Disneyland Sued for Refusing Guest's Psychiatric Service Dog
A “psychiatrically disabled” customer is suing Disney after security refused to allow her to bring her Psychiatric Service Dog into Disneyland.
According to her complaint, Alia Ashfaq has been certified with a disability since 1998. She has a valid California disabled license plate on her vehicle. She suffers from a number of physical ailments as well as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Since suffering extreme emotional trauma, she’s had difficulty going out in public. A licensed psychiatrist recommended she obtain a Psychiatric Service Dog (PSD).
She followed the recommendation and obtained a trained PSD. She brought the dog with her on a visit to Disneyland. In light of the animal, she was taken to the “special accommodations” line. When asked what service the dog provided, she explained that it was for psychiatric comfort. She was told she could not enter the park.
Ashfaq alleges that she sent her son into the park while spending the rest of her day in the car with her service animal, having suffered “blatant and unrelenting discrimination” that left her “deeply embarrassed.” She then sued Disney, claiming the theme park’s actions violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. She seeks an order requiring Disney to admit service animals as well as pay damages of at least $25,000.
The case raises an interesting question regarding the distinction between service dogs for physical and mental disabilities. The ADA recognizes the importance of service dogs for people with disabilities. Service dogs are working animals, not pets, and the ADA requires businesses that serve the public to admit such service animals as a reasonable accommodation for disabled visitors. The ADA covers both physical and mental impairments. Whether a dog whose only service is to provide emotional support qualifies as a service animal under federal or state law, however, is a separate question.
The California Department of Rehabilitation, for example, has a webpage dedicated to “service animals.” The description notes that service animal tasks include “reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties.” It also makes explicit, however, that dogs “whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.”
Many people obtain “certifications” for “emotional support animals” in order to keep pets in pet-free apartment buildings or to bring their pets while traveling. Federal law does not guarantee the right to bring such animals into public buildings, although some state and local laws may.
Ashfaq’s case against Disney could turn on whether her dog was trained to perform “specific actions” as defined by the ADA, or whether the dog instead qualifies as a general emotional support animal. The ADA’s guidance states that an animal that “has been trained to sense that an anxiety attack is about to happen and take a specific action to help avoid the attack or lessen its impact,” for example, “would qualify as a service animal.” However, “if the dog’s mere presence provides comfort, that would not be considered a service animal under the ADA.”
As stated in the lawsuit, Ashfaq’s dog is “specifically trained to, among other things, detect signs of an anxiety attack before it happens and apply deep pressure therapy, tactile stimulation, as well as provide crowd control and panic prevention in public.” Should her dog qualify as a support animal, Disney may indeed have violated her rights.
