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

[Luke Byram]

Is there a link to the proposed Arizona law that can be viewed?

Luke
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Lauren Merryfield via nfbwatlk <
nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbwatlk mailing list
> nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbwatlk:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/lukebyram98406%40gmail.com
>