The issue for the Supreme Court is indeed the technical exhaustion issue. There is another federal statute in addition to the ADA, called the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). That statute says that if you're suing on the same rights you have under that statute (even if, as here, you're suing under the ADA), you have to exhaust. Exhaustion means that you have to try to exercise the rights that statute gives you in the way it says: here, that is an administrative procedure in the state system to try to show the need for the dog. The girl didn't try that administrative procedure and instead sued directly under the ADA.

The school district moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff didn't exhaust. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss the court of appeal affirmed, so the case is currently dismissed. The supreme court, though, granted review.

The issue for the Supreme Court is whether the relief the plaintiff sought under the ADA is the same as she could have gotten under the IDEA. If the relief is the same, then she should have exhausted under IDEA and the dismissal will get affirmed. The crux of the issue really is that she sued for damages. Damages are available under the ADA, but not the IDEA. The school district is arguing that what she's really seeking is relief for the school's failure to let her dog into the classroom, and that relief would be available under the IDEA -- and therefore they're the same.

Fundamentally, this is a very technical administrative law issue that stems from the fact that we have two federal statutes that overlap to some extent. The reason the Court took the case is that there's a circuit split on the issue: the Ninth Circuit (out west) held that a similar plaintiff didn't need to exhaust; in this case, the Sixth Circuit (upper midwest) said the plaintiff did. That sort of disagreement in the courts of appeal is a commonplace reason for the supreme court to take a case, which is what I think is going on here.

Practically speaking, keeping the exhaustion requirement in place will reduce the number of ADA suits out there. Conservatives will say that's a good thing. Liberals will say it's bad because it hurts the rights of those with disabilities.

I myself don't have strong feelings about a case like this. On these facts, the school district already had a full-time human assistant to help this girl, and gave the dog a trial. That seems like it should be enough; it's not clear to me what the dog really adds, and the school needs some leeway to run the school as it sees fit. On the other hand, the plaintiff argues that the school district put a stack of restrictions on the dog (such as making it stay in the back of classrooms rather than next to the plaintiff) and never really gave the dog a chance. School districts can be massively inflexible and annoying bureaucracies, so I'm pretty sympathetic to the plaintiff here as well.

Anyway, this is pretty deep into law-geek territory. There's some more complexity to the arguments, but that's the basic idea. The underlying right of a disabled child to have a service dog in school really isn't at issue.

golfnutt:

complaint in mccombs is linked below. I haven't read it:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...-Envoy-Air.pdf

Shakedown.

She will lose at a trial. That is why the lawyer is trying it in the media.

There was no violations of her ADA rights. The ADA agrees with the Airlines.

PTSD dog handlers agree! They may not like it, but you know what, they follow the law and will work to change it. Not by bringing their service dogs to the gate with no notice or documentation and cursing people out for "discrimination" and demanding to be boarded immediately.

How is this person above a law that is clear-cut and followed by thousands of people everyday with hosts of government and private agencies agreeing?

***http://www.psychdogpartners.org/reso...questions/laws
How can I fly with a psychiatric service dog?

When flying, you are no longer covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Instead you are covered under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). Various laws affect access in airports, but generally the ADA regulations apply there.

If a passenger is traveling with a service dog exclusively for a psychiatric disability, the passenger can be required to provide a detailed letter stating the handler has a disability and needs the assistance of the animal during the flight or at their destination. Such a letter can also be required of passengers traveling with emotional support animals, which are different (see above).

Passengers with service dogs that are not exclusively used to mitigate a psychiatric disability can fly without any documentation.* This discrimination is something PSDP is working to fix!***

Seems like the Supreme Court does make rulings that will provide consistency with future rulings and limit appeals. They definitely don't want to be inundated with lawsuits (Appeals or Supreme Court).

Getting a case to the Supreme Court takes years and incredible luck. Tons of great cases, but it is lottery which ones they even want to hear. They are under no obligation to hear cases. They can just go with lower court ruling. And I believe they do a secret vote to see if a case is worth it. There must be enough disagreement internally that they believe it would help society to have a clear ruling.

I don't understand how even people with seeing-eye dogs cannot be required to show documentation. Why doesn't everyone with a pet dog just show up and pretend they're blind? Could one really get away with doing that? All they can do is ask what the dog does, so all you have to do is lie about it, and no one will ever know??

