State Appellate Court Allows Autistic Student’s Service Dog in School

In K.D. v. Villa Grove Community Unit School District No. 302, 2010 WL 3450075 (4th Dist. 2010), the Fourth District Appellate Court allowed K.D., an autistic student, to bring a specially-trained dog to school, finding the dog was a service animal under state law.

The plaintiff’s parents filed suit after district officials refused to let the dog, Chewey, accompany K.D. to school. The plaintiffs asserted that Chewey was a service dog under section 14-6.02 of the School Code, which requires districts to allow service animals “such as guide dogs, signal dogs or any other animal individually trained to perform tasks for the benefit of a student” to accompany the student to all school functions. 105 ILCS 5/14-6.02. The district objected on the grounds that Chewey was not a service dog under the statute.

During the trial, the plaintiffs claimed Chewey was trained to prevent K.D. from running away through tethering and to apply deep pressure to calm K.D. during a tantrum. K.D.’s mother also testified that Chewey helped K.D. sleep at night, made morning transitions to and from school less difficult, and helped K.D. focus on his homework.

The district contended that the plaintiffs failed to show Chewey was a “service animal” under the statute because the dog provided no tangible tasks for K.D.’s benefit, did not respond to commands as expected, and had caused K.D. to regress in his educational and functional development.

The trial judge held that Chewey was a service animal under the School Code, finding that the evidence was uncontradicted that the dog was individually trained to “attempt to benefit an autistic child.”

The appellate court affirmed, finding that that record established Chewey was individually trained to perform tasks for K.D.’s benefit and that the dog provided “some benefit” to K.D. The court held that the district’s remaining arguments exceeded the plain meaning of the statute.

This is the second time in less than a year that an Illinois court has held that a district was required to permit a trained dog to accompany an autistic child to school. The Fifth District Appellate Court, in Kalbfleisch v. Columbia Community Unit School District No. 4, 396 Ill.App.3d 1105 (5th Dist. 2009), held that an autistic student’s specially-trained dog was a service animal under the School Code, despite the district’s assertion that the animal provided no educational benefit to the student.

Although the above-mentioned cases do not involve the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is important to note that the ADA’s newly-revised regulations limit the definition of service animals to dogs and, in some narrow circumstances, to miniature ponies. 28 CFR § 305.104. The regulations also require the tasks performed by the service animal to be “directly related to the handler’s disability.” Id. The provision further provides that, “the crime deterrent effects of an animal’s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.” Id.