• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Understanding the ADA

The Blog of William D. Goren, J.D. LL.M.

  • Home
  • About William D. Goren, J.D., LL.M.
  • Contact
  • Log In

Psychiatric disabilities

Service dogs and the Department of Justice regulations: can they be challenge successfully?

May 28, 2013 by William Goren 6 Comments

In a comment to the service dog v. therapy dog blog entry, I promised that I would follow-up with an exploration of whether the Department of Justice regulations with respect to service dogs and how they differ from therapy dogs and the corresponding difference in treatment with respect to the ADA, would survive a challenge under either the administrative procedure act or the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This blog discusses that.

It is very difficult for a regulation that has gone through proper rulemaking to be thrown out by the courts. For a regulation that has gone through proper rulemaking to be thrown out by the courts, that regulation must be found to be arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). Manifestly contrary to the statute is the easier term, but what does it mean for a regulation to be arbitrary and capricious? An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency relies on factors that Congress did not intend for it to consider, offers an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, fails to consider an important aspect of the problem, or is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a difference in view of or the product of agency expertise. Air Transport Association of America, Inc. v. National Mediation Board, 719 F. Supp. 2d 26, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Does the Department of Justice meet this burden? They probably did. Whenever a final regulation comes into place, the agency is required to do a section by section analysis in response to public comments. As can be expected, the Department of Justice received extensive comments with respect to service dog v. therapy dogs. These comments were so extensive that the Department of Justice literally spends over 7 pages discussing the particular rules pertaining to service dogs, the comments submitted, and why the Department of Justice decided to do what it did. See e.g. Appendix a to Part 35-Guidance to Revision to ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services at discussion of “service animal.” In the end, the Department of Justice says that it wants to make sure that any such dog is working (recognition and response), rather than providing comfort, and so long as that is the case, it doesn’t matter what the disability is. Id.

The harder question is whether such a distinction is contrary to the statutory intent of the ADA. As we know from a discussion of Olmstead, the ADA requires that people with disabilities be integrated into the community. Is the Department of Justice through this regulation violating that intent. In order to show that, the plaintiff would have to show that the choice the Department of Justice made in insisting that a dog engage in recognition and response rather than just comfort is a choice that Congress would not have sanctioned. Chevron 467 U.S. at 845. If that choice was a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies committed to the agency’s care by statute, then the court will not disturb it. Id. Which one is it? Recognition and response v. comfort certainly seems like a reasonable distinction. However, that distinction may be narrower than it seems. For example, a person with anxiety may need just some kind of a cue so as to redirect themselves. Would simply looking at the dog do the trick or would the dog need to do something, however subtle, to redirect the person? That may depend upon the person. That “however subtle,” would that be enough to meet the recognition and response language of the Department of Justice? If not, an argument might be able to be made that the regulations is contrary to statutory intent because it is not allowing for the service animal to perform cognitive behavior therapy techniques (anything whatsoever that can be done that redirects the person so the attack doesn’t continue). In short, it is hard to believe that the Department of Justice regulation could be considered arbitrary and capricious considering their extensive response to all the comments that were sent into it, and considering the recognition and response standard that it came up with, which seems on its face to be reasonable. That said, there is a concern about whether the standard is not broad enough so as to allow for cognitive behavior therapy techniques (that name sounds a little bit scary, but it is really quite simple. For example, it may be as simple as when a person recognizes an attack is coming on, that they do breathing exercises or react to a visual cue from someone else or an animal).

