Kaylasmom and I were asked to leave a restaurant once. Well, twice. The first time, we got confronted by the owner when we were almost done with our meal. A few weeks later, they refused to serve us at all (same restaurant, we really liked their food, and hoped that the owner had educated himself).
The (very modest) settlement went towards our wedding in 1983.
But the store is private property. Can’t the store kick anyone out for just about any reason?
Oh, and once she was refused passage on an airliner. We got a free trip to Kauai from that.
Is the policy governing service dogs different in any way from the policy governing comfort dogs? It appears to me that the former is a need, but what about the latter?
Any reason not having to do with a protected status. I once told someone I didn’t want to do business with them. They argued that it was illegal for me to do this. I explained about protected statuses and that I was kicking them out for being an asshole, which is not a protected status.
He threatened legal action, which never happened.
If by “comfort animal” , you mean an emotional support animal, the rules are different. An ESA does not have to be allowed in restaurants , stores or other places of business. A landlord must allow a person to have an ESA even if there is a no-pet policy but the landlord can require documentation from a physician or mental health professional. Until a couple of years ago, airlines were required to let all ESAs fly on the main cabin free of charge. There was a rule change a couple of years ago and now the airlines can treat ESAs as pets and charge for them.
ESA’s are different from psychiatric service dogs, which are trained to perform a specific service and do not simply provide emotional support by their presence.
Are you saying you were asked to leave a restaurant twice and denied boarding on a plane because your wife is blind?
Because she had her guide dog with her.
If the “service animals” are misbehaving, the store can legally ask the customer to leave. If the puppies in this case weren’t housebroken or were barking then the store can remove them. This is really the only option a store has when confronted with fake service animals.
Well, great.
I’m happy that you had, at least, an uneventful experience.
I wish you the best.
Good luck.
(further hijack, sorry…Happy birthday @kaylasdad99)
Yeah, I think it’s a greater invasion of privacy to ask what the dog/etc. does than to ask whether it has a certificate. The certificate doesn’t need to say what the dog does, only that it’s trained by X organization, which is on a list; or has passed a test given by X organization, in the case of individually trained dogs. Though I grant that requiring the dog who you figured out at home has been warning you of seizures to be taken somewhere to prove its training does pose a burden. (And you still shouldn’t be taking that dog around with you if it jumps up on random people; not until you’ve trained it not to.)
And yet schools are expected to provide education for children who can’t see; and traffic intersections increasingly provide ways for people who can’t see to safely cross the street; and my polling places provide ways for people to vote who can’t read the standard ballot. And for that matter my library now has an elevator so that people who can’t climb stairs can get into the library. Are you opposed to such measures?
I’m not sure that’s relevant to asking for certification; the placard for a handicapped spot may be more relevant. But it does seem to me that the issue isn’t ‘should society make accommodations for people who have physical/mental difficulties’ but ‘what type of accommodations should society make?’
This is definitely a large part of the issue. If the businesses don’t want to enforce, changing their potential technique of enforcement isn’t going to make much difference.
I think they’ve got an excellent case for requiring the dog to be on-leash when they’re around. I think they might have such a case even if licenses existed and the dog were so licensed – surely large workplaces exist in which some people need assistance dogs and at least one other person is phobic of dogs and/or allergic to them (the latter case would call not for a leash as that wouldn’t help, but for restricting the dog to certain areas and allowing the allergic person to work elsewhere.)
I think the problem in this case has nothing to do with licenses, but with the workplace apparently being fine with having a loose dog that jumps up on people in the workplace. It’s true that a properly licensed dog wouldn’t do this; but there are plenty of dogs not specifically trained for assistance who don’t do it either.
Yay!
Possibly the dog is better behaved than the description made it seem.
Of course I’m not opposed! I’d also have been very happy if we had universal public health coverage, including for the often-overlooked cost of eyeglasses (mine cost as much as $800 in the early 2000s).
But even with financial coverage, I STILL would have had the hassle of frequent medical appointments, surgery, etc. - all involving paperwork and other inconveniences. That’s the part I think I was just required to deal with. Similarly, in response to my interpretation of what @CaveMike said (which I think he is saying is incorrect or at least not directly relevant), I don’t think it is unduly onerous on the individuals concerned to obtain and be prepared to show proof that their service animals are indeed certified service animals (though I think the costs of training and certifying should only be charged to individuals who can afford it - a sliding scale sounds right to me).
Like if a cop stops you while driving?
Or buying alcohol?
Of course not. It’s a terribly inapposite analogy. If no placards were required, jerks would take up the disabled parking spaces, potentially not leaving enough for the actually disabled. But limiting the questions that can be asked of a person with what is purported to be a service dog doesn’t take anything away from a disabled person. It seems to primarily upset able-bodied people who suspect that a dog is not a real service dog.
