[nagdu] Article: Lawsuit raises questions about therapy dogs at colleges

[Steven Johnson]

Based on some of the recent conversation, this article is somewhat gamely.

 

Steve

 

 

The following article is forwarded to you by the Great Lakes ADA Center
(www.adagreatlakes.org) for your information:

Inside Higher Education

December 13, 2011

 

Lawsuit raises questions about therapy dogs at colleges


By Allie Grasgreen


 


A federal lawsuit against the University of Nebraska at Kearney, which
denied the request of a student with a psychological disability to keep a
therapy dog in her university-owned apartment off campus, could signal a
shift in how institutions will be expected to handle such accommodations in
the future.

At issue are Kearney's decision and the process by which it was reached. The
lawsuit says the university asks too much of students with psychological or
emotional disabilities.

 

Colleges have up to this point operated under the Americans with
Disabilities Act when considering requests for service animals, which
perform tasks for their owners and can be essential for blind or deaf
students. But the new ADA amendments that became active in March don't
recognize or define "therapy animals" that may be used for emotional support
-- a potentially confounding omission for Kearney and other institutions.

 

Kearney, in the Department of Justice's opinion, clearly should have
deferred to the rules of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the office that brought the initial charges under the Fair Housing Act.
Those rules, which regulate basic apartment complexes irrespective of
whether they house students, define therapy animals as any used as treatment
for a diagnosed condition, and say facilities that ban pets can't prohibit
reasonable requests for service or therapy animals.

 

Kearney, like most colleges, prohibits animals in university-owned housing,
and has no written policy specifically addressing service animals living
with disabled students. But under Kearney's ADA Policies for Service
Animals, therapy animals don't even qualify -- only dogs trained and
certified as service animals do.

 

Brittany Hamilton, the Kearney student at the center of the litigation, was
taking prescribed medication for anxiety and depression that caused sleeping
and breathing problems. The registered nurse who prescribed the dog said it
could help by giving Hamilton a sense of stability, building her confidence
and distracting her from anxiety, according to the lawsuit.

 

Hamilton's parents told administrators that they trained the dog, Butch, to
place his paws on Hamilton's shoulders to calm her down when he sensed a
forthcoming anxiety attack. But, the lawsuit notes, administrators said
Butch would only be allowed if Hamilton's doctor reported the dog was
trained and certified as a service animal "as defined" by the ADA. Yet that
definition explicitly states, "Dogs whose sole function is to provide
comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the
ADA."

 

Kearney denied Hamilton's request each time it was made "based solely on
[its] refusal to accommodate emotional assistance animals in university
housing," the lawsuit says.

 

But Kearney's "Psychological Documentation Guidelines," which it uses to
"validate" an impairment, its impact and the need for accommodations, goes
beyond those basic inquiries. Among other things, the lawsuit says, it
requires: information regarding the student's treatment and prescribed
medications, including a list of dosages and schedules for intake; the date
of the student's last visit with the doctor and a schedule of regular
visits; a list of any other doctors providing treatment; "a clinical summary
which indicates the substantial life activities impaired by the disability,
'describes the extent to which these limitations would impact the academic
or living environment in a postsecondary setting,' and 'provides clear
evidence that the student's symptoms are present in two or more settings' ";
and an explanation of how the student's limitations affect "the activities
that are required in an academic environment."

 

Despite Hamilton's three accommodation requests submitted to the university
over a four-month period, her producing medical documentation of her
conditions and Butch's role in mitigating their effects, and her invitation
for officials to contact her doctors and counselors, administrators
repeatedly denied her requests, the lawsuit says. Hamilton had also, as
requested, visited the university-recommended counseling services, and her
mother submitted one request specifically noting the Fair Housing Act. But
Kearney said the university was not bound by the statute.

 

Ada Meloy, general counsel for the American Council on Education, said HUD
is "overreaching" into the academic sphere with its action against Kearney.

 

"Student housing is part of the educational purpose and mission of the
universities. It's not the same as your basic apartment complex," Meloy
said. "I think that the higher education community will be watching how this
particular case might play out, and then decide whether indeed it seems that
they need to conform not only to the ADA but also to the HUD regulations.
And colleges and universities in general already have a very established way
of dealing with students with disabilities, and I don't think that many
colleges or universities would think they need additional regulation in this
area."

 

With issues like maintenance, allergies, cleanliness and student interaction
in the mix, it's not hard to imagine why officials might hesitate when faced
with these requests. The lawsuit noted one Kearney administrator e-mailed
another regarding the accommodation, saying it should be turned down
because, "This is not a service animal but rather a pet.. Unless this animal
can be classified as a service animal, we are opening a big can of worms. In
essence, anyone can have their doctor say they are anxious and need to have
their dog, cat, snake, or monkey, etc."