I'm told that years ago, people had things that would prevent them from doing (or even suggesting) the above. Those things are pride, shame, and accountability. I think this thread (including your post) shows that those things are extinct, so criminal statutes or an exclusion policy from the airlines would be the only protection against the above.

It started with only seeing-eye dogs however many years ago. It would be a great hassle for blind people to be asked for proof every time they went into a store.

Then emotional support animals started coming and the ADA wanted ESAs to be distinct and not afforded the same rights as dogs that perform physical tasks.

The psychiatric animal industry started growing and they attached themselves to the ADA. There are a lot of ADA folks who don't think a physical task dog and a psychiatric dog are equivalent in status. It has been an uneasy alliance as many view psychiatric animals and emotional support animals as much more closer in need and usage.

Now, with the explosion of ESAs and psychiatric dogs in just 5 years, there has been a lot of confusion of what constitutes a "service" dog. And people have made it worse by buying vests and saying their dog is a service dog and registered.

There also is no test (like a driver's license) to qualify if your dog is capable of being a psychiatric dog. Self-reported. Get a medical professional to attest you have PTSD, buy a dog, train it however you want, and then you covered by the ADA.

For airlines, the ADA and the FAA have unequivocally agreed for years there is no difference between a psychiatric animal and ESA. Ruling after ruling after ruling.

What is more "interesting" is that even though ESAs are not covered by the ADA, the latitude of animals that are allowed for housing and airlines are far broader. Psychiatric animals are generally limited to dogs and miniature horses. ESAs can be anything that can be "reasonably accommodated". Cats, dogs, ducks, pigs, turkeys, etc.

Some airlines specifically prohibit barnyard critters though.

The explosion in all of this is obviously just a dodge for people to get into housing that doesn't allow pets, and hotels without paying an extra fee. There are websites where you pay a fee, get psychiatrically examined online, and poof, get your letter.

Airlines, because they are governed under the Air Carrier Access Act and not the ADA, are entitled to use their own discretion to determine what is "reasonably accommodated". That is why there is no uniformity.

JetBlue for example: ***Unusual animals (i.e. snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents and spiders) pose unavoidable safety and/or public health concerns and will not be allowed on JetBlue flights, even as a Service or Emotional Support Animals***

Now, because of 'animal discrimination' lawsuits, airlines over the last few years have been making more and more accommodations. Five years ago, they never would have allowed an emotional support duck. Today, they have no choice.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...apists-dilemma

**She informed the woman that according to United Airlines policy, travelers who request free air travel for emotional support animals are required to provide a letter from a mental health professional testifying that they need the animal to alleviate a recognized psychiatric disorder. Further, she needed to have notified the airline 48 hours in advance of the flight.***

In the air, ESAs = psychiatric dogs.

And if the airlines rule out ESAs in the future, these people will just convert their animals to psychiatric animals and claim that their dog performs a specific duty that alleviates whatever mental conditions. All self-reported. There is zero proof required, testing, or registration. There is no breed restrictions. You don't have to buy your dog from any place.

I sure hope that being horny never qualifies as a "mental condition."

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/1...otional-animal

***Panel deadlocks on changes to 'emotional support animal' allowances for airplanes***

*A federal advisory committee has reached a stalemate in its review of rules that allow animals, ranging from dogs and ducks to pigs and snakes, to fly for free inside an airplane's cabin — so long as a medical or mental health professional has designated the creature an emotional support animal, or “ESA,” for an owner suffering from a widely recognized disability.*

http://www.theday.com/nationworld/20...rican-airports

Pet relief areas being installed at all major American airports

***Thanks to a decision made by the United States Department of Transportation, airports serving more than 10,000 passengers each year must offer at least one pet relief area in the post-security portion of each terminal.

According to NBCNews.com, the legislation means there will be more than 800 post-security animal relief areas across the United States, which will cost the Department of Transportation an estimated $88 million over the next 20 years.***

Speaking of which, did you see Shaun Deeb with the dog at the WSOP final table? Dunno if it was Deeb's or Josephy's, but I never knew either one of them were so emotionally unstable that they needed an ESA. He used to be a stock analyst, so one would think he didn't have such problems.

