Remember back in July 2011 when I told you that a miniature horse might be reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Giddy-up! I whinny!
Ok, I'll quit horsing around.
(I mare or may not be referring to a printed-out list of horse puns as I type this...)
More on this hare-raising story -- rabbit puns too? Really, Eric? -- after the jump...
In his story, "Pardon Him, He's a Little Horse" (brilliant!), Matt Reynolds of Courthouse News Service reports that a paraplegic man has sued both GameStop and Marshalls, claiming that they allegedly violated his civil rights by refusing to let him enter their stores with his assistance animal: a miniature horse named Princess who pulls his wheelchair. The plaintiff's attorney claims that neither business has complied with the ADA.
As I noted back in July, the final regulations implementing the ADA for title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities), which went into effect earlier this year, have a new, separate provision about miniature horses that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.
Could use of a miniature horse also be a reasonable accommodation under Title I, which pertains to employment? I suppose it could be provided it did not result in an undue burden being placed on the employer and there is no other reasonable alternative.
I'll leave you all to ponder that while indulging in some sophomoric humor.
(h/t Christine Stoneburner at the Employment Discrimination Report)