Federal Court Vindicates Zoo’s Elephant Care Practices

NEW BEDFORD – A federal judge in Boston held that an elephant at Buttonwood Park Zoo “received consistent and high-quality veterinary care,” while dismissing a lawsuit against the City.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in his decision that the plaintiff, Joyce Rowley, failed to present any evidence that the Zoo failed to properly care for its two Asian elephants, Emily and Ruth.

“Plaintiff also contended that one of the elephants, Ruth, was suffering from certain physical and other issues as a result of the conditions at the zoo,” Judge Saylor wrote in his recent decision. “She did not, however, offer any expert veterinary or other evidence as to either the existence of those conditions or their cause.”

Rowley alleged in her lawsuit that, based on radiographs she claimed to have viewed, Ruth had “lost two of her toe bones in her left foot” due to neglect. Judge Saylor ruled that Rowley failed “to prove that Ruth lost any bones in her toes” and added that Rowley “is neither a veterinarian nor a radiologist, and therefore is not qualified to interpret radiographs of an elephant’s foot.”

Rowley also alleged that Ruth has sores on her body due to conditions at the Zoo, to which Judge Saylor ruled that the “plaintiff offered no evidence, expert of otherwise, to support the sores were caused by a failure” to deliver proper care and conditions.

Finally, Rowley alleged that that Ruth “is experiencing a condition called ‘learned helplessness’” in which she ‘stays frozen in a spot for hours at a time’ even when she would prefer to be moving.” Rowley testified that she has “stood for … up to five hours in and around the zoo … and have observed Ruth standing still, perfectly still for up to three hours.”

After three days of testimony from veterinarians who currently and previously have examined Emily and Ruth, and an independent expert from Ohio State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, Judge Saylor wrote that “even though [Rowley] states that ‘there’s no other explanation for Ruth just standing there,’ she has not proved that Ruth is suffering from a particular mental-health condition.”

The court noted Rowley’s behavior in the courtroom, finding that she became “increasingly agitated and disputatious” during cross-examination on the third day. She then emailed a court employee on the morning of the fourth day to say she would not be attending that day, and followed with a motion for recusal of Judge Saylor, which was denied. When the court ordered Rowley to show cause in writing as to why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice, she responded with another motion for recusal, which was also denied.

The court subsequently determined that Rowley had rested her case. The City’s attorney filed a request for a direct verdict, which is when a judge can make a verdict before the trial is over due to a lack of evidence. The judge gave Rowley two weeks to file an opposition to the direct verdict request. Judge Saylor wrote in his recent decision that Rowley “did not file an opposition, either by the deadline or at any point after.”

Based on the testimony and evidence, Judge Saylor recently ruled in favor of the City, writing that “the City has neither harmed nor harassed the elephants within the meaning of federal law. … As to the plaintiff’s allegation that Ruth received either poor care or no care at all for her foot, the Court finds the opposite to be the case.”

This wasn’t the first time Rowley has sued the City alleging mistreatment of the Zoo’s elephants. Her first lawsuit, filed in September 2017, claimed the City was neglecting Emily and Ruth in violation of the Endangered Species Act by failing to provide sufficient shelter, space, social opportunities, veterinary care, and nutrition.

In his 2019 decision in favor of the City, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young found “that the City has supported its zoo with an adequate budget; had attracted a cadre of dedicated, professional, empathetic, and innovative zookeepers; and had employed top-notch veterinarians wherever necessary.”

Rowley’s recent lawsuit was filed two years later, in 2021, with Judge Saylor recently ruling in favor of the City on Oct. 31, 2024.

“The Court’s ruling vindicates the Zoo’s hard-working and skillful employees who have maintained their professionalism in the face of these specious lawsuits,” Mayor Jon Mitchell said. “The City is grateful for the care they provide the Zoo’s inhabitants.”

The City was represented by John A. Markey Jr. of the New Bedford law firm Markey & Walsh.

*Published Nov. 12, 2024