[Nfbf-l] Guide dog policies and solutions

Wed May 1 21:27:46 UTC 2019

Can you please help me with the difference of airlines some requesting travel/health certificates for my guy dog.  Is that type of document also like his identification not to be provided or is this the only document that I need to provide some requirement and some don’t

Sent from J Beyer’s iPhone, Have a Bless Day!

> On May 1, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Marion Gwizdala via Nfbf-l <nfbf-l at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> Bill,
> 
>    I have written on this topic in the past and will reiterate - very
> briefly - what I share as standard protocol, focusing upon the topic at hand
> concerning one's allergies to dog dander. First of all, the law classifies
> individuals with disabilities as a protected class, prohibiting
> discrimination on the basis of belonging to that class. Other protected
> classes protected by law include race, creed, ethnicity, gender, and gender
> identification. An individual with a disability accompanied by a service dog
> has the legal right to access the goods and services of a public
> (governmental)  entity under Title II of the ADA, and those of private
> entities providing public accommodations under title III of the Act. The
> only exceptions would be if the presence of a service animal poses a direct
> threat, defined as "a significant risk to the health or safety of others
> that cannot be eliminated by a reasonable modification of policies
> practices, or procedures", if the animal is out of control and the handler
> does not take immediate, effective measures to correct the behavior, or if
> the animal is not housebroken. It is important to note here that it must be
> demonstrated the presence of the dog poses a direct threat; it cannot be
> assumed; furthermore, I do not need to prove my dog does not pose a direct
> threat. This is known as an affirmative defense. In other words, one must
> prove something does exist not that something does not exist. 
> 
>    The statistical information about the prevalence of an allergy to
> dog dander that rises to the level of a disability is, as stated in my
> previous message, <0.005%, or 5 in 100,000. According to this research,
> those with such an allergy would have severe anaphylaxis even if the dander
> were present on a person's clothing, even if a dog were not physically
> present. 
> 
>    If an individual claiming an allergy to dog dander objects to the
> presence of the dog, it is up to the individual with the allergy to take
> appropriate measures to mitigate the situation; it is not up to the
> individual with a disability to take such measures, as that person is a
> member of a protected class whose rights preempt the person not a member of
> that class. So, if I enter a restaurant in which the only seat is near
> someone claiming an allergy to my dog, it is up to the individual with the
> allergy to mitigate that situation. In the case of a passenger on para
> transit, it is understood that the transportation is a shared ride service
> and that there may be times an individual will be required to share that
> ride with someone with a service animal. If my ride arrives and a fellow
> passenger objects to the presence of my guide dog, it is up to the provider
> to make other arrangements for that passenger, not to deny my ride.
> 
>    If a person has an allergy to dog dander that rises to the level of
> a disability, we now have what is known as "competing interests". Two
> members of a protected class are now competing for the same protections. In
> such a case, the person first served is secured the right and the second
> person will need to mitigate the situation. In the para transit
> illustration, if I am the second person with competing interests, I will
> need to wait for another ride. This would not be considered discriminatory. 
> 
>    In all cases involving allegations of discrimination based upon
> membership in a protected class, the first requirement is to demonstrate
> standing. This means that, should I file a complaint alleging discrimination
> based upon the presence of my guide dog, I would need to demonstrate two
> elements before the case would be heard: I would first need to demonstrate
> that I am a person with a disability protected by the law under which I file
> a complaint and that my guide dog meets the definition of "service animal",
> "any dog individually trained to perform tasks or do work for the benefit of
> a person with a disability". Failure to prove these two elements would cause
> a nolle proc or dismissal of the case.
> 
>    If there are any questions, I am happy to answer them so we, as
> advocates, can provide the most accurate information.
> 
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nfbf-l [mailto:nfbf-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Outman via
> Nfbf-l
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1:44 PM
> To: 'NFB of Florida Internet Mailing List'
> Cc: Bill Outman
> Subject: [Nfbf-l] Guide dog policies and solutions
> 
> Good afternoon, list.  
> 
> I have noted with interest the recent discussion about guide policies
> relating to the paratransit contractor that has graciously volunteered to
> provide transportation service to those leaving the convention on Memorial
> Day.  
> 
> 
> 
> Marion, your expertise on the detials of the law is unquestioned.  Yet I am
> troubled by seeming lack of consideration for those who may be facing a
> legitimate issue.  I understand this issue has been used as a cover
> discriminatory actions borne out of ignorance, but I have a difficult time
> believing this is the case in every instance.  
> 
> 
> 
> Those of us who profess a Christian faith are called to not only consider
> our rights but also show due concern to the rights and needs of others as
> well.  We cannot just say, "Sorry, Charlie" to those who may be facing
> difficult challenges such as an allergy that we may not always be aware of.
> The vehicle space issue, yes, has been abused, but at some point does have
> some legitimacy, as vehicles are of finite size.  
> 
> 
> 
> What I need you to do is propose an affirmative solution, not just state
> what is prohibited in law and regulation, to these issues.  What
> accomodations/arrangements are permitted, and would in fact be adoptable as
> best practices, that would satisfy both the legal requirement for equal
> treatment and address the health and safety needs of other riders/drivers of
> various modes of transport?  
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us to merely state what we are against, but what we would be in
> favor of.  
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Outman 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nfbf-l mailing list
> Nfbf-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Nfbf-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org/marion.gwizdala%40verizo
> n.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nfbf-l mailing list
> Nfbf-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfbf-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org/janetnfb%40gmail.com