# Ahlschlager v. Imhof

> District Court, E.D. New York · December 19, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10764541

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** December 19, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10764541

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that plaintiff, a disabled individual, was at risk of irreparable physical and mental harm without access to a handicapped parking space at her residence
- finding separating an individual from his service animal risked irreparable harm and deprived him of independence

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
NICOLE AHLSCHLAGER,
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, ORDER
24-CV-8267 (OEM) (JMW)
v.

JOHN IMHOF, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department
of Social Services,

Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------X

ORELIA E. MERCHANT, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Nicole Ahlschlager (“Plaintiff”) brings this action under Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) seeking injunctive relief and compensatory damages from John
Imhof, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Social
Services (“SCDSS”). Now before the Court Plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction
directing SCDSS to immediately permit her to have her service dog with her at the homeless shelter
operated by SCDSS, where she and her family currently reside. Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF 1, at
1. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff and her family—her common law husband, Joshua Goodman (“Plaintiff’s
husband”), and two minor children—have been residing at a Suffolk County shelter, Workforce
Development Center (“WDC”), since being evicted from their home in September 2024.
Compl. ¶¶ 20-22. Plaintiff and her family live in a room on the second floor of the shelter. Id. ¶ 23.
Plaintiff suffers from cerebral palsy and various mental health afflictions. Id. ¶ 10;
Declaration of Tamar Lavy, M.D. (“Lavy Decl.”), ECF 5-7, ¶ 4; Ahlschlager Affidavit
(“Pl.’s Aff.”), ECF 5-9, ¶ 4. Approximately two and a half years ago, Plaintiff obtained a service
dog. Compl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff’s children named her service dog “Nightmare” after the dog in the
movie “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” Pl.’s Aff. ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff requires use of the service
dog primarily to help with instability and balance when walking, due to her cerebral palsy. Id. ¶
6. The dog also helps with her anxiety, depression and other mental health symptoms, which

Plaintiff asserts are exacerbated by her physical condition. Id. ¶¶ 9-11; Compl. ¶ 19. She alleges
that prior to receiving the dog, she fell fifteen times, including once where she hit her head. Pl.’s
Aff. ¶ 7. Plaintiff claims she went to the hospital multiple times after these falls—in part because
her severe anxiety caused “catastrophic thinking” that led her to believe that she had serious
injuries. Lavy Aff. ¶ 6; see Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 8.
Plaintiff says that when she arrived at the shelter in late September 2024, WDC refused to
permit her service dog. Compl. ¶ 25-26. After a few days, SCDSS provided authorization for
Plaintiff to keep her service dog at the shelter as an ADA accommodation. Id.; See Affidavit of
Joshua Goodman (“Goodman Aff.”), ECF 5-11, ¶¶ 4-5.

A few weeks later, on or about October 21, 2024, an incident occurred when Plaintiff’s
husband was returning to the shelter with Nightmare. It was captured on video. See ECF 16. The
video shows Plaintiff’s husband and Nightmare ascending an outdoor stairwell towards a doorway
at the top of the stairs. As he reaches the top step, someone opens the door outwardly towards
Plaintiff’s husband and Nightmare. Plaintiff has identified this individual as another shelter
resident named “Gabby.” Compl. ¶ 29. At the moment the door begins to open, Nightmare is seen
looking down the stairwell. When it opens further, Nightmare lunges and jumps up towards
Gabby, whose figure can be partially seen through a window within the doorframe. There is no
bite visible on the video. SCDSS has not argued otherwise and admits a case manager did not
witness the alleged bite. See Hearing Rough Transcript (“Tr.”), Dec. 10, 2024, at 22:12-16.
Plaintiff and her husband assert that “at no time did the dog bite Gabby and at no time when this
incident occurred did Gabby assert that she was bitten, and that Gabby said something to the effect
of ‘it’s not a big deal, it just scared me.’” Compl. ¶ 30-32; Goodman Aff. ¶ 11. Plaintiff states
that Gabby sent a photo of her hand over text message which showed no bite marks. Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 15;