$88 million for a secure place for animals to take a ****.

I'll never get this argument. Unless you are only outside or going to the pet shop or something, bringing your dog indoors indicates you are disabled or you are an ******* trying to sneak a pet into an area where animals should not be. Bringing a dog into an airport terminal is not inconspicuous. Bringing a dog into a bank is not inconspicuous. Bringing a dog into a supermarket is not inconspicuous.

They are wearing a scarlet letter just by having this animal around.

It seems like a vest has little significance. Unless the government decides to get involved and issue tamper-proof vests with real registration numbers. Which will never happen because disabled groups will counter that is invasion of privacy and the government should not be keeping national databases on disabled people.

Both a psychiatric animal and an ESA require a medical professional's note. It is the exact same note with either psychiatric or ESA wording. It is just the medical professional's opinion. They have no idea if the person is gaming with either note or adhering to the rules. They don't follow their patients outside the office. For a psychiatric animal, there are no requirements for attesting that an animal can perform specific tasks. The medical professional just believes that certain tasks may assist the patient. Even the medical director of a PTSD research institute says there are no definitive studies that have determined if the "skills" of an animal actually assist with helping PTSD. All ancedotal.

The problem is if you walk into a business, the owner/workers have no clue if an animal is a "service" animal or an ESA. If they ask the psychiatric animal owner for any papers, that is illegal and a discrimination lawsuit. They can ask a person is it a "service" animal? If an ESA owner answers yes because they do believe those dogs are of "service", you are very limited in follow-up questions or asking for documentation. That is why the vast majority of businesses treat both as one and the same. Not worth it. And as we saw with the woman on the plane, some will certainly sue. There is very little that is worth a lawsuit, whether you win or lose.

It is not that a patient "needs" an ESA. It is just one medical professional's opinion that an ESA may alleviate some symptom that is doctor-patient specific protected. Generally, the patient may be suffering from anxiety, fatigue, stress or minor depression and a licensed medical professional believes an ESA may assist. The medical professional doesn't determine when and how, although if someone was suffering anxiety, it would be logical for them to encourage patients to experiment in anxious situations. Just like sleep meds are probably used best before sleep.

I am sure the WSOP is stressful and there is a lot of anxiety. It does not definitively mean that anyone is "emotionally unstable". It is a professional's opinion that a dog, miniature horse, cat, may mitigate a condition. It is up to the patient to use the ESA appropriately, hopefully to better or at least alleviate the medical condition that they are suffering and not just as "bring my dog to a poker." Just like you shouldn't take prescribed medication to a party. Both situations unethical and potentially illegal.

Sounds like a lot of psychobabble to me. Neither Deeb or Josephy looked like they had much anxiety considering how much they were laughing and smiling.

I hope Trump fixes this ridiculous situation.

A "service dog" bit one of my employees. Person lied about it being a "service dog". He doesn't even have papers for an ESA. Employee filed Worker's Compensation claim.

How does this "we are only allowed to ask" work when people clearly lie? Is this considered a criminal case?

You tell us. You're clearly the person itt who is most knowledgeable on the topic.

(If that sounds snarky, it's not meant to be. I'm serious: you seem to be better informed on this than anyone I know.)

I deal more with ESAs. Legitimate ESAs.

Sounds like it is a misdemeanor offense. I doubt they prosecute anyone.

California Penal Code section 365.7:

365.7. (a) Any person who knowingly and fraudulently represents himself or herself, through verbal or written notice, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed as, to be qualified as, or identified as, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 and paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) As used in this section, "owner" means any person who owns a guide, signal, or service dog, or who is authorized by the owner to use the guide, signal, or service dog.

I'm speculating wildly here, but my guess is that there's going to be a LOT more interest in prosecuting someone who made this fraudulent representation when it resulted in injury as opposed to a situation where the representation was harmless / flew under the radar. You should file a police report immediately.

The dog bite did not pierce the skin. It definitely bruised her leg and caused irritations.

The dog owner is blaming the employee for opening up the door to quickly and startling the dog.

I don't know if I am allowed to file the police report or the employee. Will look into it. He deserves some penalty. Definitely going to try to make him pay the worker's comp bill.