outside the scope of permitted inquiry as set forth in the ADA Regulations.
    18. As a result of being separated from his service dog, the child and service animal bond was jeopardized, making implementation of his training more difficult.  This made it necessary to provide some re-training of the dog over the school year.  On days when the child’s motor function and balance were problematic because of his disabilities, the child was required to remain home.
    19. The Department determined that School District discriminated against the child, a qualified individual with a disability, on the basis of disability, by excluding him from participation in and denying him the benefits of the School District’s programs, services, and activities, and by subjecting him to discrimination, in violation of title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.
    20. The School District disputes the Department’s Findings of Facts.  However, without adopting such facts, expressly or by omission, the School District agrees to resolve this matter expeditiously and without protracted litigation.  Accordingly, the School District, without admitting liability or wrong-doing, and the United States, have agreed to resolve this matter as set forth below.

ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

    1. Generally, the School District shall modify its policies, practices, and procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.  The School District shall not engage in any act or practice that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against an individual with a disability in the use of a service animal in accordance with title II of the ADA.
    2. Within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this Agreement, the School District shall submit to the United States, for review and approval, amended policies, practices, and procedures, to include the following.  The School District will adopt the amended policies, practices, and procedures within 15 days following the United States’ approval.
      1. Service Animal Inquiries.  When an individual with a disability seeks to use a service animal in school facilities, programs, or activities pursuant to title II of the ADA, the School District may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal: (1) is the dog required because of a disability; and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform.  The School District shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. 
      2. Access to Facilities.  Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a School District’s facilities where members of the public, participants in services, programs, or activities, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.  The handler may be the individual with a disability or a third party who has been appropriately trained to handle the service animal.  The School District may require a service animal’s handler to remove the service animal from School District property if (1) the dog is out of control and effective action cannot be taken to control it; or (2) the dog is not housebroken (i.e. trained so that absent illness or accident, the dog controls its waste elimination).
      3. Reasonable Modifications.  The School District must make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, and procedures, where necessary to avoid discrimination against a student with a disability who uses a service animal unless the School District can show that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.  Reasonable modifications in this context include, but are not limited to, providing assistance to a student with a disability in tethering or untethering the service animal, or escorting a student with a disability throughout the school or campus as he or she is accompanied by a service animal.
      4. Prohibition Against Surcharges.  The School District shall not require a surcharge for the use of a Service animal on School District property. 
      5. Request Evaluation Process.  When a student (or potential student) with a disability seeks to use a service animal in accordance with title II of the ADA at school and school-related events, the School District shall review the request in a timely manner.  The School District shall promptly notify the requestor if additional information, consistent with that permitted under title II of the ADA, is needed to evaluate the request and shall specify in writing what information is needed.
    3. Within 15 days after adoption of the policies, practices, and procedures required by paragraph 29 of this Agreement, the School District shall publish an announcement and description of its ADA service animal policy on its website’s homepage at http://www.delranschools.org.
    4. Within 60 days after adoption of policies, practices, and procedures required by paragraph 29 of this Agreement, the School District shall provide training to the following School District staff members on the School District’s obligations under title II of the ADA, including obligations with respect to service animals: all Principals, Assistant Principals, School Psychologists, Pupil Personnel Directors, Teachers, Child Study Team Members, and any other staff members that work closely with, or participate in decisions involving students with disabilities pursuant to title II of the ADA.  The School District shall provide such training on an annual basis for the term of this Agreement.
    5. The School District shall maintain written records of all service animal-related requests received from individuals with disabilities for the duration of this Agreement.  Such records shall include the individual’s name and contact information, date of the request, nature of the request, the determination regarding the request and who participated in the decision-making, and all other documents created by the School District or that come into its possession, custody, or control relating to such requests.  The School District shall provide records of all requests related to service animals on a quarterly basis to counsel for the United States for the duration of this Agreement, beginning three months from the effective date of this Agreement, and at any other time upon request.
    6. Within 20 days of the United States providing the School District a signed Release from the Complainant and a signed w-9, the School District shall pay damages to the Complainant in the amount of $10,000.00.
    7. The School District shall not retaliate in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12203 against the Complainant, the child, or any person based on their cooperation with the Department’s investigation of this matter, nor on the basis of any person’s involvement in the administration of this Agreement.