Exhibit A to Pl.’s Aff., ECF 5-10. SCDSS maintains that Nightmare bit Gabby and underscores
that SCDSS determined that Nightmare posed a risk to shelter residents. See Defendant’s
Memorandum in Opposition (“Def.’s Opp.”), ECF 12, at 9. Neither party has submitted an
affidavit of the alleged victim or any other eyewitness to the incident, apart from that of Plaintiff’s
husband. See Goodman Aff.
On October 22, 2024, the day after the incident, Plaintiff asserts WDC informed her that
she must immediately remove her service dog from the shelter, without giving her an opportunity
to discuss alternative safety precautions. Compl. ¶¶ 33, 36; Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 14. Plaintiff was informed
that the decision was made by SCDSS. Compl. ¶ 33. After removing the dog, Plaintiff asserts she

suggested to individuals at SCDSS and WDC that the dog be muzzled but that SCDSS rejected
this suggestion and did not offer an alternative course of action. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. Plaintiff also asserts
SCDSS rejected her alternative suggestion that it pay for the family and Nightmare to stay in a
hotel or motel separate from other residents. Id. ¶ 39. Nightmare is currently staying with
Plaintiff’s friend. See Reply Declaration of Inez Avila (“Avila Decl.”), ECF 13-3, ¶ 2.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction directing SCDSS to permit her service
dog to stay with her at the homeless shelter where she and her family currently reside, or any other
shelter where SCDSS may place her. A movant seeking mandatory preliminary injunctive relief
must establish: (1) irreparable harm; (2) a clear of substantial likelihood of success on the merits,
(3) that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the injunction; and (4) that the balance of
equities tips in her favor. Yang v. Kosinski, 960 F.3d 119, 127 (2d Cir. 2020); New York Civil
Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 294 (2d Cir. 2012).
A. Irreparable Harm

“The showing of irreparable harm is perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction, and the moving party must show that injury is likely before
the other requirements for an injunction will be considered.” Kamerling v. Massanari, 295 F.3d
206, 214 (2d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). “To satisfy the irreparable harm requirement,
Plaintiff[] must demonstrate that absent a preliminary injunction [she] will suffer an injury that is
neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent, and one that cannot be remedied if a court

waits until the end of trial to resolve the harm.” Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 408 F.3d 112,
114 (2d Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff argues that her reliance on her service dog for assistance, places her at a high risk
of irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (“Pl.’s MOL”), ECF 5-12, at 8. Plaintiff presents affidavits and records showing that
she suffers from a cerebral palsy, relies on her service dog to ambulate more easily and to reduce
her risk of falling. See Exs. D, ECF 5-5; Lavy Decl.; Pl.’s Aff ¶¶ 4-10. Plaintiff’s evidence also
demonstrates that she relies on her service dog to alleviate her depression and anxiety symptoms.
See Lavy Decl.; Pl.’s Aff ¶¶ 4-10. Plaintiff claims that she is now less confidently able to walk,
walks less, is at a much higher risk of falling, and has already suffered one fall since her service

dog was removed from the shelter. Pl.’s Aff ¶ 20. Finally, Plaintiff argues that she has suffered
“significant psychiatric harm.” Pl.’s MOL at 8.
In opposition, SCDSS argues that Plaintiff cannot establish psychological harm because
she “repeatedly violated Rule Number 3 of the Rules and Responsibilities for Service Dogs
requiring that her ‘service dog must be with her at all times[]’” and that because Plaintiff did not
have her dog with her at every moment, Plaintiff’s claims of psychological harm are insincere.1
See Def.’s MOL at 8. However, SCDSS’ granting Plaintiff’s request to have a service dog at the

shelter, albeit just not Nightmare, is an acknowledgment that SCDSS believes Plaintiff requires
use of a service dog.
SCDSS also argues that Plaintiff’s damages are pecuniary and not irreparable because her
risk of injury could be rectified by simply obtaining a new service animal. Def.’s Opp. at 7
(“Plaintiff has wholly failed to submit” any “evidence of damage that cannot be rectified by
financial compensation”). However, Plaintiff asserts that a replacement dog is “not feasible”
because of her “significant attachment to [Nightmare]” and because the cost and time to train a
new service dog would “pose an undue and significant burden on her.” Compl. ¶ 43. Further,
Plaintiff’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lavy, similarly states that Plaintiff has a “significant attachment” and

