A Different Animal
Perhaps the greatest area of confusion and even controversy regarding persons with disabilities and the animals that assist them, concerns the differences between “service animals” and “companion animals.” The ADA has provisions for only the former, the Fair Housing Amendments Act will allow either type in specific circumstances. Last fall, The Chronicle of Higher Education examined the sometimes difficult distinctions between the two laws as they pertain to this issue. In its October 13, 2006 issue, Kelly Field reported on the struggles of Sarah B. Sevick and her ferret, Lilly, which Ms. Sevick considers to be a service animal. The story highlights the ongoing struggle that many still encounter when trying to understand the various laws.
The Chronicle feature reports that Ms. Sevick considers her ferret to be no less legitimate than a guide dog even though the support Lilly provides is emotional, rather than physical. Ms. Sevick believes that this distinction should not change her status under the law.
Ms. Sevick has been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Ms. Field reports that Ms. Sevick was surprised when administrators at Our Lady of the Lake University in Texas told her she could not bring Lilly to the campus because the ferret did not qualify as a service animal. She was convinced the college was wrong and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice in August, 2005, asking that the administrators’ decision be overturned. The response, received in December of last year, stated that staff had reviewed her case and decided not to take any action.
After the complaint was filed, college officials declined to comment, citing respect for Ms. Sevick’s privacy, but a spokeswoman said the college was “following the law” in how it describes a service animal. The ADA defines a service animal as “any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.”
Ms. Field quotes Susan A. Schleicher, Chief Communications Officer for the university, as saying, “If we have an animal that has been prescribed as part of a treatment plan and trained in accordance with the law, then we will make every accommodation we can.”
The Chronicle of Higher Education article illustrates that the battle between Sarah Sevick and Our Lady of the Lake University is not unusual. Across the country, a growing number of students are seeking permission to bring “psychiatric service” animals into college classrooms and dormitories. The students say the animals, which range from cats and dogs to snakes, rats, and even tarantulas, help them cope with the stress of college life. Many colleges are grappling with how to distinguish a student with a true need from one who simply does not want to be separated from his or her beloved pet.
The Chronicle reports that many colleges fear that if they allow one ferret, it will only be a matter of time before their campuses become petting zoos.
Jane E. Jarrow, president of Disability Access Information and Support, an organization that helps colleges meet disability standards, told The Chronicle, “The single biggest concern on the part of institutions would be setting a precedent. They worry that if they say yes to this one, they won’t be able to say no to the next one.”
A Different Animal: Unusual Requests
Ms. Field reports that while most colleges say they know how to handle requests for traditional service animals, such as service dogs for those with physical disabilities and guide dogs for the blind, the idea of service animals for the mentally ill is so new that even disability advocates have not yet settled on what to call them. Some advocates label them “companion animals” or “comfort animals,” others refer to them as “emotional-support animals.”
Joan G. Esnayra, a geneticist who has bipolar disorder, spoke to Ms. Field at The Chronicle and said she prefers to call them “psychiatric service” animals, so as to distinguish the benefits they provide from the kind of emotional support everybody gets from their pets. She said she chose the word psychiatric over psychologic, to emphasize the severity of the handlers’ psychiatric conditions.
Ms. Esnayra is the founder and president of the Psychiatric Service Dog Society. She maintains that psychiatric service animals can “do work” for their owners, as the ADA stipulates and may be trained to perform actual tasks for them, but notes that often the assistance is a passive function. It is these “passive” functions that are potentially in conflict with the ADA’s definition of service animal.
Ms. Esnayra told The Chronicle that she believes that animals need not perform tasks to qualify under the ADA. She argues that the interactions between a handler and animal can be “intrinsically therapeutic.”
