- Emergency Consultation Services
- FMG BlogLine
- Who We Are
- Our People
- What We Do
- Why We Are Different
- What’s New
- Where We Are
By: Barry Brownstein
The Third Circuit has revived a lawsuit by the parents of an epileptic girl who claim a Pennsylvania school discriminated against her by barring her service dog.
In 2014, Traci and Joseph Berardelli sued the Allied Services Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, which operates a school with a specialized program for dyslexic students, after it barred their daughter from bringing her service dog to school to help alert staff to her epileptic seizures. The school claimed the dog would be a distraction, and the Berardelli’s daughter missed many school days when her seizures were bad. When the school finally permitted the service dog to accompany her, the reprieve did not last long, as school officials required that it wear a “special therapeutic shirt designed to decrease allergens” that caused the dog to overheat. The parents’ lawsuit alleged that the school violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and a Pennsylvania discrimination law.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the ADA and state discrimination claims, ruling that they improperly sought damages.
On appeal, Traci and Joseph Berardelli argued that “reasonable modifications” required under the ADA are substantively the same as “reasonable accommodations” provided for in the Rehabilitation Act, and thus, service animal requirements in the ADA apply to both laws.
The Third Circuit ruled that the district court erred in its instructions to the jury about the Rehabilitation Act claim and improperly disallowed testimony about ADA service animal regulations because that was not the law being considered. In its enforcement of the ADA, the Department of Justice has ruled that service animals are reasonably permitted to be used by disabled persons in public places as long as they are housebroken, not out of control, and pose no risk to the public.
The Third Circuit ruled that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its progeny the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 must be interpreted the same way with respect to reasonable accommodations that must be provided to those with disabilities, including the use of service animals. Thus, under the Rehabilitation Act just as under the ADA, a covered actor ordinarily must accommodate the use of service animals by individuals with disabilities. The Third Circuit also overturned dismissal of the claim made under Pennsylvania discrimination law, ruling that the district court erred because that law does permit damages as a remedy.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Barry Brownstein at [email protected].