The Court of Appeals reinstated a former Colorado Mesa University student's disability discrimination lawsuit, which alleges the school denied his service dog access and asked for further information about the dog's training
Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Ted C. Tow III asks a question to Assistant Attorney General Jaycey DeHoyos, not pictured, during oral arguments in the second of two Colorado Court of Appeals cases being held in the library of Conifer Senior High School as part of the Courts in the Community educational outreach program on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, in Conifer, Colo. (Timothy Hurst/Denver Gazette)
Timothy Hurst/Denver Gazette
Colorado's second-highest court on Thursday warned that public entities may not ask a disabled person to provide more information about their service animal than what federal regulations allow, regardless of whether they harbor "legitimate suspicions" about the animal's status.
A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals determined it was a "close call" whether Dustin Stalder, a former Colorado Mesa University student, had demonstrated a jury could deem his dog a service animal. Ultimately, the panel reinstated Stalder's disability discrimination lawsuit after agreeing his testimony about training the dog himself could provide sufficient proof.
At the same time, the panel rejected a line of argument from the university that public entities may ask for proof of a service animal's training when they have legitimate suspicions. Although some federal courts endorsed that practice in the past, Judge Ted C. Tow III explained recent regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act have taken such inquiries off the table.
"We agree with Stalder that the legitimate suspicions doctrine is inconsistent with the ADA regulations," he wrote in the March 28 opinion. "By its terms, this regulation permits public entities to make only two specific inquiries: Is the animal required because of a disability and what task is the animal trained to perform?"
The lawsuit comes amid increasing efforts to crack down on pets whose status under the ADA appears questionable. Texas recently enacted a law imposing fines of up to $1,000 for people who knowingly misrepresent a pet as a service animal. Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Transportation clarified emotional support animals are not recognized as service animals on airlines.
Stalder was enrolled at Colorado Mesa University between 2019 and 2022 after serving in the military. In November 2020, his parents bought him a dog, Ruger, for emotional support.
Stalder brought Ruger with him to the campus gym multiple times in February 2021. The director of campus recreation alerted the administration that Ruger was "clearly not trained" as a service dog based on his behavior, and Ruger's "vest even says therapy as opposed to service."
Bob Lang, the director of advocacy and health, emailed Stalder to alert him of the university's service animal policy and reminded him that only service dogs were allowed in campus buildings. Stalder was initially confused about the difference between a service animal and an emotional support animal, but his lawyers later asserted that Ruger "was a fully trained service dog as of January 2021."
After speaking with Lang, Stalder went online and paid $200 for a service dog identification badge for Ruger. He then represented to various school officials that Ruger was trained to provide services related to his disability. Stalder eventually testified that he trained Ruger himself.
Lang and Stalder had a contentious meeting on Feb. 22, after which Lang emailed Stalder asking that he show "proof that your dog has been trained," or else Ruger would no longer be allowed in campus buildings. Four months later, Stalder filed suit, alleging violations of the ADA and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
Last year, Mesa County District Court Judge Matthew D. Barrett resolved the case in favor of Colorado Mesa University after determining Stalder failed to show he was excluded from the school's activities or services because of his disability. Specifically, Stalder had not proven Ruger was a service dog.
"Plaintiff's own testimony is that he did internet research, watched 'some random' videos, spent an unknown amount of time training Ruger, and then declared Ruger 'set' after two months of ownership," Barrett wrote. "At most, Ruger is an emotional support animal who provides comfort to Plaintiff during triggering events. Such is not a service animal under the ADA."
Barrett added that Lang had "legitimate suspicions" about Ruger's status.
"This makes Defendants' queries for additional information about Ruger's training, over the course of a handful of weeks, warranted," he wrote.
Kahleesi the service dog was on hand to vote with his handler Matthew Koucky on Election Day in Denver on Tuesday, Nov. 3. 2020. (Photo by Jerilee Bennett, The Gazette)
JERILEE BENNETT THE GAZETTE
Stalder appealed, maintaining Ruger was, in fact, trained by February 2021 and university officials had no right to ask for proof. The university cited a handful of court cases from other jurisdictions that concluded inquiries about a service dog's status are appropriate as long as they do not harass the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals panel rejected those cases from other jurisdictions, noting they arose before the issuance of new ADA regulations prohibiting additional questioning. Tow, in the panel's opinion, explained owners are permitted to train their pets to be service animals — and there was some evidence suggesting Stalder provided such training.
"While it is a close call, we conclude that Stalder's deposition testimony about Ruger's training and what tasks Ruger could perform is sufficient to demonstrate a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Ruger was a service animal in February 2021," he wrote.