I’ve searched, and I haven’t found any movement by people with service dogs to require certification. They are who we should listen to on this. Disabled people who have service dogs are already quite burdened. Service dogs can be the difference between a person being homebound vs. being independent and productive people in society. And it seems as though the primary motivation for requiring proof is that some people are upset about bad people (people who bring their pets and call them service dogs) “getting-away-with-it.”
And I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that most disabled people who use service dogs would much rather have some people get away with that than to have to show some kind of certification that could still probably be faked by the jerks at whom it would be directed.
Exactly. Service dog or not, a dog causing a problem can be kicked out. And they aren’t. Which is the business or employee’s choice.
And here are two scenarios I guarantee will play out if certification were required (just as it does now when what can be asked is limited).
Jerk and her untrained dog are in the grocery store, where the dog pees on the floor, barks, and jumps up on people. If an employee even dares to approach her, she throws a loud fit, and they back down.
Disabled person and her on-duty service dog are quietly making their way through a store. Jerk doesn’t like dogs, or people much, for that matter. He sees the perfectly behaved service dog, and starts complaining loudly about it, and saying that it’s not a real service dog because the woman is not blind or obviously disabled. A manager approaches him and asks what the problem is. He repeats his accusations and then loudly demands that the manager throw the dog out. The manager agrees to check the dog’s certification, and he does so, apologetically.
The way laws work is that they typically place a burden somewhere. When the laws are well crafted and thought out, they place the burden in a socially beneficial place, or if that’s not possible, then at least not in the worst place. Placing a burden on the disabled person beyond having to answer the two allowable questions, is the worst choice when it comes to this issue.
A customer is entitled to 1 service animal that must be a dog or a miniature horse and have completed it’s training. A cart full of puppies visually fails on two of those accounts.
The greeter knew that they weren’t service animals and chose not to act. There was no legal jeopardy.
A customer could come in with a single, adult dog and the greeter wouldn’t know if it is a service animal. If the dog misbehaves or is disruptive, the store can legally ask them to leave regardless of whether it’s a service animal or not. Again no jeopardy.
So what problem are we trying to solve with certification? A customer brings a well-behaved, non-service dog into a store? And our solution to this problem is certification?
It’s not a trivial task to add certification. There have to be standards, businesses that can certify service animals, organizations that can certify those certifiers, enforcement of the process from top to bottom, financial aid for disabled people that can’t afford the certification fees, etc.
At the end of the day jerks will print out a fake certificates and the Assistant Manager at McDonalds or the greeter at Walmart will wave them through.
I’m glad the situation sounds like it will work out for you @mattgg. I once worked for a company where one of the offices allowed dogs. It was a holdover from when the office was a startup. It seemed like a problem waiting to happen.
Because I’ve done something wrong, you mean? Because if not, that’s not legal either.
Having to show ID to purchase one thing, which no one has to purchase to be able to take part in society, and to prevent a real social problem, is a very minimal burden.
Having to show proof of certification everywhere you go in order to hopefully be a functional and independent member of society is a huge burden placed on people who are already potentially very burdened. And it’s to prevent what?
If I’m driving or even riding in car stopped LE. I have absolutely NO problem whipping out my lisc… and handing it the cop.
Why would I, if in a situation with a guide dog, have a problem doing the same?
If you’re legal, in the right and have no issues you shouldn’t have that problem. IMO
My kids were badged at school. My grandkids have a lanyard to wear to school. To visit their school you have to apply for a temp lanyard.
People are badged on their jobs.
I see no problem with it.
Now, at this time I’m not disabled or handicapped (well I am, but not to that level). But, Maybe disabled persons do not wish to be badged, tagged, licensed because they feel it is a discriminatory practice? I’m asking.
How about a collar tag or placard that goes in the vest similar to a parking placard? in California, it’s a misdemeanor to forge a parking placard, make it the same for a service animal.
What kind of case do you mean? If the OP has a disability under the ADA, they should be reasonably accommodated. That may or may not require doing anything about the dog – the employer could just make sure they don’t cross paths.
Regardless of whether the OP has a disability under the ADA, they can tell the employer their concern, and even provide information to the employer if they think the employer doesn’t know about the laws around service dogs.
And if the dog is out of the handler’s control, it can be excluded even if it is a service dog. Most service dogs are incredibly well trained. But, that’s not guaranteed. People can train their own dogs, or be sold imperfectly trained dogs. When any service dog is unreasonably disruptive, it can be required to leave.
How do you think this law works? Do you think it’s a crime to ask someone with a clearly-not-a-service-dog to leave? It’s not. You enforce your policy, including on people with obviously nonservice dogs. When you refuse to admit someone, or kick someone out, they can sue you. What’s the likelihood Yorkie-puppy guy sues Walmart for violation of the ADA? If he did, what’s the likelihood it gets past the motion to dismiss stage?
It’s totally false that there’s “nothing the store could legally do.”