IMPLEMENTATION

    1. In consideration for the terms set forth above, the United States will refrain from undertaking further action relating to the investigation of Department of Justice complaint number 204-48-284, or from filing a civil action alleging discrimination based on the facts set forth above, except as provided in paragraph 36, below.
    2. The United States may review the School District’s compliance with this Agreement or title II of the ADA at any time.  If the United States believes that this Agreement or any portion of it has been violated, the United States will raise its concerns with the School District and will attempt to resolve its concerns with the School District in good faith.  If the United States is unable to reach a satisfactory resolution of the issue or issues raised within 30 days of the date it provides notice to the School District, the United States may institute a civil action in the appropriate United States District Court to enforce this Agreement or title II of the ADA.
    3. Failure by the United States to enforce any provisions or deadlines of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the United States’ right to enforce other deadlines or provisions of this Agreement.
    4. A signatory to this document in a representative capacity for the School District represents that he or she is authorized to bind the School District to this Agreement.
    5. If any term of this Agreement is determined by any court to be unenforceable, the other terms of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect, provided, however, that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights or obligations of the parties, the United States and the School District shall engage in good faith negotiations in order to adopt mutually agreeable amendments to this Agreement as may be necessary to restore the parties as closely as possible to the initially agreed upon relative rights and obligations.
    6. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the United States and the School District on the matters raised herein and no other statement, promise or agreement, either written or oral, made by any party or agents of any party, that is not contained in this written agreement, including its attachments, shall be enforceable.  This Agreement can only be modified or amended by mutual written agreement of the parties.
    7. This Agreement does not affect the School District’s continuing responsibility to comply with all aspects of the ADA.

EFFECTIVE DATE / TERMINATION DATE

  1.  The effective date of this Agreement is the date of the last signature below.
  2. The duration of this Agreement will be three years from the effective date.

 

AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:

DELRAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

 

/s/ Diane Zierler
DIANE ZIERLER, President
Delran Township School District
Board of Directors

 

6/19/14
Date

 

/s/ Christopher J. Russo
CHRISTOPHER J. RUSSO
Acting Superintendent
52 Hartford Road
Delran, NJ 08075

 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

JOCELYN SAMUELS
Acting Assistant Attorney General
EVE L. HILL
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

REBECCA B. BOND, Chief
KATHLEEN P. WOLFE, Special Litigation Counsel
ROBERTA KIRKENDALL, Special Legal Counsel

 

/s/ Paula N. Rubin
PAULA RUBIN
Trial Attorney
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 307-0663

6/19/14
Date
6.24.14
Date

Students bring dogs to class under college program that allows service and emotional support animals on campus

Posted on by

LONG BEACH, California

Zeus and Hercules engaged in a friendly spar inside the disabled student services office at Cal State Long Beach on a recent Thursday morning.

The tussle came wore down to a draw, with both panting their way back to their owners, Kamilah Alegre, who takes care of Hercules the Siberian husky, and Lacey Alderman, who cares for Zeus the pitbull and mastiff mix.

The two students bring the dogs to class under a campus program that allows service and emotional support animals to accompany their owners at college and help with disabilities or relieve a variety of stress symptoms, including those related to anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Rachel Mahgerefteh, coordinator of service and emotional support animals in the Office of Disabled Student Services, said there are 18 such animals on campus.

“We’re seeing more doctors and therapists are prescribing therapy dogs as medication,” Mahgerefteh said.

Emotional support animals are allowed on campus on a case-by-case basis. Students must submit a request and supporting documentation that includes verification from a health care authority that the animal has been recommended to help the student. Such animals also are allowed to live in university housing.

An emotional support animal, which has included a guinea pig brought to campus by a student, does not have the same protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the Fair Housing Act includes therapy, emotional support, and comfort animals, campus officials said.

Campus officials said the animals are not required to wear a vest or tag, but such are recommended, as well as students carrying certification or disability verification, to avoid misunderstandings.

Students are responsible for vaccinations and licenses, and for any damage caused by their animals. The campus can remove an animal for unruly behavior. The animals must be on a leash or harness when serving on campus.

Unlike service animals, professors are not required to allow emotional support animals in class, but by all accounts, the professors have been accommodating. Also unlike service animals, emotional support animals do not need specific training.

Alegre, a junior at CSULB, said she recently has had to juggle work with school, and Hercules has helped bring peace in the middle of a hectic schedule, especially as she trained the 7-month-old dog.

“It helped me therapeutically to see what I could do with him,” Alegre said. “It was my way of meditation.”