The case is Stalder v. Colorado Mesa University et al.
www.coloradopolitics.com
- Michael Karlik michael.karlik@coloradopolitics.com
- Mar 28, 2024 Updated 14 hrs ago
Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Ted C. Tow III asks a question to Assistant Attorney General Jaycey DeHoyos, not pictured, during oral arguments in the second of two Colorado Court of Appeals cases being held in the library of Conifer Senior High School as part of the Courts in the Community educational outreach program on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, in Conifer, Colo. (Timothy Hurst/Denver Gazette)
Timothy Hurst/Denver Gazette
Colorado's second-highest court on Thursday warned that public entities may not ask a disabled person to provide more information about their service animal than what federal regulations allow, regardless of whether they harbor "legitimate suspicions" about the animal's status.
A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals determined it was a "close call" whether Dustin Stalder, a former Colorado Mesa University student, had demonstrated a jury could deem his dog a service animal. Ultimately, the panel reinstated Stalder's disability discrimination lawsuit after agreeing his testimony about training the dog himself could provide sufficient proof.
At the same time, the panel rejected a line of argument from the university that public entities may ask for proof of a service animal's training when they have legitimate suspicions. Although some federal courts endorsed that practice in the past, Judge Ted C. Tow III explained recent regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act have taken such inquiries off the table.
"We agree with Stalder that the legitimate suspicions doctrine is inconsistent with the ADA regulations," he wrote in the March 28 opinion. "By its terms, this regulation permits public entities to make only two specific inquiries: Is the animal required because of a disability and what task is the animal trained to perform?"
The lawsuit comes amid increasing efforts to crack down on pets whose status under the ADA appears questionable. Texas recently enacted a law imposing fines of up to $1,000 for people who knowingly misrepresent a pet as a service animal. Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Transportation clarified emotional support animals are not recognized as service animals on airlines.
Stalder was enrolled at Colorado Mesa University between 2019 and 2022 after serving in the military. In November 2020, his parents bought him a dog, Ruger, for emotional support.
Stalder brought Ruger with him to the campus gym multiple times in February 2021. The director of campus recreation alerted the administration that Ruger was "clearly not trained" as a service dog based on his behavior, and Ruger's "vest even says therapy as opposed to service."
Bob Lang, the director of advocacy and health, emailed Stalder to alert him of the university's service animal policy and reminded him that only service dogs were allowed in campus buildings. Stalder was initially confused about the difference between a service animal and an emotional support animal, but his lawyers later asserted that Ruger "was a fully trained service dog as of January 2021."
After speaking with Lang, Stalder went online and paid $200 for a service dog identification badge for Ruger. He then represented to various school officials that Ruger was trained to provide services related to his disability. Stalder eventually testified that he trained Ruger himself.
Lang and Stalder had a contentious meeting on Feb. 22, after which Lang emailed Stalder asking that he show "proof that your dog has been trained," or else Ruger would no longer be allowed in campus buildings. Four months later, Stalder filed suit, alleging violations of the ADA and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
Last year, Mesa County District Court Judge Matthew D. Barrett resolved the case in favor of Colorado Mesa University after determining Stalder failed to show he was excluded from the school's activities or services because of his disability. Specifically, Stalder had not proven Ruger was a service dog.
"Plaintiff's own testimony is that he did internet research, watched 'some random' videos, spent an unknown amount of time training Ruger, and then declared Ruger 'set' after two months of ownership," Barrett wrote. "At most, Ruger is an emotional support animal who provides comfort to Plaintiff during triggering events. Such is not a service animal under the ADA."
Barrett added that Lang had "legitimate suspicions" about Ruger's status.
"This makes Defendants' queries for additional information about Ruger's training, over the course of a handful of weeks, warranted," he wrote.
Kahleesi the service dog was on hand to vote with his handler Matthew Koucky on Election Day in Denver on Tuesday, Nov. 3. 2020. (Photo by Jerilee Bennett, The Gazette)
JERILEE BENNETT THE GAZETTE
Stalder appealed, maintaining Ruger was, in fact, trained by February 2021 and university officials had no right to ask for proof. The university cited a handful of court cases from other jurisdictions that concluded inquiries about a service dog's status are appropriate as long as they do not harass the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals panel rejected those cases from other jurisdictions, noting they arose before the issuance of new ADA regulations prohibiting additional questioning. Tow, in the panel's opinion, explained owners are permitted to train their pets to be service animals — and there was some evidence suggesting Stalder provided such training.
"While it is a close call, we conclude that Stalder's deposition testimony about Ruger's training and what tasks Ruger could perform is sufficient to demonstrate a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Ruger was a service animal in February 2021," he wrote.
The case is Stalder v. Colorado Mesa University et al.
Appeals court warns against questioning service animals' status based on 'suspicions'
Colorado's second-highest court on Thursday warned that public entities may not ask a disabled person to provide more information about their service animal than what federal regulations allow, regardless of
