Traci Berardelli v. Allied Services Institute of R
900 F.3d 104
3rd Cir.2018Background
- M.B., an elementary student with dyslexia and epilepsy, used a trained seizure-alert service dog (Buddy) that helped predict and respond to seizures; public school initially allowed the dog but dePaul School (a private school/public accommodation) repeatedly refused.
- The School cited distraction and later another student’s dog allergy; eventually allowed Buddy only if he wore a hypo-allergenic shirt, which caused overheating and rendered Buddy ineffective, and M.B. withdrew after suffering missed seizure interventions and substantial absences and educational regression.
- M.B.’s parents sued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), Title III of the ADA, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA); the District Court granted summary judgment dismissing the ADA and PHRA claims but allowed the RA claim to proceed to trial.
- During trial the District Court excluded evidence and declined to instruct the jury that ADA service-animal regulations render permitting service animals generally reasonable; instead it instructed plaintiffs bore the initial burden to prove the accommodation was "reasonable" (i.e., necessary), and the jury returned a verdict for the School.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit held that the RA’s “reasonable accommodation” requirement should be interpreted consistently with the ADA’s “reasonable modification” standard and that DOJ ADA service-animal regulations make permitting service animals per se reasonable except in narrow exceptions; it vacated the RA judgment and reversed dismissal of the PHRA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA service-animal regulations informing "reasonable modification" apply to the RA's "reasonable accommodation" | RA and ADA impose the same substantive standard; ADA regulations showing permitting service animals is generally reasonable should apply to RA claims | Regulations interpret ADA only and do not automatically bind RA interpretation; schools need flexibility in education context | Yes. RA and ADA reasonableness standards are aligned; ADA service-animal regulations inform RA, making permitting service animals generally reasonable subject to narrow exceptions |
| Whether jury instruction placing initial burden on plaintiffs to prove requested accommodation was reasonable was correct | Plaintiffs argue regulation makes the accommodation per se reasonable, so burden should not have been placed on them | School argues any instructional error was harmless because plaintiffs could not show necessity on the record | Court held instructions were erroneous and not harmless; vacated RA judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with correct law |
| Whether allergies or distraction justify denying access to service animals | Plaintiffs: allergies/fear are not valid reasons under DOJ guidance; alternatives offered did not provide meaningful access | School: distraction/allergy concerns justify exclusion or special measures | Court: allergies/fear generally not valid grounds per DOJ interpretation; exceptions are narrow (fundamental alteration, direct threat, out of control/not housebroken) |
| Whether dismissal of PHRA claim was proper because ADA remedies differ | Plaintiffs: PHRA provides damages and should not have been dismissed simply because ADA damages unavailable | School: ADA analysis applies and ADA limits remedies | Court reversed PHRA dismissal because remedies differ and PHRA permits damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (establishing requirement of reasonable accommodations/modifications to provide meaningful access under §504)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (discussing reasonable modifications and fundamental-alteration inquiry under ADA)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (noting RA and ADA aim to root out disability discrimination and discussing accommodations)
- Johnson v. Gambrinus Co./Spoetzl Brewery, 116 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding ADA service-animal regulation supports that permitting service animals is generally reasonable)
- Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325 (3d Cir. 1995) (history and interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act)
- Alboniga v. School Bd., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (thorough analysis that ADA service-animal regulations mean accommodation is reasonable absent narrow exceptions)