Previously, I have talked about service dog v. therapy dogs. I have also talked about the administrative regulations from the Department of Justice with respect to the difference between service dogs and other kinds of dogs that a person with a disability may have with respect to how they would likely hold up under

I do not normally blog more than once a week. You would be surprised how time-consuming writing a blog entry really is. Also, I don’t like to have blog entries that cannibalize each other. Rather, I like to have a blog entry get a chance to stand on its own for a while. That gives

Back in 1997, I wrote an article for the Florida bar Journal discussing the relationship between the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. I have had the good fortune to see that article cited numerous times in various law review articles. If I were to update that article today,

Just recently, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education joined forces to issue a letter (the link will take you to the press release. In that press release, there is another link to the letter itself), to schools of medicine, schools of dentistry, schools of nursing,

The United States Supreme Court and the regulations implementing title I of the ADA allow for a complete defense to discrimination against persons with disabilities when the discrimination is necessary in order to comply with other federal law or regulations. Albertsons v. Kirkingburg 527 U.S. 555, 570, 570 n.16; see also id. at 578 (J.

In a comment to the service dog v. therapy dog blog entry, I promised that I would follow-up with an exploration of whether the Department of Justice regulations with respect to service dogs and how they differ from therapy dogs and the corresponding difference in treatment with respect to the ADA, would survive a challenge