“feelings of warmth and attachment” towards this service dog, such that forcing her to give up this
particular dog “is highly likely, at least initially, if not long-term, to produce feelings of depression
and loss.” Lavy Decl. ¶¶ 12-13. Dr. Lavy also states that the process of getting a service dog is
“too great a burden for a person who carries the psychiatric diagnoses [Plaintiff] has, particularly

1 In response to SCDSS’s arguments regarding Plaintiff’s violation of the shelter’s “Rules and Responsibilities”
contract, Plaintiff says this was a contract of adhesion that she signed under duress. Pl.’s Reply at 8. Plaintiff says
she made the shelter aware before signing that her husband took the dog for walks and to training, without Plaintiff,
and shelter staff told her those trips were permissible. Pl.’s Reply Aff. 3. Importantly, the “Rules and
Responsibilities” form that Plaintiff signed, which provided that “Your service dog must be with you at all times”,
exceeds the scope of the ADA’s requirements. Moreover, the fact that Plaintiff signed this form does not exempt
SCDSS from the ADA. See Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 116, 123-24 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), aff’d, 51
F.3d 328 (2d Cir. 1995). “A discriminatory rule, policy, practice or service is not defensible simply because that is
the manner in which such rule or practice has traditionally been constituted.” Id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 711, 100th
Cong., reprinted in 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173).
the symptoms of anxiety”. Id. Dr. Lavy further opines that “the stress caused by the process of
getting a new service dog is likely to cause significant psychiatric harm to [Plaintiff].” Id. ¶ 13.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff. As an individual suffering from cerebral palsy, Plaintiff
is subject to an incurable disease that affects her balance, and causes involuntary movement of her
legs, an unsteady gait, and weakness in her arms and legs. Plaintiff’s service dog helps her walk

more easily, prevents her from falling, and combats symptoms of her various mental health
conditions. SCDSS does not dispute this. SCDSS also does not dispute Plaintiff’s claims that
separation from her service dog has caused her mental health symptoms, including her depression,
agoraphobia, and panic disorder, to increase in severity and frequency. Without access to a service
dog at her place of residence, Plaintiff is at risk of irreparable harm. See Shapiro v. Cadman
Towers, Inc, 51 F.3d 328, 331 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that plaintiff, a disabled individual, was at
risk of irreparable physical and mental harm without access to a handicapped parking space at her
residence); see also Parris v. Pappas, 3:10-CV-1128, 2010 WL 5157326, at *2 (D. Conn.
Dec. 14, 2010) (refusal to allow a disabled individual’s live-in aid created a risk of irreparable

harm, including risk of injury, to plaintiff).
The Court finds that Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed absent the grant of a preliminary
injunction allowing her to keep this specific service dog, Nightmare, while she resides in the
SCDSS shelter. Without Nightmare, Plaintiff claims that she will suffer an “immense feeling of
loss” due to her connection with the dog. See Lavy Decl. ¶ 10-12. The human-animal bond a
disabled individual shares with their service animal can be central to the services it provides, as
Plaintiff asserts here. Both Congress and courts outside this circuit have recognized as much. See
Lentini v. California Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 845 (9th Cir. 2004) (public
accommodation was required to modify its policies by admitting plaintiff’s service animal; in part
due to human-dog bond, modification was “necessary” even though plaintiff could be
“accompanied by an able-bodied companion, and even though the defendant offered the assistance
of specially-trained staff”); Tamara v. El Camino Hosp., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1087 (N.D. Cal.
2013) (finding separating an individual from his service animal risked irreparable harm and
deprived him of independence); Alboniga v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty, Fla., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1319,

1341 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (irreparable harm established where separating service animal from disabled
individual “would have a detrimental impact on the human-animal bond”); Sullivan By and
Through Sullivan v. Vallejo City Unified Sch. Dist., 731 F. Supp. 947, 961 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (“each
day she is forced to be separated from her service dog . . . his usefulness to her is diminished. As
a consequence of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff’s ability to function as an independent person . . .
is injured daily.”); 135 Cong. Rec. S.10,800 (1989) (statement of Sen. Simon) (“[a] person with a
disability and his . . . [service] animal function as a unit” such that separating the two generally
“[is] discriminatory under the [ADA]”).
Moreover, Plaintiff has shown that Defendant’s proposed solution that she purchase a new

