Service Dog Training and Animal Assisted Therapy (El Paso / Teller / Colorado Springs / Nationwide)

Unleash Your Best Life!

Service Dog Training Service Dog Training Service Dog Training Service Dog Training

Service Dog Federal Law Cases

Service Dog Case Law

Legal Enforcement & Challenges to ADA Law in the Context of Service Animals

All case names are links. Cases are listed in reverse chronological order within categories

  • Los Angeles Film School LLC – Resolution of an allegation that a school in Los Angeles, California, denied an individual with PTSD access because of her with her service animal and was later told by the school that she could not be accompanied by her service animal while attending seven core classes located in a recording studio. The agreement includes adoption of a service animal policy, posting a notice of the policy on the website and in prominent locations around the school, training staff, $7,000 in compensatory damages to the Complainant, and $6,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. (11/30/2020)
  • United States of America v. Gates-Chili Central School District
    • Reply Memorandum in Support of United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment– arguing that a student with multiple disabilities was the handler of her own service dog under the ADA, because the dog was under her control and she provided any care or supervision needed in school, and that the school district imposing additional dog handling requirements or excluding categories of people with disabilities from being the handler of their own service dog violates the ADA (11/15/19)
    • United States ‘Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment– arguing that a student with multiple disabilities could handle her own service dog in school with minimal assistance, that the case was not moot after the family moved out of the school district, and that the Attorney General has a right of action to enforce Title II of the ADA (10/18/19)
    • United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment – arguing that a public school district conditioning a student’s use of a service dog on her parent providing a full-time dog handler, despite the student’s demonstrated ability to control and handle her service dog with minimal assistance, violates Title II of the ADA (9/20/19)
    • Settlement Agreement – re: reforms to the school district’s service animal policy to ensure the school district provides reasonable modifications to facilitate the use of a service dog by a student with a disability, including certain minimal assistance to and occasional prompting of the student as they handle their service dog, and payment of monetary damages to the student’s mother (8/20/20)
    • Complaint | PDF– re: public school district’s failure to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to permit a student to use her service animal in school with assistance from school staff, in violation of title II of the ADA (9/29/15)
    • Letter of Findings | PDF — re: violation of Title II of the ADA by refusing to permit a student to bring her service dog to school unless the student’s mother also provides a full-time handler (4/13/15)
  • Mercy College Settlement Agreement — re: reasonable modification of policies, practices, or procedures to permit use of a service animal on all of the college’s campuses by a disabled veteran college student (4/29/16)
  • Sachem Central School District Statement of Interest | PDF — re: violating Title II of the ADA by refusing to allow a child’s service animal to accompany the child at school or school-related functions (12/23/15)
  • Alboniga v. School Board of Broward County, Florida Statement of Interest | PDF
  • This Statement of Interest was filed to clarify that the Department’s Title II regulation generally requires public entities, such as schools, to permit individuals with disabilities to use their service animals. (1/26/15)
  • Delran Township School District (New Jersey) Settlement Agreement — re: making reasonable modifications to ensure that students with disabilities may be accompanied in school and on school-related activities by their service animals (6/24/14)
  • Learning Clinic Settlement Agreement — re: reasonable modifications of policies, procedures or practices to allow a minor child to use a service animal at The Learning Clinic, a private school in Brooklyn, CT (3/25/13)
  • C.C. v. Cypress School District (C.D. Cal.) Statement of Interest of the United States | PDF in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction – re: obligation of public schools to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to permit students to use service animals in school and provide assistance to children with disabilities using service animals. (6/10/11)

