Federal courts in the Southeastern United States often decide cases that shape how the law treats service animals. This brief looks at the questions courts ask about service animals. It also explains how the courts look at the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to find answers.
The questions in this brief include:
Federal courts in the Southeastern US have established a number of guiding principles. These principles apply both to service dogs and miniature horses. Most importantly, the courts have ruled that in order to be considered a service animal, an animal must receive some type of training to aid a person with a disability. However, there are no set requirements as to amount or type of training an animal must receive, and no type of certification is required.
Federal courts in the Southeastern US mandate that a service animal must be trained to perform a specific disability-related task to be considered a service animal. Describing what a service animal does for its handler is usually not enough. Instead, courts often ask to be shown how the service animal responds to specific cues or triggers.
Additionally, the courts have ruled that in order to qualify as a service animal, the animal must be completely trained to perform specific disability-related tasks. An animal that is still in training cannot be considered a service animal for the purposes of modifications.
For more information on miniature horses as service animals, see our brief on Court Decisions: Anderson v. City of Blue Ash.
Before the ADA was amended in 2008, many federal courts focused on how disabled an individual was when determining whether or not a service animal was legitimate. However, since Congress amended the ADA to broaden the definition of disability, courts are much less demanding in determining what qualifies as a disability, and focus more specifically on the claimed discrimination itself. This relaxed post-2008 standard was demonstrated in 2011 with Alejandro v. Palm Beach State College
(see our brief on Court Decisions: Alejandro v. Palm Beach State College).
Recently and repeatedly, federal courts have confronted issues of service animals in schools. Most importantly, the courts looked at which law applied. Could complaints be brought directly under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA? Or must students and their parents work their way through, or exhaust, all the administrative remedies available in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before they could make a claim under Section 504 and/or the ADA? To answer this question, courts thoroughly evaluated the theory of exhaustion as it relates to service animals and questions of reasonable modification.
Courts broadly rely on the theory of exhaustion under Section 1415 of the IDEA to strictly limit where and how claims can be brought on behalf of students with disabilities. Section 1415 states in part:
Disabled students and their parents must first exhaust their administrative remedies under IDEA before bringing federal claims regarding denial of publicly funded special education under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act or under the ADA.
Essentially, Section 1415 mandates that students with disabilities and their families pursue all means of resolution available to them under the IDEA before initiating legal action under Section 504 or the ADA.
When considering Section 1415 in cases involving students with disabilities and service animals, federal courts make a critical distinction: did the claim of discrimination just happen to take place within a school or does the claim focus on the denial of a free, appropriate, public, education (FAPE) as guaranteed by the IDEA. Most notably, the Supreme Court in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools held that the exhaustion provision is only triggered if FAPE is in question.
In that case, a student and her family filed suit under the ADA after the student was denied effective use of her service animal in school. The Supreme Court ruled that because the issue in question did not directly concern the student’s quality or effectiveness of education services provided, FAPE was not in question and a claim brought under the ADA was therefore valid
(see our brief on Court Decisions: Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools).
Many of the disputes involving service animals in federal circuits revolve around whether individuals are entitled to use emotional support animals in the home (i.e., often apartment complexes or condominiums that do not otherwise allow pets). These cases look at the assistance animal provisions of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA).