[nfbwatlk] Fwd: [Chapter-presidents] Fwd: [Nfb-legislative-directors] Proposed Changes to Service Animal Law Defeated

[Mary ellen]

Eternal vigilance always required!  Good for our people in Arizona!

 

In British Columbia we’re attempting to overturn a very harmful Human Rights ruling that says a doctor’s note stating that a driver is allergic to dogs is sufficient to exempt that driver from transporting people with guide dogs.  Taxi companies in Victoria (and perhaps other places as well) have begun flagging the phone numbers (both home and cell numbers) of persons who use dogs.  They’re even targeting numbers where people with guide dogs have been picked up.  The net result is that the taxi fleet available to pick up guide dog users is significantly smaller than the fleet available to pick up others.  One taxi company alone has fifteen cars designated as dog free zones.  That’s about a fifth of the total fleet.

 

In other circumstances, it’s the responsibility of the employer, not the customer, to accommodate the disability of an employee.  Taxis do exist with separate ventilation for the driver and the passenger.  We’re arguing that taxi companies should be required to provide such systems for drivers with dog allergies.  Of course, we’re also arguing that most dog allergies are nuisances rather than significant problems and that a driver who is dangerously allergic would be endangered by a person entering the cab with dog dander on his or her clothing, a circumstance that would not be readily apparent.

 

We’re arguing that a driver wishing to be exempt from carrying passengers with guide or service dogs should have to show documentation from an allergist, not just a family doctor, and that documentation should need to show that contact with a dog presents a serious health hazard.  In that case, it should be the company’s responsibility to accommodate that driver.

 

We’ll see how it plays out.  It’s our belief that most “allergies” are minor nuisances with symptoms comparable to hay fever (unpleasant but not life threatening.)  Other “allergies” have more to do with drivers being unwilling to vacuum dog hair.

 

I thought we were dealing with very bad circumstances.  The proposed Arizona law is profoundly worse!

 

From: nfbwatlk [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Marci Carpenter via nfbwatlk
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 10:56 AM
To: 'NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List' List'
Subject: [nfbwatlk] Fwd: [Chapter-presidents] Fwd: [Nfb-legislative-directors] Proposed Changes to Service Animal Law Defeated

 



Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App


------ Original Message ------

From: David Andrews via Chapter-presidents
To: david andrews
Sent: February 19, 2015 at 9:38 PM
Subject: [Chapter-presidents] Fwd: [Nfb-legislative-directors] Proposed Changes to Service Animal Law Defeated

This message was posted to our private list for Legislative Directors and helps answer the question:  why the NFB?



Dave






On Tuesday, February 18, the National Federation of the Blind of Arizona and other disability groups were alerted that an amended bill was scheduled for a committee hearing in the Arizona House of Representatives at 9:00 a.m. on the 19th. The bill (HB 2179) included a “Strike-all” amendment, which meant that the original language of the bill would be replaced with new and unrelated language.  If the bill were passed out of committee and subsequently passed into law, it would have fundamentally altered Arizona’s service animal law (A.R.S. §11-1024). Proposed changes would have:
  

*	Required that individuals who use service animals obtain a permit from the Arizona Department of health Services in order to take their service animal in to a public place and that such permit be renewed on a regular basis. 
*	As part of the permit process, an individual will be required to apply to the Department of Health Services and provide documentation from a medical professional certifying the applicant has a disability. 
*	Required that a service animal wear a vest, also issued by the Department of Health Services at all times when in a public place. This vest will display permit information. 
*	Allowed restaurants to block access for persons with service animals in order to meet local and or state health code regulations. 
*	Required the Department of Health services develop a sign for restaurants to display indicating that service animals are not permitted and that a separate sign for other public businesses not serving food be created that indicates service animals are allowed. 
*	Required the Arizona Department of Health Services to petition the United States Department of Justice requesting that the Americans with Disabilities Act be updated to comply with state law. 

 
The National Federation of the Blind of Arizona and several other disability groups reacted quickly and organized an effective response to the proposed legislation. NFBA  has an active legislative committee, and along with members from the Tucson, Phoenix and East Valley chapters and its new guide dog division  appeared at the Arizona state Capitol building prior to the start of the meeting in order to register as many people as possible to speak against the bill in the committee hearing.  In addition, the legislative committee appealed to members that could not personally attend the meeting and asked them to email the committee chair and other committee members urging them to vote against the legislation.  We were able to send out approximately thirty emails before the committee hearing started.
 
During the hearing, the committee chair made it clear that his intent was not to pass legislation that imposed greater restrictions on persons with disabilities that require the use of service animals.  He intended to craft a bill that punished “bad actors,” or those individuals who masquerade their pets as service animals for the sole purpose of taking them into places that prohibit pets.  This intent was not evident in the wording of the bill.
 
Many members of the NFBA and the other disability groups testified in opposition to the bill.  All testimony given by the public indicated that the stated intent differed from that of the actual bill and that, as written, this bill violated the Americans with Disability Act.  Testimony suggested that rather than advance a “bad” bill, a bill should be written that focused on the “bad actors” rather than persons with disabilities.
 
Due to effective grass-roots advocacy by the NFBA and the other disability groups this bill was defeated with a unanimous vote of 8 – 0.  The committee members who commented on their votes cited the testimony given by the public as strongly influencing their votes.
 
My thanks and gratitude goes out to everyone who participated in the committee hearing, sent emails and made phone calls.
 
Donald Porterfield, Esq.
First Vice President and Legislative Director
National Federation of the Blind of Arizona
donaldpfield at gmail.com
520-850-2180

        David Andrews and long white cane Harry.
E-Mail:  dandrews at visi.com or david.andrews at nfbnet.org

_______________________________________________ Chapter-presidents mailing list Chapter-presidents at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-presidents_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Chapter-presidents: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/chapter-presidents_nfbnet.org/mjc59%40comcast.net