That position has put her in conflict with a coalition of traditional service-dog users: the Coalition of Assistance Dog Organizations (CADO) points out that the U.S. Department of Justice clearly interprets service animal as one that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. CADO says this task training is “the litmus test of legitimacy.” Without it, the animal does not meet the definition of service animal and therefore the owner does not have rights under the ADA to bring them into places of public accommodation. The Chronicle reports that CADO also says the legal definition of “service animal” has been misunderstood or deliberately exploited by pet owners and protection-dog trainers, and the group has urged the Department of Justice to revise its ADA regulations to explicitly exclude animals that provide only “comfort, protection, or personal defense.” The proposed definition would also replace the phrase “do work or perform tasks” with “perform physical tasks.”
Sheila Styron, a spokeswoman for CADO and president of Guide Dog Users, Inc., told The Chronicle that her group is trying to fortify the law against abuses that threaten to undermine public tolerance of service animals. Ms. Styron, who is blind and works with a guide dog, added that she was recently questioned at an airport after another passenger attempted to pass off a bowl of goldfish as service animals.
“People with disabilities have worked long and hard to gain their public-access rights, and they get upset when they feel that people are cheapening the progress that they have made,” she told Ms. Field.
Courts Create Confusion
The Chronicle reports that with only one exception, the courts have backed Ms. Styron’s interpretation of the law, ruling that the ADA and the Fair Housing Amendments Act – which prohibits discrimination in housing – apply to animals that perform tasks, not to those that provide comfort and companionship only.
However, The Chronicle reports that administrative judges at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development have said that an animal does not have to perform tasks or be trained, either professionally or by the person with a disability, or be certified by any association, under the Fair Housing Amendments Act. In a landmark case, decided in 1994, the judge ordered an apartment complex to waive its no-pets rule for a woman with depression:
“In effect, the dog gives...the same freedom that a wheelchair provides a physically disabled person,” the judge wrote. The Chronicle article reports that those conflicting rulings have created confusion for colleges, which are subject to the ADA campus wide and the Fair Housing Amendments Act in their residence halls. This means that under the Fair Housing Amendments Act colleges are required to allow companion or emotional support animals in the dormitories of resident students with disabilities, unless doing so would cause an undue financial or administrative burden, or fundamentally alter the nature of the housing.
J. Aaron McCullough, a legal expert with the Disability Law Resource Project, which provides training and technical assistance on complying with the ADA, counsels colleges to rely on the law’s definition of service animal, which “thoroughly precludes coverage” for animals that provide comfort only.
“A companion animal is just a euphemism for a pet,” he says.
But Ms. Jarrow, the disability consultant, told Ms. Field at The Chronicle that she reminds colleges that the ADA “sets a floor, not a ceiling.” Just because colleges are not required to accommodate emotional support animal in the classroom, does not mean they are prohibited from doing so.
“The fear of opening the floodgates should not keep you from making an accommodation under reasonable circumstances,” she said, urging administrators to consider requests on a case-by-case basis. The Chronicle reports that experts suggest colleges consider whether the animal was prescribed by a psychologist, and whether it performs tasks and really does alleviate the effects of the impairment,” as required by the ADA. They urge universities to develop policies that clearly differentiate between service animals and emotional-support animals.
Source: To read the original article, go to The Chronicle of Higher Education (www.chronicle.com) (registration required).
Sidebar: New Hampshire’s Service Dog Community
The Dog Guide Users of New Hampshire is a support group with a strong purpose. Its members offer mutual support and assistance with canine issues to fellow service animal users, as well as those who are interested in the care, handling, and/or raising of Guide or Service Dogs for independent living. Dog Guide Users of New Hampshire promotes the use of Service Dogs for the disabled through peer support, advocacy, education, and public awareness. They also work to improve the laws that affect service dogs and their handlers.
Lunch meetings (“dutch treat”) are held quarterly (January, April, July, and October) from 1:00 to 3:30 p.m. at the Red Blazer Restaurant in Concord, New Hampshire.
Next quarterly meeting:
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Red Blazer Restaurant
72 Manchester Street
Concord, NH 03301
Time: 1:00 – 3:30 p.m.
For more info go to: New Hampshire's Service Dog Community (www.dogguideusersnh.org)
Puppy Raisers always welcome!
