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

[Lauren Merryfield]

There is no excuse for that behavior. People who are allergic to dogs can get shots now for cats or dogs.  I mean, for humans, with cat or dog allergies, lol. I didn't say that right. Drivers who are afraid of dogs could go into counseling to help them with the fear. Those who have religious views against dogs might need to find another type of employment where they're not in contact with dogs. 

I know some cab drivers don't like dog hair on the back seat, where the dogs usually go during the trip. Maybe owners could bring a sheet or something, or the driver could even do that. I think some of the drivers and companies are making this a bigger deal than it could be. I hope it is found that they are violating the ADA and/or other laws.
thanks
Lauren

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:23 PM, Mary ellen via nfbwatlk <nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 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, Februa