Wonder dog discrimination: U.S. Supreme Court victory

Discriminatory obstacles clear the way for an accomplished service dog, a golden doodle named Wonder, to accompany his owner, Ehlena Fry, 13, to school. The Justices rejected the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2015 verdict to dismiss the litigation. In order to file a lawsuit against a government entity, all built-in academic administrative processes and remedies must be worn out.

According to Reuters, the American Civil Liberties Union said today’s ruling eliminates difficulties for targets of Discrimination. They will be moving forward with the next steps in the lawsuit process.

Grievance

The grievance began in 2009. A Napoleon, Michigan elementary school rebuffed attempts at reconciliation to allow Wonder to escort Ehlena to her classes. Subsequently, the family relocated to a school that welcomed service animals and they moved.

Ehlena has had Cerebral Palsy since birth. Cerebral palsy is classified as a central nervous system disorder. It manifests in perpetual movement and mobility complications that ruthlessly restrict motion.

These include weak muscles, co-ordination, spasticity, and numerous involuntary actions.

Wonder is trained to assist Ehlena with balance, doors, lights, and activities of daily living. In addition, he is her emotional anchor. Stacy Fry, Ehlena’s mother states, that her daughter is more independent, self-reliant, and self-assured since Wonder came into her life.

Discrimination lawsuit

A discrimination lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal Court in 2012 citing discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The ADA allows for another layer of protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which defends race, gender, religion, national origin, and other discriminatory characteristics as illegal.

Damages and ruling

The aggrieved damages comprise emotional distress, deprivation of independence, and education. The family is requesting monetary relief.

The ruling by the Supreme Court Justices was unanimous, 8-0. The complaint has been referred back to the lower appeals court for further remedies.