[Flagdu] Legislative Consideration

[Heath Thorson]

I totally agree.
Heath
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marion & Martin" <swampfox1833 at verizon.net>
To: "FLAGDU List" <flagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: "NYAGDU List" <nyagdu at nfbnet.org>; "NAGDU List" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:10 AM
Subject: [Flagdu] Legislative Consideration


> Dear All,
>    Last week, someone claiming protection under the ADA brought what they 
> purported to be a service animal onto a Hillsborough Area Regional Transit 
> (HART) vehicle and this animal bit the employee. Though we are unclear 
> about all of the circumstances, such as if it was a fixed route or para 
> transit vehicle or if the dog was a legitimate service animal, the 
> incident has caused some issues.
>    When Merry was coming home from her internship last Wednesday, the 
> operator told her she needed to provide documentation for Kappie, which 
> she refused to do. He refused to move the vehicle while he contacted the 
> dispatcher. ITM, Merry called me concerning this. When I called the 
> dispatcher, I was told that HART had implemented a new policy that "all 
> animals, including service animals, must show proof of vaccination" (his 
> words). I advised him that such a policy was in violation of the ADA, to 
> which he asserted it was not. When I asked him if he was an attorney, he 
> said he was not but he would be happy to transfer me to HART's legal 
> counsel. He also told me that Merry could ride this time, but would need 
> to provide such documentation  of vaccination the next time she traveled.
>    I left a message for HART's counsel, Sylvia Berrien,  and received a 
> return call the following morning. I have discussed this issue with Ms. 
> Berrien, with HART's  Director of Customer Service, Sylvia Castillo, and 
> Katherine Eagan, HART's Chief of Route Development, all of whom apologized 
> for the incident, assured me that there was no such policy, and 
> immediately issued a memorandum to all HART operators concerning this.
>    This all leads me to the subject of this message. Florida statute 
> 316.1301, Commonly known as the "White Cane Law", states in paragraph (1), 
> "It is unlawful for any person, unless totally or partially blind or 
> otherwise incapacitated, while on any public street or highway, to carry 
> in a raised or extended position a cane or walking stick which is white in 
> color or white tipped with red. A person who is convicted of a violation 
> of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree". In 
> addition to this incident (HART seems to believe this animal was not a 
> service animal under the definition of the ADA), we have encountered 
> others claiming their pets were service animals in order to gain access 
> with them.
>    How would you feel about a measure to create a criminal penalty for 
> those who pass their pets off as service animals in order to gain access 
> with them, similar to those provisions mentioned above? I am also 
> circulating this message to other affiliate divisions and to the NAGDU 
> list to gain input on this issue. All comments are invited!
>
>
>
> Fraternally yours,
>
> Marion Gwizdala, President
>
> National Association of Guide Dog Users
>
> National Federation of the Blind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Flagdu mailing list
> Flagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/flagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> Flagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/flagdu_nfbnet.org/hthorson%40knology.net
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.146/2627 - Release Date: 01/16/10 
19:35:00