Information @ High Plains Service Dogs e-mail link

Rulings of finding passed as judgment in Federal Supreme Court Cases and the lower level Federal District Court findings have had substantial effects on the way other agencies, such as the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled on cases brought under title of the ADA. Only a judge can make a case-by-case determination regarding any one individual's disability as being of a substantial and life limiting nature, which would then qualify that person for protection under the ADA. There are many disability advocacy groups at work in the United States of America dedicated to seeing the ADA restored to its original intent as created by congressional action in 1990 and ratified the same act in to law in 1992. Links to a few of these organizations are listed on the links page. If in doubt, seek the advise of a competent disability expert. Ultimately it is the rulings of a Federal Judge who has the power to make such determination. However, every one of us can be an advocate by learning the laws with in our own states. And, by being aware of any issues under consideration or advisement of either congressional or Federal Departmental action that are set to have an impact on our rights as disabled persons to be free from architectural barrier discrimination, societal habit discrimination, or individual abusive behavior. The chapters in disability rights are still being written. Please be a positive part of their growth by acting with knowledge and consideration as you go about the daily business of your lives.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is the law, which requires places of public accommodation to permit the presence of any Service Dog that is task trained to mitigate its handler’s substantial life limiting disability. It is very important for both disabled and able-bodied persons to understand the way that the ADA operates. Only those persons with disabilities which are considered severely life limiting, and whose disability can be mitigated by the trained tasks the Service Dog performs for that person, are the only reason the Service Dog as medical equipment must be allowed to accompany its handler in places that would otherwise disallow the presence of animals. Disability as defined by the regulatory laws and findings of the court for the civil rights act known as the ADA, is the only definition of disability that matters. Social Security Department rulings have no bearing on the ADA definition. Medical findings of disability have no bearing on a persons right to be accompanied by a Service Dog. It is only that one definition as set forth and later interpreted under the Federal Courts in ADA cases that have any bearing on the Federal civil rights act. Understanding this issue is both basic and convoluted at the same time. But it is the ADA defined rulings that we must attempt to use as guidelines when trying to determine any one person’s eligibility. We will not intentionally train a dog for some one whom we honestly feel does not meet the ADA regulations for being substantially and severely disabled in a life limiting manner.

Please understand that many persons can be helped by an assistance animal. Many persons with disabilities can have their lives improved by the use of a task trained Service Dog. But those issues are not the issues that guide the law that allows disabled persons to be accomodated with their specific task trained Service Dog.

Because persons who were not qualified under the ADA law brought suit under that law and lost their case, and worse of all the Cheif Justices chose to use that one case to begin the torrential errosion of the spirit of that law when they issued very narrowing definitions of what the term mitigating agents could mean and in so doing cut literally millions of Disabled Americans out from ADA protection, that we are trying to be so careful not to set up any more chances for such bad case law. That case was the now infamous UAL-vs-Sutton case. Those Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Justices issued United States Supreme Court rulings stating what a definition of severly disabled by a life limiting disability could be described as. They issued a ruling on what the term mitigating appliance or agent may mean. Resulting cases that have been lost after that case, are mind blowing for those of us in or out of the legal profession. Common Sense seemed to be thrown out of the court room in those few landmark cases. It is out of fear of doing so much harm to the greater disabled community that we try to second guess the court opinions if we have to say no to some one who wants a service dog. We are not judges. Nor do we want to be. We also do not want to be the agent that finishes breaking the tenous hold of the ADA for the remaining citizens.

After all that was said, however, our state constitution has its own definition of disability. When ever possible we will use that rule as it gives the disabled person the best protection under the law. The ADA is a Federal Civil Rights Law but Title 56 of the Idaho Health and Welfare code also defines disability and who can be accompanied by an assistance animal. We are trying to walk the tight rope strung between the Federal courts and our own state laws when we decide to take on some of our owner trainer teams. We can't be asked to willingly commit obvious fraud. We will help whenever we can. But sometimes, we would be criminal if we did assist a team and fostered their use of a dog under fraudelent cause.



Follow the next link to the Department of Justice maintained website where you may search to find UAL-v-Sutton, Toyata-v-Williams, as a place to start; and then, continue searching through that site. From there it would likely be informative to continue reading and search under subtitles for Disability Rights Settlements and Consent Agreements, and other subsections which serve to further define and establish definition intent arguments with supported Court Findings.
If you are at all like me, you will find your self shocked or perhaps outraged by some of these findings. Many not only seem to defy logical conclusion, but they seem to twist the understanding of the Congressional intent as it was argued for the first eight to ten years after the passage of the ADA in to Federal Law. I do not know what scholar or author to attribute this statement to, but he made commentary that our laws are dynamic almost living things which are under constant pressure to change and either allude definition or alter it significantly. And there in, you have it. What does the law mean? That would seem to depend on what jurisdiction a case is argued in, and also, what was the year when that case came before a Judge or group of Justices for argument.

This editorial style personal commentary of Polly A. Callant may not be the same opinion held by other members of this Association.

Go to next column

Department of Justice web site containing case briefs

This site is also here as a general information resource. Any errors of fact or omission are unintentional and by using this site, you agree to hold High Plains Association of Service Dog Advocates and High Plains Service Dogs as entities, any members, affiliates, officers or agents blameless for any incidents in any way caused or implied by your use of this web site.


If you have resource information for educational use which is not under copy write protection, please feel free to send us the information and its full resource publication information through information@highplainsservicedogs.org e-mail address.


Any proof of error in any statements contained with in this site are welcomed and may be sent through the above mentioned email address. Only by your sending information regarding any such errors, if any exist, can we know that they are in need of alteration. It is not our intent to place misinformation on our web-site. Your assistance regarding any existing issues, will be welcomed. Please be sure to send the source of your statement so that we can act on the matter.

Donor Privacy Policy:



With out the full trust and support of our individual donors we could not continue to assist those who need our services. You have entrusted us with your gifts and in return it is our duty as officers and members of this Association to fully respect the spirit of giving with our commitment to honor your right to privacy.
In return for that trust comes our duty to not waste precious resources with unsolicited use of printed matter; nor to squander other resources by use of any other forms of unrequested contact which would arise from the sale or sharing of your private, and personal, information. This is our statement to you, our donors, of guarantees not to sell nor in any other way disclose your names, addresses or any other personal contact information.

Top of Page

Click to Return to Previous Web Page

Click to advance one page