October 2019 - Parks & Recreation - 24

LAW REVIEW

The work or tasks performed by a
service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability
(28 C.F.R. § 36.104).

Under 28 C.F.R. § 36.104, the
federal district court found
" animals that perform only
tasks that provide comfort
and emotional support are not
sufficient to constitute a service
animal under the ADA. "
While this regulation sets " the
minimum requirements of what
constitutes a service animal, " the
court acknowledged the ADA
" does not limit the kind of tasks a
service animal can perform. "
However, under 28 C.F.R. §
22

Parks & Recreation

36.104, the federal district court
found " animals that perform
only tasks that provide comfort
and emotional support are not
sufficient to constitute a service
animal under the ADA. " Moreover, under the " other species "
restriction within the regulation,
the court found " a Guinea Hog is
not a service animal. " Regardless
of the species, the court further
found Mayle had " failed to plead
sufficient facts of how the Guinea
Hog's performance of such tasks
assists with his disability. " While
Mayle's Guinea Hog allegedly
" assists in and performs emotional
support tasks, " as noted above, the
court found this claim was insufficient to establish a " service animal " under the ADA regulations.

Equal Protection
In his complaint, Mayle had also

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

argued that the federal regulations
promulgated by the DOJ, limiting
service animals to dogs and miniature horses, had denied him his
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The
Due Process clause of the Fifth
Amendment " forbids the federal
government from denying equal
protection of the laws. " Mayle
claimed federal regulations that
limited the definition of " service
animals " to dogs and miniature
horses effectively excluded other
animals providing such service,
like his Guinea Hog, which were
also " individually trained to do
work or perform tasks for the
benefit of an individual with a
disability. "
As cited by the federal district
court: " Equal protection violations can occur when regulations
draw distinctions among people
in a 'suspect' class. " Generally, a
suspect class involving a classification based on race, creed, color
or national origin would be subject to very demanding judicial
scrutiny. According to the court,
under general principles of constitutional law, " People with disabilities have not been distinguished
as a suspect or a quasi-suspect
class [e.g., gender]. " As a result,
equal protection claims brought
by individuals with disabilities
would be subject to a much less
stringent standard of judicial review under the following " rational relationship " test:
When a regulation does not involve a suspect class, a court will
uphold the regulation if there is a
rational relationship between the
disparity of treatment and a legitimate governmental purpose. To
overcome this analysis, a plaintiff

October 2019 - Parks & Recreation

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