What about the equal protection clause? The problem there is that we never know what category of equal protection jurisprudence persons with disabilities fall into. With respect to employment, per Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett , they fall into the rational basis class. With respect to accessing the courts, persons with disabilities fall into the intermediate scrutiny class or higher. We also know per Tennessee v. Lane, that the classification of persons with disabilities with respect to equal protection jurisprudence depends entirely upon the facts. What class would persons with disabilities fall into with respect to a Department of Justice regulation. If persons with disabilities would fall into the rational basis class, then the regulation would stand as the regulation is most probably a rational way to carry out the ADA. If persons with disabilities fall into the intermediate scrutiny class, then the Department of Justice would have to show that the regulation is based upon very good reasons. Could they show that? It’s possible they could, though the narrowness of the definition of recognition and response with respect to persons with psychiatric disabilities may be an issue. If the person with disabilities for these purposes was in the highest class, suspect class, then the Department of Justice would have to show a compelling reason for its definition. While it would be unlikely to Department of Justice could meet such a standard, it would also seem to be unlikely that persons with disabilities would fall into a suspect class for purposes of the Department of Justice regulations. With respect to deciding the class that persons with disabilities would fall into, it would be very helpful to know just what is the history of the federal government with respect to discriminating against persons with disabilities. We know from Tennessee v. Lane that there is an extensive history of the State’s discriminating against persons with disabilities. However, since this is a federal regulation, we would need to know what is the history of the federal government with respect to discriminating against persons with disabilities before we could begin to decide what equal protection class persons with disabilities would fall into with respect to this fact pattern. If the person with a disability could show that the Department of Justice regulation involves any of: basic constitutional guarantees, basic rights, class of cases implicating judicial services, or fundamental rights- Tennessee v. Lane 541 U.S. 509, 522, 524, 529, 531, 534 (2004)-, then the Department of Justice regulations would be much easier to challenge.

So, how can we break this down? With respect to the Department of Justice regulations, it’s hard to believe that the regulation could be considered arbitrary and capricious considering how the case law defines that phrase. It is possible that you could argue that the regulation goes beyond statutory intent since it seems to involve a distinction that may unduly restrict certain techniques oftentimes used by people with psychiatric/mental disabilities to deal with the situation, of which a service dog/comfort dog may play a critical role in. With respect to the equal protection clause, we need to figure out just what class persons with disabilities would fall into under this fact pattern. Unlike any other class of people, persons with disabilities equal protection class that they fall into depends entirely upon the facts. Id. at 530. In determining that, it would be very helpful to know just what is the history of the federal government with respect to discriminating against persons with disabilities. Then, we would also have to consider whether the regulation encompasses basic constitutional guarantees, basic rights, class of cases implicating judicial services, or fundamental rights. It would seem that for the Department of Justice regulation to fail under an equal protection clause analysis, the court would have to be convinced that persons with disabilities in the situation fall into a class of people higher than rational basis. For the reasons discussed above, even then, it still may be difficult to be successful in an equal protection challenge if people with disabilities were found to be in the intermediate scrutiny class, and it is hard to believe that in this scenario, people with disabilities would be found to be in the suspect class.

In short, a challenge to this regulation under the administrative procedure act is going to be really tough. The best approach is going to be to try to show that the service dog regulation is not consistent with the ADA’s statutory intent. With respect to the equal protection clause, due to the thoroughness of the response to comments from the Department of Justice, any equal protection challenge is going to be extremely difficult.

Finally, please note that this blog entry deals with title II and title III of the ADA strictly. The title I regulations, which are the obligation of the EEOC and not the Department of Justice, have not taken this approach with respect to service dogs and comfort dogs.

Filed Under: Federal Cases, Final Federal Regulations, Rehabilitation Act, Title II, Title III Tagged With: 14th amendment, 28 C.F.R. § 35.136, 28 C.F.R. § 36.104, administrative procedure act, Air Transport Association of America v. National Mediation Board, anxiety, Chevron, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, constitutional law, Department of Justice, Department of Justice regulations, Equal protection class, equal protection clause, mental disabilities, Psychiatric disabilities, regulations, Service animal, Service dogs, Tennessee v. Lane, therapy dog, United States Constitution

Primary Sidebar

Search

Subscribe to Blog

NOW AVAILABLE

Understanding the ADA 4th Edition

ABA JOURNAL WEB 100

2014-2018: 5 Consecutive Years!

