Download the PDF at the button near the top right.
The City also seeks to compel an evaluation of Plaintiff's current service dog or dogs.(Dkt. No. 26 at 9.)
The City asserts "the dog that plaintiff asserts was his service animal in 2019 has been replaced by another." (Dkt. No. 26 at 10.) There appears to be uncertainty about which, if any, of Plaintiff's current service dogs would be used as part of any reasonable accommodation for his disability.
The City argues federal case law supports their position that Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing his dogs were service animals to prevail on his claims that he was discriminated against based on his disability. (Id. at 10-11.) The City seeks to have their expert, Shannon Walker, evaluate Plaintiff's service dogs because "[o]therwise, the trier of fact will be limiting [sic] to hearing plaintiff's testimony on what, if anything, the dogs have been trained to do, without any meaningful ability to discern whether this is factually true." (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff, in response, asserts that the City had an opportunity to inquire as to the training of Plaintiff's service dog during the parties' conversations regarding Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation request in 2019 and failed to do so. (Dkt. No. 31 at 4.) Plaintiff also argues that if the City believes Plaintiff is misrepresenting his service dog's training, they can contact an enforcement officer as provided by Washington law. (Id. at 5.)
The City also seeks to compel an evaluation of Plaintiff's current service dog or dogs.(Dkt. No. 26 at 9.)
The City asserts "the dog that plaintiff asserts was his service animal in 2019 has been replaced by another." (Dkt. No. 26 at 10.) There appears to be uncertainty about which, if any, of Plaintiff's current service dogs would be used as part of any reasonable accommodation for his disability.
The City argues federal case law supports their position that Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing his dogs were service animals to prevail on his claims that he was discriminated against based on his disability. (Id. at 10-11.) The City seeks to have their expert, Shannon Walker, evaluate Plaintiff's service dogs because "[o]therwise, the trier of fact will be limiting [sic] to hearing plaintiff's testimony on what, if anything, the dogs have been trained to do, without any meaningful ability to discern whether this is factually true." (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff, in response, asserts that the City had an opportunity to inquire as to the training of Plaintiff's service dog during the parties' conversations regarding Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation request in 2019 and failed to do so. (Dkt. No. 31 at 4.) Plaintiff also argues that if the City believes Plaintiff is misrepresenting his service dog's training, they can contact an enforcement officer as provided by Washington law. (Id. at 5.)