 

Not only did Kearney administrators consider the dog a pet, the lawsuit
says, they considered the implications for future requests if Hamilton's
were to be granted -- a practice that experts say is not acceptable.

 

"I understand the concern, but it is never legitimate to make an
accommodation decision based on what other people will try to do," said L.
Scott Lissner, ADA coordinator at Ohio State University and president-elect
of the Association on Higher Education and Disability. "In terms of
determining your accommodation, the other 10 million people in the universe
are irrelevant."

 

"I don't think anybody wants to reasonably claim that [a] therapeutic dog,"
Lissner said, "is really a service animal. It's not performing the kind of
service that Justice has defined as a service animal. But that doesn't mean
that it isn't a helpful accommodation for me to be able to reasonably
benefit from a residential environment."

 

Kearney wasn't wrong in asking for evidence that the therapy dog was
necessary, Lissner said. But under new ADA amendments and regulations, they
asked too much -- which, other than the university's denying the request, is
a key charge in the lawsuit. Lissner and other experts said colleges should
essentially limit their inquiry to two questions: Do you have a diagnosed
condition, and has your therapy animal historically been necessary for you
to deal with that condition? (Documentation from a licensed physician,
would, of course, be required as well.)

 

But Kearney's "Psychological Documentation Guidelines," which it uses to
"validate" an impairment, its impact and the need for accommodations, goes
beyond those basic inquiries. Among other things, the lawsuit says, it
requires: information regarding the student's treatment and prescribed
medications, including a list of dosages and schedules for intake; the date
of the student's last visit with the doctor and a schedule of regular
visits; a list of any other doctors providing treatment; "a clinical summary
which indicates the substantial life activities impaired by the disability,
'describes the extent to which these limitations would impact the academic
or living environment in a postsecondary setting,' and 'provides clear
evidence that the student's symptoms are present in two or more settings'";
and an explanation of how the student's limitations affect '"the activities
that are required in an academic environment."'

 

A Kearney spokesman declined to comment, but the university has said it will
contest the lawsuit.

 

Jane E. Jarrow, a consultant in disabilities and higher education and former
AHEAD executive director, said the Kearney lawsuit has caused further
confusion about the already perplexing topic of companion animals on
campuses. Campus officials are "pretty much experts" when operating under
the ADA, she said. But the Fair Housing Act? Not so much.

 

"I think that the colleges need to really consider long and hard whether
they ought to be saying no if the student has made a good case for why it's
important," Jarrow said. "They still have the right to evaluate and say no,
but they shouldn't say no out of hand. And by all reports, that's what
happened at UN Kearney."

 

Jarrow and others said these requests are starting to come up more often,
but that doesn't mean they're all legitimate. For example, Jarrow remembered
one case in which a student with an anxiety disorder, which was diagnosed in
February of that year, said she needed her therapy animal living with her.
But the dog was six years old -- turns out, it was an old family pet, not
prescribed specifically for emotional support.

 

While therapy animal requests are still relatively uncommon, Jarrow said,
when they do arise, they're generally not approved because students do want
to bring animals other than dogs into campus housing.

 

"You hear these weird stories about everything from ferrets to tarantulas to
cats," she said. Colleges have traditionally required significant reasoning
from a student who wants to bring in an emotional support animal, and that
likely won't change if colleges are going to be subject to the Fair Housing
Act because that legislation does not require institutions to approve just
any request. "This was a student who pretty clearly needed to have that dog,
because when she didn't have the dog she had to leave school.. It's really
going to come down to, how severe is the need, how significant is the need?
They ended up saying no to a student who really needed it."

 

In light of the lawsuit, Steve Waller, director of residential life at
Louisiana State University and chair of the Public Policy Advisory Committee
of the Association of College and University Housing Officers International,
created a white paper on government regulations on therapy animals in campus
housing. ACUHO-I just last week created a task force to identify best
practices and procedures for colleges seeking guidance. Waller said the
Kearney lawsuit has prompted some institutions to come forward looking for
advice on an issue that's become more prevalent in recent years. (Still, LSU
hasn't received a therapy animal request in the 10 years he's worked there,
Waller said.)

 

"I think that the sense is that we'll see more and more animals showing up
on campuses, and that may be an unsupported fear," Jarrow said. "Whether or
not it will truly open the floodgates remains to be seen. My guess is not."

 

Source:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/13/lawsuit-over-therapy-dog-raise
s-questions-about-university-housing#ixzz1gR419NYK