$90,000 paid by building owner to settle case of evicting owner of emotional support therapy shih tzu dog

Posted on by

A little dog–specifically a Shih Tzu–has cost a building owner $90,000.

A Brooklyn resident was facing an eviction because management in the building claimed the dog violated the building’s no-dog policy. But the family can now keep the pup — and their home— after persuading an administrative judge that the Shih Tzu is a therapy dog who treats depression by providing emotional support.

The judge recommended that the Brooklyn’s Human Rights Commission penalize the building’s property management firm, Prestige Management, with a fine of $90,000 as a penalty for violating the family’s rights under disability laws by attemting to evict the family without seeking to confirm the legitimacy of their therapeutic claim.

This was not only a victory for Carol T., her daughter Cinnamon and their Shih Tzu named Swag, but for all disabled tenants who have emotional support animals. Even though the pup was initially brought into their apartment hidden inside a baby carriage, the animal now provides emotional support and the building manager should have investigated the assertion further before making any rash judgment or decision.

“Providers of housing accommodations are required to give good-faith consideration to a tenant’s request to keep a pet as a companion or emotional support animal, even if the tenant gets the pet first and asks permission later,” the judge ruled last week in this matter.

Reps for Prestige Management pointed out the lack of any written documentation of Cinnamon’s prior mental treatment history, and a five-year gap that was in the mom’s therapy sessions, but this was not sufficient to convince the judge that no violation of disability laws had occurred.

Hat tip to the New York Post: http://nypost.com/2015/03/19/building-owners-hit-with-90k-fine-for-banning-therapy-dog/

Army veteran turned away from grocery store because of service dog

Posted on by

In Las Vegas, NV, a local army veteran claims he was turned away from a grocery store because of his service dog. He says it’s an issue that happens far too often to veterans like him who don’t have visible wounds.

Veteran Jerry Leal is currently going through training with his young border collie, Conor. The dog will be his companion when he needs it most. After three tours overseas, Leal was medically retired and diagnosed with PTSD.

“I was having really bad flashbacks, I was angered, I was forgetful, I was just flustered,” he said.

Leal’s first service dog was a Siberian husky he got as puppy, but the dog became ill and he had to give him up.

“He kept me calm, he listened, he was on command.”

Leal shared many memories with Nico, some good and some bad when visiting public places.

“He goes ‘Hey, you can’t bring an animal.’ I’m like ‘he’s my service animal.'”

Last November, Leal and his family went shopping at a Mariana’s grocery store on Valley view Boulevard and Sahara Avenue. As they were entering the story, they were stopped by security.

“He goes ‘what kind of service ’cause you look fine.’ I’m like, I have PTSB. I’m a combat veteran,'” Leal said.

Nico was not wearing a vest that identified him as a service dog, but federal law does not require that nor does it require an owner to carry documentation.

“I was livid,” Leal said.

He called the organization who helped him get Nico certified and put them on the phone with the store’s manager.

“These businesses have no clue, they don’t, they’re just not educated,” said M.P. Leonard with RWB Dog T.A.G.S., a non-profit group that helps connect veterans with service dogs.

The group convinced Leal to educate the store’s owner, which he did, and was eventually allowed to bring the dog inside.

“Know the rules of having people bringing a service animal in, so there will be no issues,” Lead said.

Mariana’s did not want to do an on-camera interview but did apologize for the incident and released the following statement.

“Marianas supermarkets and its crew never aim to discriminate, deny, or disrespect our customers during situations where service dogs are present at the store.”

Emotional support animals can live in dorms, help students reduce stress

Posted on by

Emotional support animals can live in dorms, help students reduce stress

Walking through the Colorado State University campus, students are likely to run into a dog in a vest. While many people are familiar with trained service dogs, another kind of support animal gets less recognition.

Emotional support animals can provide companionship, relieve loneliness and help with depression, anxiety and phobias, according to a publication from theAmericans with Disabilities Act National Network.

“Regardless of what kind of day you’ve had, dogs are always forgiving and always want to give you love and attention and affection,” said Jasmine Marie, trainer and Denver coordinator for Human Animal Bond in Colorado.

HABIC is a program in the CSU School of Social Work that provides animal assisted activities as well as therapies using volunteers and their dogs. Some of their activities take place in schools, nursing homes and hospitals, according to Marie.

Unlike service and therapy animals, emotional support animals do not require any special training, according to Kathleen Ivy, an accommodation and advocacy specialist in the Resources for Disabled Students Office. Because they are not considered service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act, emotional support animals do not have the same rights as service animals.

