[nagdu] Legislative Consideration

Sat Jan 16 22:18:23 UTC 2010

I guess, in light of Ann's post, and thinking a little more carefully, I
would not be in favor of enacting another law, which would likely be equally
disregarded, and might just throw folks into more confusion.
While I believe it is wrong to pass a pet off as a service animal for
convenience' sake, the real issue is the dog that is not truly trained to
behave in public.  Since current law already permits operators of public
accommodations to ask the handler to remove the dog if it is misbehaving,
this should be protection enough.
Susan

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Ann Edie
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:35 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Legislative Consideration

Hi, Marion,

I'm not sure whether the best solution to the problem you described is
enacting another law to make it illegal to pass a pet off as a service
animal.  I think the thing that your narrative demonstrates is that there
are many people, including operators of public accommodations and public
services and also including many members of the general public and people
with and without disabilities, who do not understand the current laws, the
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), the FHA (Fair Housing Act), and the
ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act), as well as the many state laws regarding
persons with disabilities and service animals.  If the operators of your
public transit company did understand the ADA, they would not have chosen
the solution to the problem of the biting animal that they did.  They would
have known that demanding identification of a person with a disability
accompanied by a service animal in public is not permitted under the ADA (as
currently enacted.)  They would further have known that they could, under
the ADA, have excluded the offending animal from their vehicles legitimately
on the basis that the animal's behavior was out of control and posed a
health and/or safety risk to other people.  They would also have known that
they can ask any person accompanied by an animal who intends to use their
service whether the animal is a service animal and what tasks the animal is
trained to perform for the person.

If we are to have new laws making it illegal to pass a pet off as a service
animal, these laws will do no more good than does the current law if the
public and operators of public accommodations are not clearly aware of the
law and how it is to be implemented.  I believe that many people with
physical or psychological medical conditions do believe that they have the
right to take their animals with them into places of public accommodation,
whether or not those animals fit the definition of "service animals" under
current law.  This is not surprising, since some localities and some public
transit systems, as well as many businesses, do permit "emotional support
animals" or even pets to be brought into their facilities.  As you know, the
fact that the FHA and the ACAA do permit animals which do not qualify as
"service animals" under the ADA in facilities under their jurisdiction does
greatly muddy the waters and make it difficult for people to understand when
and where they are permitted to take their animals.

In any case, if there is to be another law governing the use of service
animals in public places, I think it should just state that it is illegal
for any person to take an animal into a place of public accommodation where
there is a "no pets" policy, unless the animal is a service animal (under a
clearly-stated definition) and the person is a person with a disability
(again under a clearly-stated definition.)  The law should give clear
guidelines to operators of public accommodations as to how to determine
whether the person and the animal fit the definitions.  And the law should
clearly set penalties for violations of the law.  In other words, we need
not get into the issue of whether the person believes him/herself to be a
person with a disability or whether the person believes his/her animal is a
service animal, or whether he /she is deliberately and knowingly trying to
pass him/herself off as a person with a disability in order to take an
animal which he/she knows is not a service animal into public
accommodations.

I think you and Mary did the right things in response to the incident you
described.  You refused to cave in to illegal demands of the service
provider; you contacted administrators to get the misguided policy reversed;
and you made sure that the operators of the service would be educated as to
the law and their responsibilities and rights under the law.  Perhaps what
we need is greater penalties for operators of public accommodations who
violate the rights of legitimate persons with disabilities under the current
laws.  If this were the case, then perhaps they would be more careful to
educate their employees and policy-makers about the provisions of the
current laws about the rights of people with disabilities and the provisions
of the law that do permit them to exclude persons and animals which do not
meet the definitions and which may prove a health or safety risk or
substantially alter the nature of the service they provide.

As always, the key is EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!  And the question is
how do we raise the stakes to the point where it is worth their while to
educate themselves and their employees?  After all, the reason we have so
many problems gaining entry to restaurants (and sometimes ice cream stores)
is that the Health Departments have severe consequences for businesses which
violate their regulations.  So, if we want to make it worthwhile to
businesses to educate themselves on the rights of persons with disabilities,
then we need teeth (pun intended) in the laws that are supposed to protect
us, too.

Best,
Ann

----- 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 11:10 AM
Subject: [nagdu] 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/annedie%40nycap.rr.co
m
> 

_______________________________________________
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/sblanjones11%40sbcglo
bal.net