UNITED STATES V. KENT STATE UNIVERSITY (N.D.

OHIO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CASE NO: 5:14CV1992
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Wednesday, September 16, 2014

Facts: ​A married couple, Brandon and Jacqueline Luke, living in Kent State student housing,
filed a Fair Housing Act complaint because they were not allowed to have a therapy dog.
Jacqueline Luke claimed that the university was discriminating against her based on the type of
disability she had (anxiety and panic attacks), giving more weight to students with mobility
issues or vision issues when making decisions about accommodations. The complaint charged
that Kent State had engaged in a pattern of discriminatory activity by refusing to accommodate
students with psychological or emotional disabilities. The student in question had requested a
therapy dog to alleviate symptoms of psychological distress.

On September 20, 2016, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Kent State
University (N.D. Ohio). The consent decree provided for $130,000 for the students and a local
fair housing organization involved in the case, a $15,000 payment to the United States, and
injunctive relief requiring the University to implement a policy on reasonable accommodations
for assistance animals, as well as training and regular reporting. The settlement not only
awarded money to the students, HUD, and the United States, it also forced Kent State to adopt a
policy that would allow students with psychological disabilities to have an emotional support
dog in university housing.

Issue:​ Is it considered discrimination if a therapy dog is not allowed in university housing? Is

university housing covered under the Fair Housing Act?
Answer: ​Yes to both questions. The Justice Department reached a settlement with Kent State
after it was determined that the university’s actions did violate the Fair Housing Act.

Reasoning: ​The court ruled that university housing is covered under the Fair Housing Act. Thus,
the refusal to accommodate a disability was a direct violation of the Fair Housing Act under the
ADA. “This settlement shows the department’s continued and strong commitment to ensuring
that students in university housing are afforded the protections of the Fair Housing Act,” said
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division.
“Those protections include accommodations for students with disabilities who need assistance
animals in order to have an equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of university housing.”

Has the issue been resolved? ​ The students received a generous settlement. HUD and the
United States were also reimbursed for their costs. Perhaps most significant is that Kent State
was required to change their policy and accommodate similar requests in the future.

Implications for Higher Ed: ​Many (if not all) universities deal with accommodations under the
ADA, including housing accommodations. This decree surely sets precedent for other students
who might request an accommodation for a therapy dog in university housing. Universities must
determine how to set conduct rules about the care of the dog, as well as what role university
residential life staff would need to play in determining animal welfare. Universities will also
need to consider what impact the dogs could have on roommates and create policies about
dealing with allergies and additional cleaning fees.

References:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-fair-housing-lawsuit-against-kent-state-un
iversity-discriminatio​n

https://www.animallaw.info/case/united-states-v-kent-state-universit​y