“People tend to think of therapy dog, service dog and emotional support dog as the same thing, and they are not,” Ivy said. “It’s three different things, and that’s confusing. They’re not synonyms.”

Because of this distinction, emotional support animals are only allowed to stay in the person’s residence.

On campus, students with physical or emotional disabilities can file for an accommodation with RDS in order to have an emotional support animal live with them in the dorms. This requires verification of the person’s disability as well as the connection between the disability and the animal, according to Ivy. This can come from a professional, such as a psychiatrist, who is able to diagnose.

Once approved, any common domestic animal can live with the student as long as they do not disturb residents on the outside or show any signs of aggression.

“If someone got a dog and the dog was very unhappy about being left in their room and barked all the time, that would be a problem and they could be asked to remove the animal,” Ivy said.

As more people learn about emotional support animals, the number of people using them on campus has increased, according to Ivy.

Students experiencing school-related stress can also benefit from time with animals, according to Marie. There are several programs on campus that allow all students to interact with animals as a way to reduce stress and anxiety, including De-Stress With Dogs, Pet Night and Pups on the Plaza.

Ivy created De-Stress With Dogs after reading about a school in Canada with a similar program. Volunteers, including CSU faculty and staff, bring their dogs to the Lory Student Center and the Durrell Center so students can play with them and relax before final exams. The event takes place every semester on the Wednesday and Thursday before finals week and runs from 6 – 8 p.m. each night.

“Often if (students) are going to miss something from home they’re going to miss their pet,” Ivy said. “So I thought this might be really good for our campus and it turns out everybody really likes it.”

CSU freshman Tyler Greenly attended De-Stress With Dogs last semester, and enjoyed spending the night holding puppies and interacting with other students.

“It was nice to talk to people and see everyone who’s freaking out about finals and stuff,” Greenly said. “I feel like the only thing I disliked was that there were a lot of people for the amount of dogs. So it was kind of crazy, but it was still cool.”

In April, HABIC will bring therapy dogs to campus for Pups on the Plaza as a way to help students reduce stress before summer, according to Marie. Pet Night takes place once a month in the dorms, and also allows students to interact with therapy dogs.

Ivy said it is important to remember that service dogs are working and being used for a specific purpose: providing unconditional love to students with emotional disabilities.

“Everybody needs to have a reason to get up in the morning,” Ivy said. “You can’t just stay in bed depressed if you’ve got a dog that you love that loves you that needs to be fed and walked.”

Collegian Reporter Emily Vavra can be reached at news@collegian.com or on Twitter at @vivalavavra.

SERVICE DOG HELPS TREAT MENTAL ILLNESS

Posted on by

Service dog helps treat mental illness

Emily McConville | Sunday, February 8, 2015

Junior Ellen Chaleff’s dog, a Dachshund/rat terrier mix named Fred, is there when she wakes up in the morning. He’s there, wearing an NYPD coat, when she walks between classes. He’s there when she sits in class, when she eats at the dining hall, when she’s at Ultimate Frisbee practice and when she goes to bed at night.

And if Chaleff has a panic attack, he’s also there, curled up on her lap until it passes.

The first service dog for mental illness on campus, Fred has been at Notre Dame with Chaleff since last Halloween. Chaleff, who began showing symptoms of bipolar disorder in high school, said she found out about him after he was rescued from an abusive home. He already had training as an emotional support dog, making him easier to train further as a service animal. Professionals trained him to help with bipolar disorder, and Chaleff said she did the rest.

Photo courtesy of I am Notre Dame

“I trained him to be in public, to be in a restaurant, to be in a dining hall, to sit in a classroom,” she said.

Disability services coordinator Scott Howland said students requesting accommodation must provide documentation of their disability, and students requesting service animals must say why they need one, though they do not need proof of the animal’s training. He said the process varies from person to person.

“The key factor to any sort of accommodation request, regardless of what it is, is we would want to look at all the variables, look at the case on an individual basis to make the best decision,” he said. “We would never automatically think that a similar request is the same as the first.”

Chaleff said she worked with Notre Dame’s Disability Services to make sure her professors, Notre Dame Food Services and Office of Housing were aware of and accommodating of Fred.

Chaleff and Disability Services also worked with lawyers. Howland said students with service dogs, as with any disability, are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability and the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits denial of housing because of disability.

Service dogs for mental illness are trickier, Howland said, because there is less of a precedent on how to accommodate them.