service dog would not mitigate Plaintiff’s irreparable harm because, in the time it would require
Plaintiff to obtain and train a new service animal, Plaintiff would be unable to move about her
place of residence freely and independently without risking a fall. See Sunrise Dev, Inc v. Town
of Huntington, 62 F. Supp. 2d 762, 788 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (“for the period of the delay occasioned
by the reapplication process, [plaintiffs] will be unable to live in the residential neighborhood of
their choice, while the able-bodied citizens of the Town are free to make that choice.”).
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
“For mandatory injunctions, which ‘alter rather than maintain the status quo,’ such as the
one at issue here, ‘the movant must show a clear or substantial likelihood of success’ on the
merits.” New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 294 (2d
Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff brings two causes of action under Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, claiming
that (1) Defendant has not met its burden to exclude the dog under the ADA’s regulations
pertaining to service animals, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b); and (2) Defendant refused to engage in an

interactive process to provide Plaintiff with reasonable accommodations for her disability. Compl.
¶¶ 44-48. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction based on the second claim only. See generally
Pl.’s MOL.
To prevail on her Title II ADA claim for reasonable accommodations, Plaintiff must
establish that (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) SCDSS is subject to the ADA;
and (3) Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from SCDSS’s services, or
was otherwise discriminated against, by reason of her disability. Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331
F.3d 261, 272 (2d Cir. 2003). “In order to ‘ensure meaningful access, reasonable accommodations
in the [] program[s] or benefits may have to be made.’” Wright v. New York State Dep’t of Corr.,

831 F.3d 64, 72-73 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985)).
Therefore, the third element of the reasonable accommodations test is satisfied if a defendant failed
to “‘mak[e] reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an . . .
individual with a disability.’” Doe v. U.S. Sec’y of Transportation, 17-CV-7868 (CS),
2018 WL 6411277, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2018) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)); accord
Wright, 831 F.3d at 72.2

2 The statutory citation is to Title I of the ADA, which pertains specifically to employers: “No covered entity shall
discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring,
advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and
privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). However, the Second Circuit has applied this statutory language
equally to Title II cases. See, e.g., Dean v. Univ. at Buffalo Sch. Of Med. & Biomedical Scis., 804 F.3d 178, 186-87
(2d Cir. 2015) (reasonable accommodations required in educational context under Title II). The Appendix to Title
II’s regulations also makes clear that “[T]itle II entities have the same legal obligations as [T]itle III entities to make
The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff is disabled and that SCDSS is subject to the ADA.
Nor does SCDSS dispute that Plaintiff has offered a plausible accommodation: placing a muzzle
on the service dog. Accordingly, the only remaining issue for the Court to determine is whether
Defendant has met its burden of persuasion that the proposed accommodation is unreasonable. See
Dean, 804 F.3d at 190 (plaintiff bears the burden to suggest a plausible accommodation whereas

defendant bears the burden of persuasion that the proposed accommodation is unreasonable).
“The hallmark of a reasonable accommodation is effectiveness.” Dean v. Univ. at Buffalo
Sch. of Med. & Biomedical Scis., 804 F.3d 178, 189 (2d Cir. 2015). Specifically, a reasonable
“accommodation need not be ‘perfect’ or the one ‘most strongly preferred’ by the [ ] plaintiff, but
it still must be ‘effective[.]’” Id. Title II of the ADA “requires that an ‘individualized inquiry
must be made to determine whether a specific modification for a particular person’s disability
would be reasonable under the circumstances[.]” Wright, 831 F.3d at 77 (quoting PGA Tour, Inc.
v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 688 (2001) and noting that Martin, decided under Title III applies equally
to Title II). “This is so because the ‘refusal to consider [an individual’s] personal circumstances

in deciding whether to accommodate his disability runs counter to the clear language and purpose
of the ADA.’” Id.
SCDSS argues that it rightfully removed the service dog pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(b)
because the animal was out of control and maintains that Plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation
remains available for a different service animal. Def’s Opp. at 9-10; see Tr. 46:17-23. Defendant
is correct that service animals need not be accommodated in every instance. ADA regulations
provide that a public entity may reasonably exclude a service animal if it is “out of control and the