2017 & 2016 FEEDSPOT TOP 100 LEGAL BLOG

Recent Posts

  • Failure to Accommodate, Direct Evidence, and Adverse Action December 10, 2019
  • Intent to Return December 3, 2019
  • Hostile Work Environment Issues and Demotion as a Reasonable Accommodation November 18, 2019
  • Interactive Process Framework November 11, 2019

ADA Legal Resources

  • Department of Justice ADA Web Site
  • Disability Discrimination, EEOC Info
  • DuPage County bar Journal, The Brief
  • Job Accommodation Network
  • Midwest Center for the Law and Deaf
  • National Association of Attorneys with Disabilities (NAAD)
  • Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act

Articles

  • ABA legal technology resource center roundtable discussion of fixed fees
  • ADA and Mediation/Arbitration: Things to Think About
  • Affirmative-action and persons with disabilities
  • Americans with Disabilities Act Claims: Is a Mixed Motive Jury Instruction Dead?
  • An ADA Checklist as You Go About Your Practice
  • Disability compliance for higher education interview on why colleges and universities should perform ADA compliance audits
  • Expect huge impact from DOJ regulations implementing Titles II and III of ADAAA
  • Help your institution avoid some common mistakes when dismissing students with disabilities
  • Internet addiction, ADA, and employment
  • Internet and Title III of the ADA
  • Is Your University or College's Homepage Accessible to Prospective Students with Visual Impairments?
  • Legal Liability of Buying or Developing Inaccessible Technology
  • Reassignment and the ADA: Is It a Matter of Right and How Do You Prove It up?
  • Service dogs and the ADA
  • Should Your Law Firm's Internet Site Be Accessible to the Persons with Disabilities
  • The Americans with Disabilities Act and Employment
  • The Ins and Outs of Nevada’s Service Animal Laws
  • The Legal Universe of Internet Accessibility and What You Can Do about It
  • What is the statute of limitations for ADA claims

Blogroll

  • architectural accessibility
  • disability law blogspot
  • FMLA Insights Blog
  • labor and employment law blog (management)
  • Lawffice Space Blog
  • management employment law blog (California based firm)
  • Ohio Employment lawyer blog (Jonathan Hyman-management)
  • PLAINTIFF California labor and employment law blog
  • plaintiff employment law blog
  • Robin Shea's employment and labor law insider blog (management-Constangy, Brooks & Prophete)
  • Second Circuit civil rights cases
  • state sovereign immunity in Scotus blog
  • The blog for Supreme Court goings on
  • The employer handbook blog
  • Title III and Fair Housing Act Blog (defense)
  • Title III and II ADA blog
  • Title III blog business side (Seyfarth Shaw)
  • Wheelchairs On Planes: Why Can't Passengers Use Their Own Onboard?
  • Workplace safety and health law blog

Greatest Hits

  • ADA and ADA Related Cases at the Supreme Court: Where They Have Been and What Is Next
  • ADA and the Applicable Statute of Limitations
  • ADA compliance auditing for higher education
  • ADA Compliance Is a Nondelegable Duty
  • Are public colleges and public universities immune from suit as a result of sovereign immunity in ADA matters
  • Can You Get Compensatory and Punitive Damages When Alleging Retaliation
  • Just When Does the Statute of Limitations BEGIN to Run in ADA Cases
  • Service dog v. Emotional support animal
  • Suing state court system for title II violations
  • Temporary disabilities and the ADA
  • What do you have to show to get compensatory damages under title II of the ADA
  • What does it mean to exhaust administrative remedies under title I of the ADA?
  • Why a recent US Supreme Court opinion is a huge victory for title I plaintiffs (mixed motive)

