October 2019 - Parks & Recreation - 23

find the ADA required such an accommodation. In today's litigious
society, a satisfied resident may be
preferable to a disgruntled one and
potential litigant.

No Pig Park Accommodation
In the case of Mayle v. Chicago
Park District, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110428 (N.D. Ill. 7/2/2019),
plaintiff Kenneth Mayle alleged
the defendants city of Chicago
and the Chicago Park District
(CPD) violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) when
he was repeatedly denied the right
to bring his Guinea Hog to places
of public accommodation in and
around the Chicago area. These
places included North Avenue
Beach, Montrose Beach, Millennium Park, Grant Park and other
unnamed parks maintained by the
Illinois Department of Natural
Resources. As cited by the federal
district court, Title II of the ADA
provides as follows:
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis
of disability in the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages,
or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any
person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §
12182(a).
Plaintiff Mayle claimed he suffers from bipolar disorder. Because
Mayle is allergic to dogs, he stated
he depends on his Guinea Hog,
Chief Wiggum, to provide service
and emotional support. In particular, the Guinea Hog performs
tasks, such as massage therapy on
Mayle's hands, to mitigate feelings of anxiety and depression.
The Guinea Hog also encourages

Mayle to engage in physical activity. Mayle transports the Guinea
Hog with a shopping cart attached
to his bike.
Mayle filed and litigated his
ADA claim in federal district court
" pro se " ; that is, without the assistance of an attorney. As a rule,
the federal district court indicated
it would treat allegations of a pro
se complaint to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
In this case, CPD argued the
federal district court should summarily dismiss Mayle's claim
based on the pretrial record, because he had failed to state a claim
under the ADA for the following
three reasons:
(1) he is not a qualified individual with a disability; (2) his Guinea Hog is not a service animal; and
(3) his requested accommodation
is not reasonable under the ADA.
In determining whether to grant
CPD's motion for summary judgment, the court would resolve any
doubt in favor of Mayle, allowing
him to proceed to have his day
in court. In so doing, the court
would consider whether the pretrial evidence conclusively established
Mayle's failure to state a claim under the ADA.

Individual with a Disability
To bring a claim under the ADA,
a plaintiff must show that he or
she is a qualified individual with a
disability. The disability must substantially limit major life activities
(42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A)). Federal courts consider several factors
when deciding whether a disability substantially limits major life
activities, including one's ability
to sleep, hear, see, walk, breath or
learn (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)). In

his complaint, Mayle alleged his
bipolar disorder impairs his ability
to breathe, concentrate and sleep.
Resolving any doubt in Mayle's favor at this very preliminary stage of
the proceedings, the federal district
court found this statement in the
complaint was " sufficient to plead
that Mayle is a qualified individual
with a disability under the ADA. "

To bring a claim under the ADA,
a plaintiff must show that he or
she is a qualified individual with
a disability.
Service Animal
Within the context of the ADA,
Mayle claimed his Guinea Hog
was a " service animal equal to
dogs and miniature horses. " Accordingly, Mayle argued: " Defendants Chicago Park District's and
City of Chicago's refusal to treat
his Guinea Hog as service animal
violated the ADA. "
As cited by the federal district
court, " Title II protects the right of
a disabled individual to have a service animal in public facilities " (28
C.F.R. § 35.136(g)). Moreover, the
court noted: " The ADA authorizes
the Department of Justice ('DOJ')
to promulgate regulations for the implementation of Title II. " As cited by
the court, one such DOJ regulation
defines service animals as follows:
Any dog that is individually
trained to do work or perform tasks
for the benefit of an individual
with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.
Other species of animals, whether
wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals
for the purposes of this definition.

W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G | O C T O B E R 2 0 1 9 |

Parks & Recreation

October 2019 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2019 - Parks & Recreation