The case is Sak v. City of Aurelia, et. al.[1], decided in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The plaintiff, James Sak is a retired police officer who suffered a stroke and is permanently confined to a wheelchair. Mr. Sak has a service dog named “Snickers” which is a pit-bull mix breed who was specifically trained to assist Mr. Sak with his disability. Snickers generally assists Mr. Sak in everyday activities of daily living, such as assisting him with his wheelchair and stopping tremors that Mr. Sak suffers by laying on Mr. Sak’s affected areas when the tremors begin.
In late 2011, Mr. Sak and his wife moved to Aurelia, Iowa which has a local law prohibiting the keeping of pit-bull breeds. After a series of hearings the city has ordered that Snickers be banished from city limits.
The city argues that their enforcement of the local law with respect to Mr. Sak is non-discriminatory in that Mr. Sak could obtain another service animal which is not a pit-bull breed to meet his needs.
The decision which imposes the preliminary injunction is a lengthy and worthwhile 36 pages for anyone involved in ADA litigation involving a service animal. In sum, the court held that due to the language of a recent Attorney General regulation codified at 28 CFR §35.136, which requires public entities to accommodate a disabled individuals use of a service animal and Department of Justice which essentially state that “breed bans” violate the ADA provided Mr. Sak with the requisite showing of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits to permit the preliminary injunction to issue.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét