[nagdu] Legislative Consideration

[Marion & Martin]

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