reasonable accommodations in policies, practices, or procedures to allow service animals when necessary in order to
avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.” 28 C.F.R. § Pt. 35, App. A (citing 28 C.F.R.
35.130(b)(7)).
animal’s handler does not take effective action to control it[.]” 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(b) (emphasis
added). The regulation dictates that an animal is “under [the] handler’s control” if it “ha[s] a
harness, leash, or other tether . . . .” 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(d); see also id. § 36.302(4).
ADA regulations do not define the word “handler.” Likewise, the case law sheds little
insight. See Alboniga, 87 F. Supp. 3d at 1342 (“Unfortunately, there is very little in the way of

case-law guidance as to what constitutes a ‘hander’ with ‘control’ over a service animal for
purposes of these regulations.”). In Alboniga, the court concluded that the regulations
“‘specifically prohibit[s] the practice of leaving a service animal unattended[]’” which implies that
an animal being out of control “is its being unattended.” Id. (quoting Shields v. Walt Disney Parks
& Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529, 547 (C.D. Cal. 2011)). “[N]ormally, tethering a service animal
to the wheelchair of a disabled person constitutes ‘control’ over the animal by the disabled
person[.]” Id. In United States v. Gates-Chili Central School District the court considered whether
an eight-year-old disabled child, who needed help untethering the service dog and reminders to
issue the dog commands, was sufficiently in control of the service animal. 198 F. Supp. 3d 228,

234-35 (W.D.N.Y. 2016). The court denied summary judgment because a dispute of fact remained
as to whether the child could “handle” her service dog. Id. But the Court noted that the defendant’s
argument that “control” requires “much more than simply being tied to the dog” was undercut by
the holding in Alboniga. Id.
The Department of Justice’s guidance regarding service animals and the ADA indicates
that the word “handler” refers not only to the disabled individual, but may also be a third party
contributing to the disabled individual’s and the service dog’s care:
Q9. Who is responsible for the care and supervision of a service animal?
A. The handler is responsible for caring for and supervising the service animal,
which includes toileting, feeding, and grooming and veterinary care. Covered
entities are not obligated to supervise or otherwise care for a service animal.
. . .
Q27. What does under control mean? Do service animals have to be on a leash? Do
they have to be quiet and not bark?
A. The ADA requires that service animals be under the control of the handler at all
times. In most instances, the handler will be the individual with a disability or
a third party who accompanies the individual with a disability.

https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/#:~:text=and%20not%20bark?-
,A.,the%20individual%20with%20a%20disability (last accessed December 17, 2024). SCDSS
has not asserted that Plaintiff’s husband is not a proper handler of the service dog, in addition to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s husband contributes to the dog’s care on Plaintiff’s behalf – he takes the dog
for walks and takes the dog to training. Reply Affidavit of Nicole Ahlschlager (Pl.’s Reply Aff.”),
ECF 13-1, ¶¶ 3, 8; see Avila Decl. ¶ 4. The Court treats Plaintiff’s husband as Nightmare’s handler
under the facts presented in this case.
The question of control is also addressed by the regulation’s Appendix. The Appendix
states that “the Department [of Justice] has long held that a service animal must be under the
control of the handler at all times” but notes that “there are occasions when service animals are
provoked to disruptive or aggressive behavior by agitators or trouble makers[.]” 28 C.F.R. § Pt. 35,
App. A. It continues:
[M]isbehavior in response to provocation is not always unreasonable. In
circumstances where a service animal misbehaves or responds reasonable to a
provocation or injury, the public entity must give the handler a reasonable
opportunity to gain control of the animal. Further, if the individual with a disability
asserts that the animal was provoked or injured, or if the public entity otherwise has
reason to suspect that provocation or injury has occurred, the public entity should
take effective steps to prevent further provocation or injury, which may include
asking the provocateur to leave the public entity.
Id.3 The Appendix contemplates that a dog’s behavior, even a well-trained service dog, is not
always predictable and consistent with the regulatory language, provides that a public entity must
give the handler a reasonable opportunity to get the animal under control. Here, counsel for
SCDSS conceded that Nightmare was “clearly . . . surprised by the door opening[.]” Tr. 29:24.
And SCDSS does not claim that Plaintiff’s husband failed to take control of Nightmare. The video

