|
De Leon v. Vornado Montehiedra Acquisition L.P. |
The defendant in this case sought to dismiss plaintiff’s case, stating that the plaintiff claim did not have proper constitutional standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court denied defendant’s request and held that plaintiff did present sufficient evidence to establish standing under the ADA. In order to establish standing, the plaintiff needed to prove three elements: (1) actual or threatened injury, (2) causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) that a favorable court decision can redress the injury. The court determined that plaintiff did satisfy all three elements by showing that plaintiff’s disabled daughter was not allowed in defendant’s shopping mall with her service dog after the mall security guard was not properly informed of protocol regarding service dogs. Ultimately, the security guard mistakenly believed that the service dog needed documentation in order to enter the mall; however, the dog was properly identified as a certified service dog and should have been allowed into the mall. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Assistance Animal Laws |
This discussion examines the federal service animal provisions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the relevant states. In doing so, states' equal access, criminal interference, and white cane laws are examined in addition to other laws.
|
|
Dilorenzo v. Costco Wholesale Corp. |
Plaintiff is a disabled individual who suffers from a variety of ailments arising after her service in the armed forces. Plaintiff's claims arise from interactions with Costco store employees on two separate shopping trips with her service dog. Store employees inquired as to what task the dog performed and objected to the dog being carried in plaintiff's arms around the store. Plaintiff brings her claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court found that Defendant's employees did not exceed the boundaries of a permissible inquiry under the ADA with regard to her service dog, where they never asked Plaintiff to state her disability or demanded proof of special training.
|
|
Dog-Focused Law's Impact on Disability Rights: Ontario's Pit Bull Legislation as a Case in Point |
Legislation that affects dogs also affects persons with disabilities to some extent. This link shows up in statutory definitions, is justified by social construction theory, and has been reified in case law. Thus, it is important to examine statutes like Ontario’s pit bull legislation (OPBL) in terms of their potential impact on persons with disabilities. Upon close examination, it appears that the legislation suffers from vague definitions, conflicting onus of proof, absence of fair process, and severe penalties, including imprisonment. Further, it contains no reference to dogs used by persons with disabilities. This means that there is potential for persons with disabilities to suffer negative consequences and a need to consider disability rights in dog-focused legislation.
|
|
Dogs in Dorms: How the United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney Illustrates A Coverage Gap Created by the Intersection of Fair Housing and Disability Law |
In United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney, a federal district court was asked to determine whether a university, as a provider of housing for its students, must comply with the standards set out in the Fair Housing Act? Typically, the Fair Housing Act requires that housing providers make reasonable accommodations to no-pets policies for people with disabilities to live with emotional support animals, regardless of the animal's training as a service animal. The federal court, however, held that the Fair Housing Act also requires universities to waive no-pets policies for students with emotional support animals. This article examines the test used to determine the applicability of the Fair Housing Act to dwellings—arguing for a new factor test—and also discusses the current test’s effect on the legal coverage for emotional support animals. |
|
Douglas Furbee, et al. v. Gregory L. Wilson, et. al. |
Shelly Linder lived in an apartment complex with a no-pet policy. Linder asked if she could have an emotional-support animal and provided a letter from a licensed family and marriage therapist, which stated that Linder had a disability and required an emotional-support animal to help alleviate her symptoms. The letter did not identify a specific disability and the landlord subsequently requested more information from Linder. Linder did not provide any additional information and instead brought her cat into her apartment as her emotional-support animal. The landlord charged Linder a fine after discovering the cat on the premises and gave her seven days in which to remove the cat. Linder failed to comply which led to Linder’s eviction. The Indiana Civil Rights Commission filed a complaint against the landlord on behalf of Linder in Delaware Circuit Court alleging that the landlord failed to accommodate her request for an emotional-support animal in turn violating the Indiana Fair Housing Act. The trial court denied summary judgment for the landlord and this appeal followed. The landlord conceded that Linder was disabled and requested a reasonable accommodation, however, the landlord argued that it was not given enough information from which to “meaningfully” review Linder’s request. The Delaware Court of Appeals agreed that the Landlord did not have sufficient information to meaningfully review Linder’s request and because Linder did not inform the Landlord about her disability and her need for the cat, she was acting in bad faith. The Court ultimately reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. |
|
Emotional Assistance Animals in Rental Housing: A How-to Guide |
This article provides some general information on how to seek help when a person needs an emotional support animal to function in daily life and a landlord enforces a "no pets" policy.
|
|
Emotional Support Animals and Waiver of "No Pets" Rules by Landlords |
|
|
Emotional Support Animals Excepted From "No Pets" Lease Provisions Under Federal Law |
Federal statutes provide protection for disabled persons against housing discrimination. These statutes and corresponding case law hold that an emotional support animal is a reasonable accommodation for a mentally disabled person, and if a landlord fails to waive a no pets policy to allow the emotional support animal in rental housing, the landlord is in violation of federal laws.
|
|
England/Wales - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019 |
|