“The whole issue of service animals and emotional support animals is still somewhat of a new topic on college campuses,” he said. “There’s been recent court cases regarding that, so a lot of schools will look to those court cases — how this issue was resolved between this individual and this college — and use that as a way to guide their own policies or their own procedures.”

Now, with only a few location exceptions, Chaleff said Fred can go anywhere she does. Off campus, she said employees will sometimes be reluctant to let her and Fred into businesses because they don’t believe Fred is a service dog, or people will make assumptions about why Fred is there — such as that Chaleff is blind.

On campus, Chaleff said people take Fred in stride.

“The first few months, a bunch of people ran up to him, but now he’s just out there,” she said.

In class, Chaleff said Fred normally sleeps on a blanket next to her desk. He has also quickly become acclimated to her friends, especially on the Ultimate Frisbee team, she said.

“We were at a game watch of 30 people, and I was concerned about how he would work,” she said. “I might have to drive him home really quick, but he just ran around people, came back to me, walked around, tried to steal someone’s sandwich, then slept on [my friend] Caitlyn’s lap. It’s what happens.”

Since she has only had Fred for a few months, Chaleff said he still has improvements to make.

“His service stuff, he knows how to do,” she said. “He knows how to detect panic attacks and depression, and he can detect that in other people, not just me. [But] he doesn’t know ‘sit.’ He walks into things a lot. He gets himself entangled around tables. It’s great.”

Since getting Fred, Chaleff said her life has improved dramatically.

“I don’t have to skip as many classes; I can go out more and do things,” she said. “I have these periods where I feel like I can’t eat physically, and he won’t eat while I’m doing that. And I feel guilty, so I go to the dining hall, which annoys me, but it does what it’s supposed to do.”

Chaleff said she hopes to raise awareness of the possibility of service dogs for mental illness. In December, she started a blog about her experiences with Fred, and in January, she and Fred were featured on the I Am Notre Dame blog.

“I’m hoping that other people do try out service dogs because I’ve heard a lot of great things about them, and me having him for a few months has helped a lot,” she said. “It’s a responsibility, obviously, but it’s definitely worth the trade-off.”

Justice Department Resolves Lawsuit against Hotel for Discriminating against Veteran with Service Animal

Posted on by

Justice Department Resolves Lawsuit against Hotel for Discriminating against Veteran with Service Animal

The U.S. Department of Justice has reached an agreement to resolve a lawsuit against Sairam Enterprises Inc. LLC, which owns a hotel in Tulsa, OK. The proposed consent decree resolves a 2014 lawsuit in which the department alleges that Sairam Enterprises violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it denied a room to a Veteran with a service animal and his family.

Visit Justice Department Resolves Lawsuit against Hotel for Discriminating against Veteran with Service Animal

Bill sponsored by Senator Bob Gordon and Senator M. Teresa Ruiz that would permit service animals on school buses

Posted on by

Press release:

A bill sponsored by Senator Bob Gordon and Senator M. Teresa Ruiz that would permit service animals on school buses for students with disabilities was approved Thursday by the full Senate.

The bill, S-2601, builds on the existing law that allows a student with a disability to have a service animal in school buildings and on school grounds. This bill would permit a student with a disability to bring a service animal on a school bus.

“The use of service animals for students with disabilities is an important component to their everyday lives,” said Senator Gordon, D-Bergen, Passaic. “This bill would allow children easier access to their service companions, facilitating and enhancing their learning experience alongside their peers.”

“Whether on the bus or in the classroom, these service animals are a fundamental resource for many children with disabilities,” said Senator Ruiz, D-Essex. “Updating our laws to permit these aids on school buses is crucial to getting students to the building each day safely and ensuring a productive and healthy learning environment.”

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a service animal is a trained dog or other animal that assist individuals with physical and mental impairments. This can include visual, hearing, and mobility disabilities as well as mental illnesses such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Several other states including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, and Connecticut have similar laws regarding rights for persons with disabilities to have guide dogs and/or service animals in any mode of transportation and public space including schools, according to the Animal Legal and Historical Center.

The bill was approved by a vote of 36-0. The Assembly approved it 73-0 in November. It now heads to the Governor’s desk.