clearly shows that Nightmare was leashed at the time of the incident and that as soon as Nightmare
lunged, Plaintiff’s husband pulled back on the leash and wrapped it closer around his hand.
Accordingly, SCDSS has not adequately stated a defense under 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(b).
ADA regulations also provide that if an individual’s use of a public entity’s services poses
a “direct threat to the health or safety of others,” the individual may be excluded. Id. § 35.139(a).
The Appendix provides that, by extension, if an individual’s use of a service animal poses a direct
threat, it may be excluded under this provision. Id. Pt. 35, App. A.; accord Bennet v. Hurley Med.
Ctr., 86 F. 4th 314, 327 (6th Cir. 2023). When determining what constitutes a
direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public entity must make an
individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current
medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: [(1)]
the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; [(2)] the probability that the potential
injury will actually occur; and [(3)] whether reasonable modifications of policies,
practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate
the risk.

28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b); accord Bennet, 86 F. 4th at 327. Similarly, “A public entity may impose
legitimate safety requirements for the safe operation of its services, programs, or activities.
However, the public entity must ensure that its safety requirements are based on actual risks, not

3 The Department of Justice guidance also states that “Under control also means that a service animal should not be
allowed to bark repeatedly in a lecture hall, theater, library, or other quiet place. However, if a dog barks just once, or
barks because someone has provoked it, this would not mean that the dog is out of control.”
https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/#:~:text=and%20not%20bark?-
,A.,the%20individual%20with%20a%20disability (last accessed December 17, 2024).
on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.130 (h); Wright, 831 F.3d at 78.
SCDSS asserts that prior to requiring Ahlschlager to remove Nightmare from the shelter,
it determined that the dog posed an actual risk to other shelter residents. Affidavit of Kathleen
Sampler (“Sampler Aff.”), ECF 12-5, ¶ 19. However, on this record, it is not clear that SCDSS

made an individualized assessment considering the factors set out in 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b).
SCDSS argues that Nightmare poses a risk of harm in that the service dog may bite another
shelter resident. The extent and severity of this harm must be viewed in light of the likelihood of
its occurrence and the availability of preventative measures. SCDSS admits that Nightmare was
without incident for the approximate six weeks while it was at the shelter,4 and that Nightmare
was acting in response to the “surprise[]” of the door opening towards it. Therefore, the probability
of a bite is low—particularly considering the available safety precaution of muzzling the dog.
Lastly, the muzzle is an available auxiliary aid that will mitigate any risk of a direct threat to the
health and safety of shelter staff and residents. At oral argument on the instant motion, counsel

for SCDSS repeatedly argued that “it is not reasonable for the county to assume that the muzzle
will . . . be put on the dog every single time the dog [i]s out of [Plaintiff’s] living space,”
Tr. 19:5- 7; see id. at 28:18-22, and because the use of the muzzle is “not in the county’s control.”
Id. at 30:8. SCDSS seemed to suggest that Plaintiff would fail to comply with the muzzling rule
because Plaintiff did not comply with the “Rules and Regulations” requiring her to keep the service
animal with her at all times. See Tr. 12:21-23 (in response to the Court’s question regarding the
relevance of Plaintiff’s violation of the “Rules and Regulations” form, defense counsel stated, “I

4 See Tr. 32:2-6 (“THE COURT: So there for six weeks [when the service dog was residing at the shelter], you don't
dispute for the six weeks there was no, sir, incident with the dog? Do you? DEFENSE ATTY: Defendant does not
dispute that.”).
am going through the rules and regs as far as the granting of the reasonable accommodation
request.”). SCDSS’ contention that, for some unstated reason, Plaintiff cannot be expected to
comply with a directive by SCDSS or a court order to muzzle the dog is entirely unfounded and
speculative.
There is no basis to claim the dog is violent by nature and SCDSS has presented the Court

with no facts or law as to why muzzling the dog is an unreasonable accommodation. By refusing
to consider this available precaution, SCDSS failed to comply with the ADA’s requirement that
the public accommodation consider changes in practices or policies that would mitigate any direct
threat. Compare Tamara, 964 F. Supp. 2d at 1085 (granting mandatory preliminary injunction to
permit service dog in psychiatric hospital where (1) hospital failed to conduct individualized
assessment, (2) claim that safety risk from dog’s harness being used as a weapon and fear that
might ensue in other patients was mere speculation; (3) particular service dog had become
accustomed to agitating behavior and “loud, unstable people,” and (4) reasonable accommodations
were available to mitigate direct threat) with Bennet v. Hurley Medical Cntr., 86 F.4th 314, 323

