Tamara v. El Camino Hospital
964 F. Supp. 2d 1077
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff Abigayil Tamara is a disabled 70-year-old who uses a trained service dog (Inglis) for mobility and daily tasks; she was hospitalized at El Camino in Dec. 2011 and was denied access for Inglis in the hospital’s locked psychiatric ward.
- Tamara alleges the denial occurred despite a psychiatrist’s order and after Infection Control conditioned approval on an MRSA test; the hospital provided a walker as a substitute.
- El Camino’s written policy excludes service animals from certain "restricted access areas," including Behavioral Health Units (locked psychiatric wards).
- Tamara seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the hospital to admit service animals unless an individualized assessment shows the animal poses a direct threat that cannot be mitigated or the accommodation would fundamentally alter the facility.
- The hospital contends admitting service animals into the locked psychiatric ward would create unmitigable safety and operational risks and that its blanket restriction is lawful.
- The court granted the preliminary injunction, holding El Camino may not automatically exclude service animals from the Behavioral Health Unit and must perform individualized ADA-compliant assessments before excluding an animal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tamara and El Camino meet ADA status elements | Tamara is disabled; hospital is a place of public accommodation | Not disputed | Court: Elements satisfied (disability + place of public accommodation) |
| Validity of blanket exclusion (fundamental alteration) | Blanket ban is unlawful; psychiatric wards are not per se sterile areas and can accommodate some service animals | Blanket prohibition justified because presence of animals would fundamentally alter milieu therapy and risk safety | Court: Blanket prohibition not justified here; fundamental-alteration defense not shown without intensive fact-based inquiry |
| Whether failure to conduct individualized assessment violates ADA (direct threat) | Hospital failed to conduct individualized assessment; speculative safety concerns insufficient | Hospital relied on generalized safety/infection-control concerns to deny access | Court: Hospital must perform individualized assessments per 28 C.F.R. §36.208; denial without such assessment likely violated ADA |
| Preliminary injunction factors (irreparable harm; balance/public interest) | Denial of service animal causes immediate, irreparable loss of independence and training time; public interest favors ADA compliance | Harm to hospital is administrative/operational and safety concerns outweigh injunction | Court: Tamara likely to succeed; irreparable harm shown; balance and public interest favor Tamara; injunction granted subject to individualized assessments |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (standard and purpose of preliminary injunctions)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (burden for extraordinary preliminary relief)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor preliminary injunction test)
- Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2004) (fundamental-alteration is affirmative defense and fact-specific)
- Lockett v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 496 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2007) (heavy burden to show direct threat)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements for ADA public accommodation claim)