Service Dog Advocate

Welcome to ServiceDogAdvocate.com, your comprehensive resource dedicated to understanding, advocating for, and navigating life with service dogs.

Join Us and make the community stronger.

Outside Article Appeals Court Warns Against Questioning Service Animals' Status Based On 'suspicions

Abhean

Site Owner
Staff member
Owner
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

051623-cp-web-courtsincommunity12.JPG

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.

110420-dg-election 11.JPG

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.

 
While I am glad for the ruling, it least in Colorado it should make it harder for universities to make it harder for service dog teams to enter public access areas and classrooms, but, some real questionable things are going on with what I read in the article and the court case.

The director of campus recreation alerted the administration that Ruger was "clearly not trained"
This should be expanded on. What was the dog doing? Was it "not under control"?

Ruger's "vest even says therapy as opposed to service."
Most, if not all true service dog teams know the difference. Bad move on the handler. BUT, the vest is not a requirement, so really has no standing in my opinion.

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.
Some stuff to unpack here. Again, any service dog handler should know the difference between a service dog and an emotional service animal. Makes one start thinking not all is legitimate.
  • Paid for an online ID badge? Oh goodness! WHY? Again kind of moving away from believability.
  • Self-training is legitimate, but the handler/trainer should have some sort of receipts. I preach about that over and over. It could even be from friends and family testing that he/she did train the dog.
  • Universities are under Title 2, not Title 1 so are limited in what they can ask for where the ADA is concerned, but things like training logs, certs, and the like can be required in a courtroom to establish the legitimacy of the team.

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.
Spot on! Proof of training can not be asked for by the university (Title 2 ADA). But if they can show the dog was rarely "under control" they could deny the team access. Or, if the state has a "fake service dog law" on the books (which they do HB16-1426 (effective January 2017)) they could take the team to court and then deny the team from that angle.

"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."
Two Months? As an owner-trainer, I call Bull Stuff! Two years is the typical time frame. Why did the university put up some qualified service dog trainers to debunk this 2-month training time? Or at least a "show and tell" with the team?

You can download the case file -> Stalder v. Colorado
 
Back
Top