Baugher case

From Service Dog Training

Baugher vs. the City of Ellensburg

First of all...even though this case specifically regards an owner trained dog, don't skip it if you have a program trained dog. This case may have implications for you as well.

This case looks at what constitutes proof that a service dog has been task trained, and thus is a service dog according to the ADA definition.

First, a brief summary of the case. I'm pulling the case information from the IAADP's Partners Forum publication from the fourth quarter of 2007. I haven't been able to find any other resource with information on this case, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the IAADP's description. The Plaintiff in this case is a disabled woman who was asked not to bring her dog near a deli counter in a Flying J convenience store. The Plaintiff argued that she could bring the dog wherever she went as it was a service dog. The store disagreed (no specific reason for the disagreement is given), and the Plaintiff requests that police be called. The store does this and the police, store management and Plaintiff meet in the parking lot to discuss. When asked for her name and ID, the Plaintiff gets angry and begins to leave, but is warned by the police to stay as this is an investigation of criminal trespass. The Plaintiff refuses to stay and is arrested. Upon her arrest she complains of chest pains and is taken to the hospital where she refuses treatment. The Plaintiff then sues the City of Ellensburg for 2 million dollars under Title II of the ADA for failing to enforce her right of access with her service dog and for arresting her because of her disability.

This case has a few interesting parts. I'll start with the easy ones. First, you can't ask for money under Title II of the ADA. Basically, this negates her suit to before it even begins, because there is no way the judge could have decided in her favor. This highlights the importance of seeking good counsel before taking legal action, or at least knowing the laws well. The case goes downhill from here though.

There is no evidence that I can see that the Plaintiff was arrested for being disabled. The Plaintiff was arrested for disobeying the lawful order of a police officer. Now, I've had my issues with the police and service dog issues, but giving my name hasn't been one of them. In any investigation, it is a reasonable request to know the identity of all parties. There was no good reason to refuse this request, especially since the Plaintiff was the one that requested law enforcement involvement.

Now, the main part of the case of interest to other service dog users is the court's determination that the dog in question is not a service dog. I would guess that this type of thing is high up on the list of fears of owner-trainers...no one wants their months or years of training to be shot down insufficient or improper. This decision gives the standard that this court at least was looking for in determining if task training had taken place. The judge notes the lack of several things in the information the Plaintiff provided. First, the Plaintiff stated that the primary tasks of the dog were to cue the Plaintiff to take her medication and to help her focus. However, there is no mention of what cue the dog gives or how the dog was trained to give these cues. In fact, there is no evidence that anything other than the presence of the dog is the cue. (No evidence that there isn't a specific cue either, just nothing either way). The Plaintiff provided a letter from her doctor stating that the dog was a medical alert dog, but the letter was ruled as not being admissible (no reason why is given). The court ruled that since there is no evidence of any training that would set the dog apart from being a pet, the dog is not a service dog, and does not need to be admitted into public places. As a result, the City of Ellensburg was not at fault for not enforcing public access rights in this case.

Now here's the fun part...what does this mean to other service dog users? The thing that makes a service dog different from a pet is task training. This case raises the question: What constitutes proof of task training? From the looks of this case, a detailed description of not only the task but how the dog was trained to do the task is necessary to establish in court that the dog has been trained to perform a legitimate task. For instance, if I was called into court to prove that my mobility dog was task trained, I could list several tasks (carrying a backpack with items that are too heavy for me, providing walking support and balance, fall recovery, etc.), but if I did not provide a description of those tasks and how the dog learned to do them, it would not necessarily be sufficient to establish task training in court.

On a practical level, this would seem to encourage the owner/trainer to keep some sort of log or journal of the training they provide their dog, records of any outside training they receive and any resources they use (books, videos, consultations etc.). A training plan with methods of training and any notes made by either the owner/trainer or a consulting trainer would be good evidence as well. If you have taken your dog through any program such as Canine Good Citizen or therapy dog certification, those records should be kept as well, as it shows at least some effort to train the dog. Some very positive things have come out of this case though: - The court states that there does not need to be any outside training provided to a dog to make it qualify as a service dog. This preserves the right of a disabled individual to completely owner train their service dog if they choose to do so. - Task training continues to be upheld as the gold standard of determining the difference between a service dog and a pet. - A basic standard of proof has been established for proving whether a dog is task trained.

One other thing that came to my mind while reading this case is the question of program trained dogs. Anyone who has been around the service dog community long knows that there are many excellent, reputable organizations that provide well-trained service dogs, and that there are a good number of shady organizations that provide minimally trained dogs to disabled individuals who are led to believe that they are receiving a service dog. What would happen to a recipient of a program trained dog in a case like this? My guess would be that most individuals with program trained dogs do not have training logs on their dogs, and may not known the methods used to train their dog to each particular task they do. By this court's decision, this could impact the individual's ability to prove the task training of their dog in court unless those records are made available by the training program. It may be in the best interest of handlers of program trained dogs to request training records on their dogs when they receive them, along with a description of how the dog was trained for at least a few key tasks.