California laws grant service animals rights, which in some cases can be EXPANDED beyond the rights granted under Federal Law

Posted on by

PENALTIES FOR PREVENTING A GUIDE DOG USER FROM EXERCISING RIGHTS TO ACCESS

CA PENAL CODE SECTION 365.5 [JANUARY 1, 1995]

[a] Any blind person, deaf person, or disabled person, who is a passenger on any common carrier, airplane, motor vehicle, railway train, motorbus, streetcar, boat, or any other public conveyance or mode of transportation operating within this state, shall be entitled to have with him or her a specially trained guide dog, signal dog or service dog.

[b] No blind person, deaf person, or disabled person and his or her specially trained guide dog, signal dog, or service dog shall be denied admittance to accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics and physician’s offices, telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort and other places to which the general public is invited within this state because of the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog.

[c] Any person, firm, association, or corporation, or the agent of any person, firm, association, or corporation, who prevents a disabled person from exercising, or interferes with a disabled person in exercise of, the rights specified in this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500.

[d] As used in this section, “guide dog” means any guide dog or Seeing Eye dog that was trained by a person licensed under Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or that meets the definitional criteria under federal regulations adopted to implement Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336)

[e] As used in this section, “signal dog” means any dog trained to alert a deaf person or a person whose hearing is impaired, to intruders or sounds.

[f] As used in this section, “service dog” means any dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, minimal protection work, rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items.

[g] (I) Nothing in this section is intended to affect any civil remedies available for a violation of this section.

(2) This section is intended to provide equal accessibility for all owners or trainers of animals that are trained as guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs in a manner that is no less than that provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) and the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-435).

[h] The exercise of rights specified in subdivisions [a] and [b] by any person may not be conditioned upon payment of any extra charge, provided the person shall be liable for any probable damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog.

[I] Any trainer or individual with a disability may take dogs in any of the places specified in subdivisions (a) and (b) for the purpose of training the dogs as guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dog. The person shall ensure that the dog is on leash and tagged as a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog by an identification tag issued by the county clerk or animal control department as authorized by Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 30850) of Division 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code. In addition, the person shall be liable for any provable damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog. Leg.H. 1986 ch. 765, 1992 ch. 913, 1993 ch. 1149, 1994 ch. 1257, 1996 ch. 498. Cross-References “Infraction” defined. Penal Code 19.6

PROTECTION OF GUIDE DOG USERS FROM INTERFERENCE

CA PENAL CODE SECTION 365.6 [JANUARY 1, 1994]

[a] Any person who, with no legal justification, intentionally interferes with the use of a guide dog by obstructing or intimidating the guide dog user or his or her guide dog, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine of not less than $1,500 not more than $2,500, or both.

[b] As used in this section, “guide dog” means any guide dog or seeing-eye dog which was trained by a person licensed under Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or as defined in the regulations implementing Title III of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (public Law 101-336), or trained by a school recognized in another state to train guide or seeing-eye dogs.

[c] Nothing in this section is intended to affect any civil remedies available for violation of this section. Leg.H. 1993 ch. 1149.

GUIDE DOG—FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION AS MISDEMEANOR

CA PENAL CODE SECTION 365.7

[a] Any person who, knowingly and fraudulently represents himself or herself, through verbal or written notice, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed as, to be qualified as, or identified as, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 and paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.

[b] As used in this section, “owner” means any person who owns a guide, signal, or service dog, or who is authorized by the owner to use the guide, signal, or service dog. Leg.H 1994 ch.1257.

PROTECTING GUIDE DOGS FROM ATTACK

CA PENAL CODE SECTION 600.2 [JANUARY 1, 1995]

[a] It is unlawful and constitutes an infraction for any person to permit any dog which is owned, harbored, or controlled by him or her to cause injury to or the death of any guide, signal, or service dog, as defined by Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, while the guide, signal or service dog is in discharge of its duties.

[b] In any case in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of this section, the defendant shall be ordered to make restitution to the disabled person who has custody or ownership of the guide, signal or service dog for any veterinary bills and replacement costs of the dog if it is disabled or killed.

PENAL CODE SECTION 600.5

[a] Any person who intentionally causes injury to or the death of any guide, signal, or service dog, as defined by Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, while the dog is in discharge of its duties, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both a fine and imprisonment.

[b] In any case in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of this section, the defendant shall be ordered to make restitution to the disabled person who has custody or ownership of the dog for any veterinary bills and replacement costs of the dog if it is disabled or killed.

