[nagdu] Woman with guide dog says civil rights were violated

Thu Jun 11 19:38:50 UTC 2009

How so with regard to the doctor's office, public accomidations, civil
rights and service dogs? 
Very curious. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Angie Matney
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:05 PM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Woman with guide dog says civil rights were
violated

Hi Marion,

I think it would be extremely unlikely that a judge would interpret a
law to apply to only Seeing Eye dogs, even if the phrase "seeing-eye"
appeared in the statute. The judge is charged with determining the
legislature's intent.
I believe most judges would rightly conclude that "seeing-eye" should
mean exactly what the common understanding of that word suggests, since
this is likely what the legislature would have meant when it drafted the
law in that manner.

By contrast, "public accommodation" is not a commonly understood
term--not really. I seem to recall a case involving the Florida service
animal statute in which it was determined that, while a doctor's office
might be a "public accommodation" for purposes of the civil rights act,
it was not a public accommodation for purposes of the service animal
statute.

My whole point was that any attorney worth her sault would have a
stronger argument than, "the law says `seeing-eye,' so this person could
dnot have had the requisite criminal intent." 

I hope the case you discussed goes well.

Angie

Angie

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Marion & Martin
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 5:09 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Woman with guide dog says civil rights were
violated

Angie,
    You have stated what I meant by my comments. As for whether or not
an attorney could win on this technicality might be up to a judge. we
have a case currently in the works in Florida in which the State
Attorney will not file charges against a private taxi company that has
denied access to two blind people. The SA is arguing that the taxi
company has the right to refuse access to anyone for any reason and
that, as a private company, it is

not a "public accommodation". The Attorney General's office is
intervening for us on this question. I offer this example as one of a
technicality that may cause even someone who should be a legal advocate
for the public as one who is interpreting the law too narrowly and, in
my opinion, incorrectly.

Fraternally,
Marion

----- Original Message -----
From: "Angie Matney" <angie.matney at gmail.com>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Woman with guide dog says civil rights were
violated

> Hi Jenine,
>
> I could be wrong, but I think Marion was talking about a possible
criminal
> case. I think he was suggesting that an attorney might argue that an 
> access
> denial was not a crime if it didn't happen to a team from The Seeing
Eye.
> (Having said that, I don't remember if Texas has criminal
access-denial
> statutes or not.) In a criminal case, the ADA terminology wouldn't
matter,
> but as I said in my other email, I don't think an attorney could win
an
> argument on a technicality like that.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf
> Of Jenine Stanley
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:00 AM
> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Woman with guide dog says civil rights were
violated
>
> Interesting logic, Marion, but federal law trumps state and local laws
and
> there's no such mention of the term "Seeing eye" in the ADA. Now I
suppose
> if a person just stuck with remedies provided under state law or local
law
> and such a term was still in place then it would matter, but hopefully
a
> good attorney could also argue against it as well as for it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gm
ail.
> com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/swampfox1833%40ve
rizo
n.net 

_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nagdu:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gm
ail.
com

_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nagdu:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/rebecca.pickrell%
40ngc.com