United States v. Gates-Chili Central School District
198 F. Supp. 3d 228
W.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Plaintiff (United States on behalf of D.P.), a student with disabilities, seeks enforcement of Title II of the ADA against Gates‑Chili CSD for requiring D.P. to bring a separate adult handler whenever her service dog Hannah accompanies her to school or on the school bus.
- D.P. is nonverbal but uses hand gestures and can tether herself to Hannah; the dog performs mobility support, seizure alerting, anti‑elopement, and deep‑pressure tasks and does not require feeding or toileting during the school day.
- From Jan 2011–Sept 2012 District staff assisted D.P. with the dog in preschool without a separate adult handler; since Sept 2012 the District has insisted the Parent provide a paid adult handler, causing missed school days and out‑of‑pocket costs.
- The District argues 28 C.F.R. § 35.136 (service animal rule) and § 35.135 (personal devices/services) relieve it of any obligation to provide care or supervision of a service animal or to supply a handler.
- The United States contends D.P. can control Hannah (tethering, signals) and needs only limited, intermittent assistance; it requested the District either allow the dog without a parent‑supplied handler or have staff assist as previously done.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II requires the public entity to provide handling/care or to modify practices so D.P. can use her service dog without a parent‑supplied adult handler | The District must modify policies to permit use of the service dog without imposing a requirement that the Parent provide an adult handler; D.P. can control the dog with tethering/gestures and only needs intermittent assistance | The service‑animal regulation and related rules mean the District need not provide services, care, supervision, or a handler; the disabled person (or private provider) must supply a handler if needed | Court: District need not provide full care/supervision, but whether D.P. is her own handler is a factual question precluding summary judgment |
| Whether the case is moot because Medicaid now funds a handler | H.P. (mother) states Medicaid hours increased but are subject to recertification and not guaranteed | District argues current Medicaid‑funded handler makes controversy moot | Court: Mootness argument rejected because funding is contingent and not guaranteed; live controversy remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (movant on summary judgment bears initial burden to show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment: movant may show absence of evidence on an essential element)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (nonmoving party must present evidence sufficient for a jury verdict)
- Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504 (a specific rule controls over a general one in statutory/regulatory interpretation)
- Alboniga v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., Fla., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (tethering or voice/signal control can constitute sufficient control by the disabled person for service‑animal purposes)