BLIND PEDESTRIANS HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY

VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21963 [JANUARY 1, 1994]

A totally or partially blind pedestrian who is carrying a predominantly white cane (with or without a red tip), or using a guide dog, shall have the right-of-way, and the driver of any vehicle approaching this pedestrian, who fails to yield the right-of-way, or to take all reasonably necessary precautions to avoid injury to this blind pedestrian, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, or both. This section shall not preclude prosecution under any other applicable provision of the law.

IT IS NOT LEGAL TO CHARGE A DEPOSIT OR MAKE AN EXTRA CHARGE FOR GUIDE DOGS [JANUARY 1, 1995] [JANUARY 1, 1995]

CIVIL CODE SECTION 54.1 [READS IN PART]:

[b] [1] Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to all housing accommodations offered for rent, lease, or compensation in this state, subject to conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons.

[6] [A] It shall be deemed a denial of equal access to housing accommodations within the meaning of this subdivision for any person, firm, or corporation to refuse to lease or rent housing accommodations to an individual who is blind or visually impaired on the basis that the individual uses the services of a guide dog, an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired on the basis that individual uses the services of a signal dog, or an individual with any other disability to keep a service dog on the premises.

[B] Except in the normal performance of duty as a mobility or signal aid, nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent the owner of a housing accommodation from establishing terms in a lease or rental agreement which reasonably regulate the presence of guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs on the premises of a housing accommodation, nor shall this paragraph be construed to relieve a tenant from any liability otherwise imposed by law for real and personal property damages caused by such a dog when proof of same exists.

CIVIL CODE SECTION 54.3 [READS IN PART]:

[a] Every individual with a disability shall have the right to be accompanied by a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained for the purpose, in any places specified in Section 54.1 without being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog. However, the individual shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog.

[b] Individuals who are blind or otherwise visually impaired and persons licensed to train guide dogs for individuals who are blind or visually impaired pursuant to Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division t of the Business and Professions Code or as defined in regulations implementing Title III of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (public Law 101-336), and individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired and persons authorized to train signal dogs for individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired, and individuals with a disability and persons who are authorized to train dogs for the individuals with a disability may take dogs, for the purpose of training them as guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs in any of the places specified in Section 54.1 without being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog. However, the person shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog. These persons shall ensure the dog is on a leash and tagged as a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog by identification tag issued by the county clerk, animal control department or other agency, as authorized by Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 30850) of Title 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code.

Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to impose limitation to access to any person in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336).

PENALTIES FOR BREAKING THE CIVIL CODES

Section 54.3.[a] Any person or persons, firm or corporation who denies or interferes with admittance to or enjoyment of the public facilities as specified in Sections 54 or 54.1 or otherwise interferes with the rights of an individual with a disability under Sections 54, 54.1 and 54.2 is liable for each offense for the actual damages and any amount as may be determined by a jury, or the court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damages but in no case less than $750, and such attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied any of the rights provided in Sections 54, 54.1, and 54.2. “Interfere,” for the purposes of this section, includes but not limited to, preventing or causing the prevention of a guide, signal, or service dog from carrying out its functions in assisting a disabled person.

[b] The remedies in this section are nonexclusive and are in addition to any other remedy provided by law, including, but not limited to, any action for injunctive or other equitable relief available to the aggrieved party or brought in the name of the people of this state or of the United States.

CIVIL CODE SECTION 52.2 [JANUARY 1, 1999]

This law specifies that the jurisdiction of the small claims court includes actions for damages, not to exceed $5,000, for specified acts of discrimination, boycotting, or blacklisting, or the refusal to buy or sell to a person; for violence, threat of violence, or intimidation based on specific characteristics of a person; for denial of interference with the right of access of a disabled person to specific public accommodations; and related civil rights actions as specified.

Section 52.2 added to the Civil Code reads: An action pursuant to Section 52 or 54.3 may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. A “court of competent jurisdiction” shall include small claims court if the amount of the damages sought in the action does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

PENALTIES FOR ADA VIOLATIONS [READS IN PART]:

GUIDE DOG COVERAGE

Violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may include penal and civil damages, depending on the nature of the complaint. Damages can be as much as $50,000 for the first offense and $100,000 for subsequent offenses.

Under the ADA and its implementing regulations, the right of a blind person to be accompanied by a guide dog in places which serve the public is guaranteed. Section 36.104 of Title 3 specifies that “service animals,” which include guide dogs, are covered by the statute. The right of a blind person to be accompanied by a guide dog is guaranteed and the term “public accommodation” is also defined under this provision.