February 4, 2013
- 78 Civil Rights
- 78I Rights Protected and Discrimination Prohibited in General
- 78k1043 Public Accommodations
- 392Tk121 Working Conditions or Assignment
- 78k1044 k. In general.
Plaintiff’s monkey was not a “service animal” under the ADA, and thus defendants did not violate any provision of the ADA by disallowing plaintiff to enter any establishment with her monkey; although plaintiff claimed she trained her monkey to perform tasks that were beneficial to coping with her agoraphobia, the vast majority of these “tasks” involved nothing more than the monkey providing comfort, the “tasks” the monkey allegedly performed to assist plaintiff with daily life, including bringing plaintiff a toothbrush or the remote to the television, did not relate to her disability and were performed at plaintiff’s home, and the alleged “tasks” to keep people away, such as using a “direct look with an open mouth” or a “gentle push,” were aggressive actions, particularly for a primate, and without evidence of specific training or cues indicating the monkey only performed these tasks in situations where plaintiff’s disorders required it.
Rose v. Springfield-Greene County Health Dept. 668 F.Supp.2d 1206 (W.D.Mo. (2009)
Suggested by Kirstin Keel, Reference Attorney, Thomson Reuters Westlaw