Refusal to allow service dog into theater violated ADA

Law Reporter, Oct 2004

Lentini v. California Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2004).

An arts center's refusal to allow a woman with quadriplegia to bring her service dog inside its theater violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held.

Here, Lentini, who uses a wheelchair due to quadriplegia and has a dog to help her retrieve dropped items and perform other tasks for her, came with her dog to an arts center to see a performance. The manager on duty refused to admit die dog, alleging the dog had barked on previous visits. Lentini sued, alleging the center and the manager had violated the ADA and state law. The trial court found for plaintiff, awarded damages, and ordered the center to modify its policies to provide persons with disabilities "the broadest feasible access."

Affirming, the Ninth Circuit rejected defendants' argument that the trial court's order that it modify its policies was not reasonable or necessary. Addressing reasonableness, the court said the trial court's requirement that defendants admit service animals that make noise intended for their owners' benefit, as long as the behavior would be acceptable if engaged in by humans, is not impractical to implement. A general comparison of disruptiveness, such as using patrons' responses to the disruption as a gauge, would not be difficult.

The ordered modification is also necessary, the court said. Plaintiff has a bond with her dog and separating from the dog for the duration of a concert is not an option for her. Thus, excluding plaintiffs dog from performances would effectively exclude plaintiff, the court reasoned. Defendants failed to adequately show that its ushers could provide the same assistance to plaintiff as her dog does.

The court rejected defendants' argument that the modification to their policies would fundamentally alter the nature of the services they provide. The fact that no other patrons complained of the dog's presence or barking contradicts defendants' assertion that allowing the dog in the theater would offend and drive away patrons and interfere with the center's ability to attract artists. Accordingly, defendants' argument is too speculative to serve as an affirmative defense, the court said.

The court found mat plaintiff was deterred from attending performances at the center and that she suffered physical and emotional damage as a result of defendants' actions. Therefore, finding both the center and the individuals who refused the dog admittance liable was appropriate.

Accordingly, the court affirmed in all respects.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Amy B. Vandeveld, San Diego, Cal.