The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1 - 149

The Evolution of Disability Law

recognized as necessary assistance animals
under the reasonable accommodations
provisions of the fhact [sic] and section
504. (2011, para. 3)
Huss (2005) provided a succinct summary
of the difference in the FHA and ADA definitions: “The definition of an assistance animal
under the FHA is broader than that of a service
animal under the ADA and includes what
would commonly be referred to as an emotional support animal” (p. 437). Any student
therefore wishing to live with a therapy animal
must “show that he or she meets the definition
of having a handicap and that it is necessary
to have the animal in order for the individual
to use and enjoy the dwelling” (Huss, 2005, p.
437). This final statement, it should be noted,
assumes that one’s campus housing is defined
as a dwelling under the FHA; in consultation
with appropriate personnel and legal counsel,
readers should first endeavor to determine if
this is in fact accurate. However, both service
animals (dogs or miniature horses, under the
ADA) and therapy animals (a much broader
category of animals, under the FHA) must
be allowed under the reasonable accommodation provisions of both acts, provided that the
student has a documented disability, the animal’s assistance is clearly connected to serving
the student as a result of his or her disability,
and, for the FHA, the residence meets the definition of a dwelling.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V.
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT
KEARNEY (2011)
Though the case between the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development and the
University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK) has

yet to be decided, reviewing the complaint
presents practitioners with a learning opportunity. Filing on behalf of student Brittany Hamilton, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, citing the Fair Housing
Act, claimed that the University of Nebraska at
Kearney (UNK) discriminated against Hamilton in their denial of an assistance animal in
her University Heights residence. Diagnosed
with depression in 2008 and anxiety in 2009,
Hamilton’s assistance animal—a small dog
named Butch, which had been prescribed for
her by an advanced practice registered nurse—
helped alleviate symptoms of the illness
and reduced the intensity of panic attacks by
placing his paws on her shoulders when the
attacks occurred (Grasgreen, 2011). In April
2010, before her enrollment, Hamilton visited
the campus and completed the Disabilities Registration Agreement and registered herself “as a
student with the disabilities of depression and
anxiety” (United States of America v. University
of Nebraska at Kearney, 2011, p. 4). As a result of
this registration, Hamilton was provided with
UNK’s Psychological Documentation Guidelines
which required documentation to substantiate one’s disability—for example, a diagnosis
based on the DSM-IV, a clinical summary of
the student’s limitations, and evidence that
the student’s symptoms are present in two or
more settings (United States of America v. University of Nebraska at Kearney, 2011, p. 4). The
first charge of discrimination filed by HUD
claims that the Psychological Documentation
Guidelines exceed what is needed to review a
request for a reasonable accommodation and
that this alleged transgression violates the Fair
Housing Act.
The second charge of discrimination relates

V o l u m e 4 0 , No. 1 • 2 0 1 3

149

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1