October 2019 - Parks & Recreation - 26

LAW REVIEW

In determining whether a
requested accommodation was
reasonable under the ADA, the
federal district court would
conduct " a highly fact-specific
inquiry, " which would require
" balancing the needs of the
parties. "
ADA. " The federal district court
acknowledged this allegation
could provide a sufficient legal basis for Mayle to pursue in federal
court because " failure to accommodate is an independent basis for
liability under the ADA " :
A reasonable accommodation
is one that is efficacious. Public

entities are generally required to
make reasonable accommodations
unless making such modifications
would fundamentally alter the nature of the entities' goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations.
Further, as noted by the court,
a requested modification would be
considered " reasonable " under the
ADA if an accommodation was
found " necessary " for the disabled
individual to " fully enjoy the services and facilities of a public entity without fundamentally altering
the nature of the public services
and facilities. " In determining
whether a requested accommodation was reasonable under the
ADA, the federal district court
would conduct " a highly fact-

specific inquiry, " which would require " balancing the needs of the
parties. "
To hold a place of public accommodation liable under the ADA,
the federal district court found that
a plaintiff need only show one of
the following:
(1) the defendant intentionally
acted on the basis of the disability,
(2) the defendant refused to provide
a reasonable accommodation, or (3)
the defendant's rule disproportionally impacts disabled people.
In this instance, the federal district court found CPD had not
clearly articulated " a reason why
Mayle failed to state a reasonable
accommodation claim. " Instead,
CPD had simply concluded " Mayle
is not entitled to the Guinea Hog

Individualized Assessment Requirement
In responding to accommodation requests by disabled
individuals, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires an individualized decision-making process that is
not based on one-size-fits-all stereotypes under applicable rules and regulations. An individualized assessment
must consider what reasonable accommodations are
required for an " otherwise qualified " disabled individual
to have " full and equal enjoyment " of " any place of public accommodation, " including public parks.
Once a disabled individual requests an accommodation, the ADA shifts the burden to the public entity to
conduct the required individualized assessment and,
if the request is rejected, demonstrate it would be
unreasonable to grant the request. In so doing, mere
safety concerns are an insufficient legal basis, under
the ADA, to reject the requested accommodation. On
the contrary, the public entity must demonstrate the
requested accommodation is unreasonable, because
it would constitute a direct threat to the disabled
individual or others.
A direct-threat determination must be based on
an individualized assessment that relies on current
medical evidence or on the best-available objective
evidence to assess the following: (1) the nature, dura-

24

Parks & Recreation

| O C T O B E R 2 0 1 9 | W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G

tion 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 will mitigate or eliminate the risk.
In this instance, Chicago Park District (CPD) did not
conduct an individualized assessment to establish the
existence of a " direct threat " posed by Mayle's emotional support hog in a public park. Had CPD done so, it
may have been able to demonstrate the existence and
severity of a direct threat based on Mayle's own admission that he was " aggressively ridiculed, harassed and
heckled by patrons when he brought the Guinea Hog to
public recreational services. "
In addition to a direct-threat determination, a
requested accommodation could also be rejected as
unreasonable if it would fundamentally alter the nature
of public service. In this instance, allowing an accommodation for one emotional support hog would not
fundamentally alter a public park into a de facto " farm
park " or petting zoo. Moreover, granting the requested
accommodation would presumably not create the type
of significant financial or administrative burden on the
public entity, which would also justify rejection of a
request as unreasonable.
October 2019 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2019 - Parks & Recreation