(6th Cir. 2023) (finding service dog properly excluded where, after two hospital patients suffered
allergic reactions on the dog’s first day, hospital concluded that it could not sufficiently protect
patients from the dog’s allergens because the accommodations necessary to prevent that risk
imposed an undue burden on the hospital); and Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condo.
Owners Ass’n, Inc., 22-CV-448, 2023 WL 2392731 at *4 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 6, 2023) (finding
plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits that accommodation allowing service
dog into public pool area was reasonable, where multiple witnesses testified about repeated
instances of dog’s aggressive behaviors). “[R]efusing Plaintiff’s requested accommodation if it is
reasonable in favor of one the [SCDSS] prefers is akin to allowing a public entity to dictate the
type of services a disabled person needs in contravention of that person’s own decisions regarding
[her] own life and care.” Alboniga, 87 F. Supp. 3d at 1341.
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated a clear likelihood of success that
SCDSS cannot meet its burden of persuasion that the accommodation of placing a muzzle on her
service dog is unreasonable. Plaintiff has demonstrated that (1) she is disabled; (2) the SCDSS

shelter is a place of public accommodation and (3) SCDSS likely discriminated against her by
depriving her of her service animal.
C. Balance of the Equities and Public Interest
The final inquiry requires the court to determine whether the balance of equities tips in
Plaintiff’s favor and that an injunction is in the public interest. New York v. United States Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 86 (2d Cir. 2020). Where, as here, a governmental defendant is
the party opposing relief, it is appropriate to consider the third and fourth factors together. SAM
Party of N.Y. v. Kosinski, 987 F.3d 267, 278 (2d Cir. 2021).
Plaintiff argues that given the substantial hardship that loss of the dog will have on her

health and wellness, “defendant’s interests pale against” hers. Pl.’s MOL at 13. Plaintiff
acknowledges the public interest in “ensuring the safety of all shelter residents,” but that the
potential risk Nightmare poses to other residents is mitigated by the use of a muzzle. Id. Further,
Plaintiff argues that the public has a strong interest in ensuring that SCDSS complies with the
mandates of the ADA. SCDSS responds that Plaintiff’s interest in keeping Nightmare is
outweighed by “the health and welfare of the public, in general, and the Shelter staff and residents,
in particular[,]” Def.’s Opp. at 10, and risks opening DSS up to liability. See Tr. 30:1-13; see
also id. 34:2-24.
While SCDSS has a valid interest in protecting the health and safety of shelter residents,
the Court finds that the balance of equities clearly tips in favor of the Plaintiff. As discussed above,
Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm from SCDSS’ refusal to allow her use of her service dog. No
comparable hardship will be suffered by SCDSS by allowing Plaintiff to place a muzzle on the
dog while she resides at the shelter. There is no indication in the record that SCDSS or any of its

shelter residents will suffer any harm—let alone an imminent, non-speculative one—should
Plaintiff be permitted to keep Nightmare at the shelter with safety precautions in place.
Finally, securing the rights of disabled individuals under the ADA is squarely in the public
interest. See New York Progress & Prot. PAC v. Walsh, 733 F.3d 483, 488 (2d Cir. 2013); see

also Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 247 (3d Cir.2003) (“[T]he Government
does not have an interest in the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.”). “[N]o public interest is
served by maintaining an [unlawful] policy when [lawful] alternatives are available to achieve the

same goal.” Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620, 637 (2d Cir. 2020).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED, that defendant, John Imhof, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
SCDSS, is hereby directed to permit plaintiff Nicole Ahlschlager to keep her service dog at any
SCDSS shelter where she resides, so long as the dog is muzzled when outside of Plaintiff’s room,
in any common areas of the shelter facility.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and
given that she and her family are currently experiencing homelessness, the effectiveness of this
preliminary injunction is not conditioned upon the posting of a bond pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2024 /s/ Orelia E. Merchant
Brooklyn, New York ORELIA E. MERCHANT
10:50 a.m. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10764541. Public record. Not legal advice.