[nagdu] Article: U.S. Sues Firm for Barring Disabled Client's Service Dog

Fri Nov 11 20:19:23 UTC 2011

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 7:14 AM
Subject: Article: U.S. Sues Firm for Barring Disabled Client's Service Dog
U.S. Sues Firm for Barring Disabled Client's Service Dog
Brendan Pierson
New York Law Journal
11-09-2011
The Southern District U.S. Attorney has sued an Orange County law firm for 
allegedly discriminating against the disabled by refusing to allow a client 
to enter its offices with her service dog.
The suit ( See Complaint ) alleges that Larkin, Axelrod, Ingrassia & 
Tetenbaum and partner John Ingrassia violated Title III of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act when they refused to let a client, Lauren Klejmont, 
enter the office with Reicha, her German shepherd.
Title III prohibits providers of public accommodations, including law firms, 
from discriminating against disabled customers. Under Title III, businesses 
that do not allow pets must make an exception for service animals.
"The notion that a law firm and a partner in the firm would so flagrantly 
violate such a clear and well-established law, as was alleged in this case, 
is disturbing," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in
a statement.
"Of all people, lawyers should know better. Individuals with disabilities 
are entitled to the same access to private businesses as everyone else, and 
it should be understood loud and clear that we will not tolerate 
discriminatory conduct."
According to the complaint in United States v. Larkin Axelrod, 11-cv-08003, 
filed yesterday in federal court in White Plains, Ms. Klejmont suffers from 
seizures and problems with balance and memory as a result of a spine and 
head injury. She has limited motor function and uses a cane and leg brace.
She also has Reicha, who picks up and carries things for her, detects her 
seizures and helps her stand up when she falls, according to the complaint.
Ms. Klejmont hired Larkin Axelrod in 2007 to represent her in a personal 
injury suit. In January 2009, she went to the firm's Newburgh office to meet 
with her attorneys, Mr. Ingrassia and another lawyer, Gerald J. Marino, who 
has since left the firm.
The lawyers met her in the waiting room, but refused to let her inside with 
Reicha and asked her to leave the dog outside, according to the suit.
Ms. Klejmont explained that she needed the dog because of her disability, 
but the lawyers continued to insist that she could not bring the dog inside, 
saying that Mr. Ingrassia was allergic to dogs.
They also rejected her suggestion to hold the meeting in a conference room 
instead of in Mr. Ingrassia's office, the complaint said.
After the encounter, Ms. Klejmont sent the firm a letter complaining of her 
treatment.
Mr. Ingrassia wrote back that he had not known that Ms. Klejmont had a 
service dog when he scheduled the meeting and could not have the dog in his 
office because of his allergies. He said he would arrange to hold future 
meetings in a different room.
Despite that promise,  two letters from Mr. Marino in January 2010 show that 
the firm allegedly continued not to accommodate Ms. Klejmont's disability.
Mr. Marino said he would meet with
Ms. Klejmont only if she did not bring Reicha, or if they met in the firm's 
parking lot and Reicha stayed in Ms. Klejmont's car during the meeting, 
according to the complaint.
Mr. Bharara is asking for an injunction requiring Larkin Axelrod to 
accommodate Ms. Klejmont's dog and other service animals, monetary damages 
to compensate Ms. Klejmont for the discrimination she experienced and a 
civil penalty.
A spokesman for the law firm said it was reviewing the complaint and 
declined to comment.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Byars represents the government. The case 
has been assigned to Southern District Judge Vincent Bricceti.
 @|Brendan Pierson can be contacted at
bpierson at alm.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2011. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Here is the follow-up article that appeared in today's paper:
New York Law Journal
ALM Properties, Inc.
Page printed from:
New York Law Journal
Firm Denies Discrimination Against Service Dog Owner
Brendan Pierson
New York Law Journal
11-10-2011
An attorney with Larkin, Axelrod, Ingrassia & Tetenbaum, an Orange County 
law firm that was sued for refusing to allow a client to bring her service 
dog into its office, has said that it did not intend to discriminate against 
the client and that one of its employees acted against firm policy in 
refusing to allow the dog inside.
The lawsuit, Klejmont v. Larkin Axelrod Ingrassia & Tetenbaum, 11-cv-08003, 
was filed in the federal court in White Plains on Tuesday by the Southern 
District U.S. Attorney on behalf of Lauren Klejmont, who retained the firm 
to represent her in a personal injury action  (NYLJ, Nov. 9).
It also names one of the firm's partners, John Ingrassia, as a defendant.
The suit alleges that Mr. Ingrassia and Gerald J. Marino, a partner who left 
the firm earlier this year, repeatedly refused to allow Ms. Klejmont to 
bring her dog into the office, in violation of Title III of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, despite Mr. Ingrassia's written promise that the dog, 
a German shepherd named Reicha, would be accommodated.
Ms. Klejmont claimed in her suit that she was told that Reicha was not 
permitted in Mr. Ingrassia's office because of his allergies, but the lawyer 
said he would arrange to hold future meetings in a different room.
James Burke, a lawyer at Larkin Axelrod, said that the firm's policy was to 
accommodate disabilities, as shown by Mr. Ingrassia's written promise.
"The subsequent refusal by an employee of the firm to meet with Ms. Klejmont 
and her dog in our office was in contravention of the firm's stated policy, 
was motivated by the employee's personal dog phobia, and is not properly 
attributable to the firm," he said in a statement.
Mr. Burke said that after the matter was called to the firm's attention, Ms. 
Klejmont "was invited to bring her dog to a meeting in the firm's office.
She unfortunately declined to accept the offer. While the firm regrets that 
its efforts to repair the relationship with Ms. Klejmont were unsuccessful, 
it acted in good faith to protect and preserve her legal rights."
Mr. Burke declined in an interview to say which employee had the dog phobia.
The firm has 20 days from the filing of the suit to file an answer.
@|Brendan Pierson can be contacted at
bpierson at alm.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2011. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserve