by Gary Taylor
Anderson v. City of Blue Ash
Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 14 2015
[Note: This is a lengthy case, but it is a good review of issues with “unusual” service animals that occasionally arise. Today’s post is on ADA. Next post will be on FHAA]
Ingrid Anderson’s minor daughter (initials C.A.) suffers from a number of disabilities that affect her ability to walk and balance independently. She keeps a miniature horse at her house as a service animal. The horse enables C.A. to play and get exercise in her backyard without assistance from an adult.
Since acquiring the horse in 2010 the Andersons and the city of Blue Ash, Ohio have had continual disagreements about allowing the horse on the property. In 2013 the city passed an ordinance banning horses from residential property, then criminally prosecuted Anderson for violating it. Anderson’s defense was that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) both entitle her to keep the horse at her house as a service animal. The Hamilton County Municipal Court found Anderson guilty of the criminal complaint. Andersons brought their own action federal district court on ADA and FHAA claims, but the district court granted summary judgment for the city finding that the claims were barred by the determination of the issues (res judicata) in Anderson’s criminal conviction in municipal court. Andersons appealed. After reversing the district court’s conclusion on the res judicata claim (for various reasons beyond the interest of most readers of this blog) the 6th Circuit went on to consider the specifics of the Andersons’ ADA and FHAA claims.
ADA – Miniature horses as service animals. The ADA prohibits entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities by, including other actions, “failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities….” The regulations governing miniature horses allow them for use as service animals if the horse “has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability,” provided that the horse and the requested modification also satisfy certain “assessment factors.” The assessment factors to be considered are:
- the type, size, weight of the horse, and whether the facility can accommodate these features;
- whether the handler has sufficient control of the horse;
- whether the horse is housebroken; and
- whether the horse’s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.”
The ADA thus requires a highly fact-specific inquiry, and decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. After lengthy discussion of each of these factors, the 6th Circuit concluded that the district court had not sufficiently developed the factual record concerning the Anderson’s situation, and thus summary judgment for the city was inappropriate.
ADA – Intentional discrimination. The Andersons also raised an intentional discrimination claim under the ADA. For such a claim to succeed the Andersons need to have proven that:
- C.A. has a disability;
- she is otherwise qualified; and
- she was being … subjected to discrimination because of her disability.
Courts have interpreted this to mean that “animus against the protected group was a significant factor in the position taken by the municipal decision-makers themselves or by those to whom the decision-makers were knowingly responsive.” Further, it must be shown that the discrimination was “intentionally directed toward him or her in particular.”
After examining the evidence the 6th Circuit concluded that the intentional discrimination claim failed because the Andersons could not prove factor #3. The city’s actions were brought about by citizen’s complaints of the unsanitary conditions caused by animal waste in the Andersons’ backyard. The city council decided not to take action on these complaints until the Andersons acquired a second horse and neighbors made additional health complaints. The sequence of events was consistent with the city responding to legitimate concerns of its citizens, and provided no basis for an inference that the city’s actions were “because of C.A.’s disability.”