In the Media

  • ABA Blawg 100 2014
  • ADA and ADR
  • ADA Game Changer: CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC
  • ADA Litigation Game Changer
  • Auer Deference blog entry in SCOTUS blog
  • Blog entry discussing oral argument in Bostock, Zarda, and Stephens referenced in SCOTUS blog
  • Blog entry on Impact of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar on the ADA
  • Blog entry on Judge Gorsuch on Disability Rights Linked to by SCOTUS Blog
  • Blog entry on Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco
  • CBS money watch article discussing website accessibility litigation.
  • CRST Van Epedited blog entry referenced in over lawyered
  • Death Penalty and Intellectual Disabilities Supreme Court Opinion
  • Disability compliance for higher education interview on why colleges and universities should perform ADA compliance audits
  • Does title IIof the ADA/§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applied to employment
  • E-bay's Inaccessibility to the Deaf
  • EEOC affirmative action per § 501 blog entry referenced in March 2016 employment Law blog carnival
  • Employment Law Blog Carnival November 2015
  • Expert Interview Series: ADA Consultant William Goren on What You Need to Know About ADA Compliance
  • February 2016 employment Law blog carnival
  • Finding creative solutions within the law
  • Fisher II blog entry referenced in Scotus Blog
  • Fry oral argument blog entry referenced in Scotus Blog
  • Guest Post on Illinois Business Litigator Blog regarding My Burden of Proof When Dealing with Remediation Blog Entry
  • How Fry playing out blog entry referenced by Scotus blog
  • How the legal industry lets down lawyers with disabilities
  • Illinois business litigator blog featuring my blog entry discussing whether a corporation has a retaliation cause of action under the ADA
  • Impact of Abercrombie and Fitch Decision on the ADA
  • Interstate sovereign immunity in SCOTUS blog
  • Is the Texas House violating the ADA by refusing CART
  • June 2015 ABA Journal article on attorneys with disabilities and the preconceptions they face
  • Law practice today members spotlight
  • legal issues of buying inaccessible technologies article posted to the ABA green room
  • Legal pad radio show interview first run Wednesday, February 12 at 7:30am.; Re-airs at Saturday, February 15 at 3:30pm and Monday, February 17 at 9am
  • Legal pad radio show interview first run Wednesday, January 29 at 7:30am.; Re-airs at Saturday, February 1 at 3:30pm and Monday, February 3 at 9am
  • Legal pad radio show interview first run Wednesday, October 23rd at 7:30am.; Re-airs at Saturday, October 26th at 3:30pm and Monday, October 28th at 9am
  • Let's Talk About Arbitration blog entry and other entries featured on the Illinois business litigator blog
  • MH issues and the State Bar
  • Oral Argument in Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco
  • PBS News Hour piece discussing accessibility of amusement parks for persons with disabilities
  • Reflections on the development of disability as a diversity concern in the legal profession
  • SCOTUS blog references Blog entry discussing the impact of South Dakota v. Wayfair on Internet accessibility litigation
  • SCOTUS blog references Endrew oral argument blog entry
  • SCOTUS Blog references Fry decided blog entry
  • SCOTUS Blog referencing blog entry that Reviews Supreme Court cases and the upcoming Supreme Court cases vis a vis the ADA/disability rights
  • Sevorson decision analyzed
  • Sheehan decision
  • Supreme Court on Auer Deference blog entry in SCOTUS blog
  • The Physics (and Economics, and Politics) of Wheelchairs on Planes
  • Trimble v. Kroger
  • Voyage Atlanta Profile
  • What's wrong with this job description blog entry featured in December 2015 employment Law blog carnival
  • Wheelchairs On Planes: Why Can't Passengers Use Their Own Onboard?
  • Wheelchairs On Planes: Why Can't Passengers Use Their Own Onboard?
  • Wheelchairs On Planes: Why Can't Passengers Use Their Own Onboard?
  • When to grant more leave after FMLA is exhausted
  • Why ADA is a Good Law

Presentations of interest

  • ADA “Accessible” Websites: What Attorneys Need to Know
  • ADA Hot Issues: Essential Function, Attendance, and Reassignment
  • ADA Hot Issues: Pregnancy, Reassignment, and Legal Issues of Buying Inaccessible Technology
  • Don’t Let The ADA Bite Your Law Firm – Complying With the ADA Instead of Becoming a Target
  • Hot issues in title I and in title II of the ADA
  • Let's Count the Ways the ADA Impacts Your Law Practice
  • Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act, Fourth Edition – Hot Off the Press – A Brown Bag Series

Footer

Powered by WordPress and the Utility Pro theme for Genesis Framework.