[NFBN-Lincoln] FW: Regarding Animal Control and discrimination against blind Lincolnites

Mon Apr 20 00:49:08 UTC 2026

Hi Cheryl,

This email has the response from Assistant City Attorney Rick Tast attached.

From: markmurraycoleman at gmail.com <markmurraycoleman at gmail.com> 
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2026 6:31 PM
To: 'Rick W. Tast' <RTast at lincoln.ne.gov>
Subject: Regarding Animal Control and discrimination against blind
Lincolnites

Mr. Last,

Thank you for your response to my concerns regarding an incident in which a
blind Lincoln man was discriminated against and did not receive services he
otherwise would have had he not been blind. I apologize for initially
missing the response you sent to me by mail. As this communication
originated via email, I was not expecting the response to arrive by USPS.
Because I am blind and paper based print communication is difficult for me
to access, I would appreciate receiving any further communication
electronically.      

In the letter you provided, there was no mention as to whether the essential
facts that Mr. Heyen reported were verified or disputed. According to an
email I received from Animal Control Manager Denise Bollwitt on November 12,
there are indications that the phone conversation between Mr. Heyen and
Animal Control were recorded and the recordings were available for verifying
the incident. My natural belief is to assume that because Mr. Heyen's
account was not disputed, it was verified, or at the very least was not
contradicted. Can you confirm this?

If in fact Animal Control had indicated they were able to assist Mr. Heyen
in this particular case, but withdrew any offer for assistance based on Mr.
Heyen telling Animal Control that he was unable to keep an eye on the bat
because he is blind, then the information you led off with in your letter
regarding who bears primary responsibility for wildlife removal or the
limited ability of Animal Control to assist private citizens bears no
relevance to the specific question of whether Mr. Heyen was discriminated
against in this particular instance due to his inability to keep "eyes on
the wildlife the entire time".

In my November email to Animal Control, I  specifically asked, "Can you
confirm whether Animal Control has a policy or practice of requiring
residents to keep an eye on a bat as a requirement for receiving assistance
from Animal Control?" In Ms. Bollwitt's email response, she stated
unequivocally that this was not Animal Control's policy. Your letter implied
the opposite stating "However, Animal Control cannot do so unless the
individual has eyes on the wildlife the entire time". Your response left
some ambiguity, because it was not clear why Animal Control "cannot" do so.
Is there a written policy that they cannot assist somebody unable to keep
their eye on the animal? If not, then what does "cannot" mean in this
context and how did you arrive at your assertion that they cannot assist?

The ADA has undue hardship provisions that may allow a government entity
like Animal Control some latitude in failing to provide equal services to
those with disabilities. A proper understanding of this case would seem to
require both an understanding of whether Mr. Heyen was discriminated against
and separately, whether such discrimination may be justified under the law.
Your email seems to contain an implied assertion that Mr. Heyen was not
being discriminated against because the policy of requiring vision based
tracking pertains to both those with and without vision. Is it accurate that
your position is that Mr. Heyen was not discriminated against?

Regarding the question of whether providing equal service to a blind person
unable to keep an eye on the wildlife the entire time creates an undue
hardship for Animal Control, your response seems to imply the answer is yes.
This is supported by your dubious assertion that keeping an eye on a wild
animal "ensures a safe, efficient response." As you may know, the purpose of
the ADA is to prevent people with disabilities from being discriminated
against based on tropes or stereotypes about what their abilities are or on
their presumed incompetencies. Yet your letter appears to justify Animal
Control's policy(?) of specifically requiring that the monitoring of the
wildlife be done visually specifically on stereotypes and tropes of what
blind people can or cannot do competently. Do you have any actual data or
other evidence besides stereotypes and presumptions either to justify that a
sighted person can ensure "a safe, efficient response" by keeping an eye on
the wildlife or that a blind person is substantially less likely to
effectively track a bat using nonvisual means. Many years ago, when I had a
substantial amount of vision, I lived in a residence where bats would get
into my home. The bats would dart around from room to room, making
continuous visual observation impossible. However, the location of the bat
was easily tracked by the high pitch chirps combined with the fluttering of
the bats wings. As noted in the email I copied you on a few days ago, I am
very dubious that a sighted person, regardless of what they claim on the
phone, is likely to successfully keep their eye on the bat at all times.
When the ability of visual techniques are substantially exaggerated at the
same time that the nonvisual techniques of blind people are not being taken
into account, then the deck is stacked substantially against the blind,
resulting in what I believe to be illegal discrimination. 

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Heyen has expressed no interest in seeking
any type of compensation for the discrimination that seems to have taken
place. When I heard of the incident of Mr. Heyen being denied services on
account of his blindness, I approached him and asked if he was okay with me
inquiring about the circumstances of his being denied services. As an office
holder in Lincoln's premier civil rights organization of the blind, I am
interested in preventing future discrimination or maintaining discriminatory
policies within city government. Provided these aims can be achieved without
incurring significant legal costs, I also have no interest in resolving this
matter through punitive means or in requesting compensation. In other words,
we are providing Animal Control and the City of Lincoln the opportunity to
fix a mistake without facing repercussions. Future victims of discriminatory
policies may not be so forgiving. It is in the best interest of everybody
for Animal Control and the City Attorney's Office to take a forward oriented
approach to bring themselves in accordance with the law and community
standards rather than a backward oriented defensive response. 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to a response.

Sincerely,

Mark Coleman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbn-lincoln_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260419/ea66694a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Neb Fed Blind; Animal Control-Wild Life Removal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32390 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbn-lincoln_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260419/ea66694a/attachment.pdf>