  • Comfort Inn-Guilford Settlement Agreement — Resolution of an allegation that a hotel in Guilford, Connecticut, refused to provide access to an individual with a disability using a service animal and failed to design and construct the hotel facility to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including the hotel’s lobby, lobby toilet rooms, lobby breakfast area, guest rooms, parking facilities and accessible route to the lobby. The agreement includes adoption of a service animal policy, posting a notice of the policy, training staff, and written notification to the Department of future complaints.  (2/13/20)
  • Super 8 Hotel Settlement Agreement – Resolution of an allegation that a hotel in Lisbon, North Dakota, refused to provide lodging to an individual with a disability using a service animal.  The agreement includes adoption of a service animal policy, posting of a notice of the policy, training of staff, written notification to the Department of future complaints, and $1,000 in compensatory damages for the individual.  (1/27/20)
  • Landmark Hotel Group Settlement Agreement — re: resolves complaint that hotel under Landmark’s management refused a room to a veteran with PTSD accompanied by a service dog.  The settlement agreement requires the respondent to permit access to individuals who use service animals and take the following actions: adopt and implement service dog policies; provide training on the service dog policy to employees and managers; post the service dog policy at all of Landmark’s hotels, on their websites, and in their advertising; and pay $1,000.00 in damages to the Complainant.  (10/24/19)
  • Deerfield Inn and Suites Settlement Agreement — re: resolves complaint that the Deerfield Inn & Suites refused a room to a veteran with PTSD accompanied by a service dog.  The settlement agreement requires the respondent to permit access to individuals who use service animals and take the following actions: adopt and implement service dog policies; provide training on the service dog policy to employees and managers; post the service dog policy at the hotel, on its website, and in its advertising; and pay $5,000.00 in damages to the Complainant.  (10/21/19)
  • Tawsty Flower Bed and Breakfast Settlement Agreement – Resolution of an allegation that a bed and breakfast in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, refused to allow an individual with a disability to book a room with her service animal.  The agreement includes adoption of a service animal policy, posting a notice of the policy, training staff, $100 in compensatory damages for the individual, and $200 as a civil penalty.  (9/10/19)
  • Wildwood Inn Settlement Agreement – re: reasonable modification of policies, practices and procedures to permit full and equal access to hotel by disabled guests who use service animals, and not subjecting guests with service animals to inquiries into the details of a person’s disability in connection with their use of a service animal or to demands for documentation relating to certification, training, or licensure of the service animal (7/2/19)
  • United States v. Days Inn and Conference Center Tulsa (Oklahoma) Consent Decree — re: alleged exclusion of a guest with a disability from lodging at a hotel because the guest had a service animal (2/6/15)
  • Conway Lodging, Inc. (Comfort Suites, Conway, AR ) — re: reasonable modification of policies, practices and procedures to permit use of service animals in a hotel (1/17/14)
  • Microtel Inns & Suites Settlement Agreement — re: modification of policies, practices and procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability at Microtel Inns & Suites in Nashville, Tennessee (8/29/12)
  • Shanghai Cottage at Fairhope, Inc. Settlement Agreement — re: modification of policies, practices, and procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability in a restaurant (3/7/12)
  • Budget Saver Corporation D/B/A Budget Saver Motel Settlement Agreement – re: reasonable modification of policies, practices and procedures to permit full and equal access to hotel facilities by disabled guests who use service animals and not subjecting guests with service animals to the hotel’s “pet policy” (1/27/12)
  • American Hospitality Inn, Portland, OR, Settlement Agreement — re: agreement requires the Inn to modify its policies and practices to require its employees to accept alternative identification other than a drivers license from persons with disabilities who cannot drive. The agreement includes employee training on guest identification and service animals and extends to other hotels under the same ownership (9/10/10)
  • Sheraton Grand Sacramento Hotel Settlement Agreement — re: reasonable modification of policies, practices and procedures to permit full and equal access to hotel facilities by disabled guests who use service animals and not subjecting guests with service animals to the hotel’s “pet policy” (7/14/10)
  • Redhika Corp. (Country Inn and Suites, Fort Wayne, IN) Settlement Agreement— re: reasonable modification of policies, procedures and practices to permit use of service animals in a hotel (4/2/07)
  • Travelodge, Dalton, GA, Amended Settlement Agreement – re: reasonable modification of policies, procedures and practices to permit use of service animals by guests with disabilities in the motel (7/27/07)
  • Historic Hilton Village Parlor Restaurant Settlement Agreement — re: admitting individuals who use service animals into a restaurant (6/1/06)
  • Travel Inn Settlement Agreement — re: hotel service animal policy (4/26/06)
  • Terrace Motel Settlement Agreement  – re: modification of policies and procedures for people who use service animals (9/7/04)

