Court Allows Autistic Student's Service Dog in School

In Kalbfleisch v. Columbia Community Unit School District No. 4, No. 5-09-0447 (5th Dist. Dec. 16, 2009), the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed a circuit court's grant of injunctive relief permitting an autistic student to bring his service animal, a hypo-allergenic and specially-trained dog, to school. 

Plaintiff claimed a right to bring the animal to class under section 14-6.02 of the School Code (the service animal statute), and the court agreed, despite the district's claim that the animal provided the student no educational benefit. The court noted that the statute does not contain the term "educational benefit." It does state that the service animal be "individually trained to perform tasks for the benefit of a student with a disability." Evidence showed that the plaintiff's dog was trained specifically for the disabled student and was effective in, among other things, decreasing the duration of the student's tantrums as well as drawing him out of self-stimulating behavior, which prevents him from paying attention. The court held that even though the statute does not require the showing of an educational benefit, the aide of the animal to this student is sufficient to enhance learning and benefit the classroom as a whole.  Evidence was also presented that time spent at school separated from the animal would harm the working relationship between student and service dog, thereby decreasing the animal's effectiveness.  

The district also asserted that since the dog did not attend school with the student last year, the status quo would be interrupted by granting the dog entry.  The court ruled that injunctive relief should not be denied on the basis of disrupting the status quo where such a decision would prevent the plaintiff from exercising his or her rights (in this case, those granted by the School Code).  

It was determined that denying the student the benefits of his service animal and the exercise of rights to which he raised a fair question would cause irreparable harm, and the circuit court's grant of preliminary injunction was affirmed.

For further information, please contact Vanessa Clohessy.