Service Animals for Students With Disabilities Under IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Relevant Legislation

When considering the use of service dogs by students with disabilities in a school setting, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA (1990), and the IDEIA (2004) all apply. Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. More specifically, no otherwise qualified individual shall “be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination or activity” (Section 504 Regulations, 104.4 (a)) by any program receiving federal financial assistance. This law, therefore, covers public schools because they receive federal funding. A student qualifies as having a disability under Section 504 if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment (Section 504 Regulations, §104.3 (j)).

Once qualified under this definition, a student is entitled to the provisions outlined in Subpart D of Section 504 (1973). These provisions include a FAPE, which includes “regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons” (Section 504 Regulations, §104.33 (d)) regardless of the nature or severity of the disability. FAPE should be in the general education environment to the maximum extent appropriate unless the student, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be educated satisfactorily in the general education classroom (Section 504, Regulations, §104.34 (a)). These supplementary aids and services can include reasonable accommodations. If a reasonable accommodation or supplementary aid or service can provide a student FAPE, then the school must allow the accommodation. A service animal for a student with a disability, therefore, should be allowed when the animal’s presence and assistance is necessary for the child to receive the benefits that are afforded other students (Section 504 Regulations, §104.44).

The ADA is the second federal statute that applies to this issue. ADA is a complementary law to Section 504 that extends the rights granted in Section 504 to the private sector. Public schools are included in Title II of ADA. ADA also specifically requires that public accommodations, which include public schools, make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures” (ADA Regulations, § 36.302(a)) unless it would “fundamentally alter the nature of the good or service provided” (ADA Regulations, § 36.302 (a)). ADA also includes a definition of a service animal. A service animal is

any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. . . . The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler’s disability. . . . The crime deterrent effects of an animal’s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition. (ADA, §35.136)

This legislation gives service animals the same legal standing as a tool or a piece of equipment (i.e., wheelchair) except where food is being prepared or where wild animals are present (Milzarski & Norris, 2010). Under ADA, a school must allow a qualified student to use a service animal if the animal alleviates the impairments of the disability and is considered a reasonable modification (Schoenbacechler, 2010).

The last federal law that applies to service animals is IDEIA (2004). IDEIA provides federal funds for states to provide special education services to qualified students (IDEIA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415). To be a qualified individual, a student must be evaluated to determine if he or she has one of the 13 disabilities that are covered under IDEIA. Once qualified, an IEP is developed to outline the special education and related services to provide the student with FAPE. If a service animal is necessary for a student to receive FAPE, the animal should be included in the child’s IEP.

Case Law

In addition to federal legislation, case law has also been instructive in addressing the use of service dogs. Key cases and their implications follow. These cases were selected as they discuss the use of service animals for students with disabilities who are not traditionally treated with service animals (i.e., persons with sensory disabilities for whom service animals are widely accepted as a form of treatment and support). Certainly, service animals may be appropriate across a range of disabilities such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders, learning disabilities, physical disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and autism spectrum disorders. Examples of specific functions include pulling a wheelchair or fetching dropped items (i.e., physical disabilities), providing therapeutic benefits (e.g., calming effect, improved attention; also preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors for students with psychiatric and neurological disabilities), and ensuring safety (e.g., individuals with epilepsy).

In Sullivan v. Vallejo City Unified School District (1990), a school district denied a student with cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, and partial deafness the right to bring her service animal to school. The school argued that the dog was unnecessary and created space and health concerns (a teacher had an allergy). The court ruled that pursuant to Section 504 the child should be allowed to bring her service animal to school to participate in the school’s educational programs. The dog was considered a reasonable accommodation that allowed her to receive a FAPE.

In Bakersfield (CA) City School District (2008), the Office of Civil Rights found that a school district discriminated against a sixth grade student when it denied the student’s request to bring his service dog to school on the grounds that it posed a health and safety risk to others. The district also failed to examine the “dog’s training, function or impact on the student’s education.” The court further stated that even if the service animal did not qualify as a service animal (as defined under ADA/504), the district should have considered whether the dog was necessary for the child to receive FAPE. This case illustrated the importance of districts’ examining the use of service dogs as supportive services to ensure that a child receives FAPE.

In K.D. v. Villa Grove Community Unit School District (2010), the court ruled that the district could not prohibit a first grade student with autism from bringing his service dog to school. The court held that the dog qualified as a service animal under Illinois state law, and consequently the child had a right to bring his dog to school. K.D. is an important case because it illustrated the importance of states enacting their own laws regarding service animals (Finkel, 2010). The Illinois statute specifically stated that students with disabilities should be allowed to be accompanied by service animals, when individually trained to perform tasks for the student’s benefit, to all school functions, whether inside or outside a classroom setting (Illinois Compiled Statues, 105 ILCS 5, §14-6.02).

Another case that demonstrates the role of state law in this issue is Kalbfleisch v. Columbia Community Unit School District Unit No. 4 (2009). This case involved a 5-year-old student with autism who requested to bring his service dog to school. The district argued that the student’s behavioral problems were self-inflicted and “could be controlled if he really wanted to control them.” The parents argued that brief separations of the student from his dog caused his behavior to deteriorate significantly and that the use of the service dog was essential for the child to receive educational benefits. The district court ruled in favor of the student (and the Court of Appeals concurred), concluding that the child would suffer irreparable harm if he were not allowed to bring the service animal to school. The court, however, delayed the implementation of the ruling to allow the district time to determine how to accommodate both the service dog and the effect of the dog on the health of another student with a lung disease who was sensitive to the presence of the dog.

Conclusion

The use of service animals for students with disabilities is an emerging issue that school districts are likely to face in providing specific students with FAPE. Legislative provisions, particularly the ADA-related provisions and case law, support the use of service dogs if they are deemed necessary to ensure access and confer educational benefit (however, districts are also likely to address the effects of the presence of service dogs on students who may be allergic to them). Districts, therefore, need to carefully examine individual circumstances involving students and service dogs to determine whether such a service is essential for the student to receive meaningful educational benefits.