  • Le Petit Nails and Spa: On December 20, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York reached a resolution under Title III of the ADA with a nail salon in Williamsville, New York, to resolve an allegation that the nail salon discriminated against a customer with a service animal. The customer is a Marine Corps veteran who uses a service animal because of his service-connected post-traumatic tress disorder.  The agreements includes a commitment not to discriminate, adoption of a non-discrimination policy, training of staff, and payment of compensatory damages to the customer. Case Document: Settlement/Consent Decree (12/20/23)
  • GPM Investments, LLC Settlement Agreement — re:  ensuring that the sixth largest convenience store chain in the United States will permit individuals with disabilities accompanied by service dogs to enter its stores (4/1/19)
  • The Place of Antiques Settlement Agreement — re: equal access for individuals with disabilities, including veterans, who use service dogs (10/11/18)
  • Pawn Shop Settlement Agreement — re: reasonable modification of policies, practices and procedures to ensure equal access to a pawn shop and tax service for individuals with disabilities, including veterans, who use service animals (7/24/18)
  • UPS Store #1217 Settlement Agreement – Resolution of an allegation that a UPS Store in Riverside, Connecticut, refused to provide service to an individual with a disability using a service animal.  The agreement includes adoption of a service animal policy, posting a notice of the policy, training of staff, written notification to the Department of future complaints, and $1,000 compensatory damages for the individual. (5/24/18)
  • Blockbuster Inc. Settlement Agreement – re: equal access for persons with disabilities, including persons who use service animals (7/19/10)
  • Walmart Stores, Inc. Settlement Agreement — re: equal access for persons with disabilities, including persons who use service animals (1/16/09)
  • World Fresh Market, LLC., St. Thomas, US VI, Settlement Agreement — re: reasonable modifications in policies. practices, and procedures, to permit the use of service animals by people with disabilities in a supermarket (4/16/08)

  • United States v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (09/11/25)
    • On September 11, 2025, the Department sued Uber Technologies, Inc. under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act for discriminating against passengers with disabilities, including blind individuals who use service animals and those who use mobility devices including stowable wheelchairs, by routinely refusing to serve these individuals, imposing impermissible charges, and refusing to reasonably modify Uber’s policies to avoid discrimination.
    • On February 6, 2026, the United States filed a response to Uber’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, arguing that, contrary to Uber’s arguments, Uber is a covered transportation company under Title III of the ADA and that the United States’ Complaint plausibly alleges that Uber violates Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations.  On March 5, 2026, the Court issued its order, denying Uber’s motion to dismiss.
    • Press Release
    • Federal Court: California, Northern District
    • Case Documents: Complaint, Dismissal Motions, Memoranda, and Orders, Dismissal Motions, Memoranda, and Orders
  • North America, FlixBus, and Greyhound (08/04/25)
    • The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division launched an investigation into the bus companies FlixBus and Greyhound (operated by Flix North America, Inc., FlixBus, Inc., and Greyhound Lines, Inc.) to determine whether FlixBus and Greyhound violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against passengers with disabilities and denying them reasonable accommodations.  
    • The Department opened this investigation after receiving complaints that FlixBus and Greyhound violated the ADA rights of people with disabilities. Complaints alleged that FlixBus and Greyhound failed to properly maintain lifts on buses, refused to assist passengers with disabilities with using lifts, refused to allow service animals to accompany passengers with disabilities or improperly asked for documentation, abandoned customers with disabilities between legs of their journey, and failed to allow and assist passengers with disabilities to leave and return to the bus at rest stops, among other allegations.  
    • Press Release
    • Case Document: Notice Letter of Investigation of Flix and Greyhound
  • Taxi Operated by [redacted] Settlement Agreement – re:  failure to provide taxi services to a person with vision impairments accompanied by a service animal (5/15/14)
  • SuperShuttle International, Inc. — re: failure to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability on a shared ride and requiring a person with a service animal to pay a surcharge (6/5/13)
  • Golden Cab Corporation Settlement Agreement — re: transportation of customers and their service animals (2/21/08)
  • City Cab Settlement Agreement – re: transportation of customers and their service animals  (3/27/06)
  • Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Salt Lake City, UT, Settlement Agreement – re: modifications of policies and procedures for people who use service animals (5/7/03)
  • State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, Consent Decree  – re: quarantine of guide dogs used by persons with visual impairments (1/15/98)
  • Arizona Shuttle Service, Tucson, AZ, Settlement Agreement  – re: accessible buses and vans and modification of policies and procedures for people who use service animals (11/25/97) Budget Rent a Car Systems, Inc. Settlement Agreement  – re: modifications of policies and procedures for people who use service animals (6/30/97)

Disclaimer: The information provided in this post is for general educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Laws, regulations, and their application may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation. Reading this material does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel. Individuals and organizations facing specific legal questions or disputes should consult a qualified attorney or other appropriate professional regarding their particular circumstances.