Service Dogs and the ADA

[chrisberb]

So for some reason Youtube put a video titled "Pizza Hut Employee Grabs My PHONE!.
I begin watching the video, and it's basically about a guy eating in Pizza Hut with his service dog, and the employees are asking him to leave because they don't think he's allowed to have an animal in the restaurant, or it's against their policies, or whatever. The guy has obviously had this issue before because he can quote what an Americans with Disabilities Act website says.
He provides this website: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html.
Some quotes from the site:

Q1. What is a service animal?
A. Under the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The task(s) performed by the dog must be directly related to the person's disability.

Q5. Does the ADA require service animals to be professionally trained?
A. No. People with disabilities have the right to train the dog themselves and are not required to use a professional service dog training program.

Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?
A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

Q17. Does the ADA require that service animals be certified as service animals?
A. No. Covered entities may not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal, as a condition for entry.

TLDR: According to the ADA, anyone can bring any breed dog with no sort of certification or proof of training, into almost any establishment, and not only are you forbidden from asking them to leave, you're forbidden to ask almost anything about it.
I was really surprised to see this. I'm not one to accuse people of abusing laws, but this seems like it could so easily be abused that it's essentially a "you can now bring your dogs anywhere" law.
Am I just a dick for thinking it's a bit far reaching for the law to tell any business "you must allow dogs"?

[Endus]

It's more that;

1> The business has no right to know what the customer's disability is, or what training their dog has; that's private and none of their business.
2> Denying service to someone because they're disabled is a civil rights violation, and that includes making them leave because of their service animal.

If the dog's behaviour is bad, you can kick them out over that alone. That they're a service animal doesn't overrule that. So really, the only way this could come up is in a case where someone with a well-behaved animal was being asked to leave, and was protesting that it was a service animal. In which case, yeah; just leave them alone, the animal wasn't causing a problem.

Also note that while you're not required to tell the business owner/employees what your disability is and what the dog does for you, you are going to have to prove that if you take this stuff to court. So if you're sure they're lying, kick 'em out. They can't sue you, because they don't have a disability in the first place, and they'd have to be able to prove otherwise to make a lawsuit stick. If you're wrong, though, you're hosed.

So if the animal isn't causing any issues, just leave them alone. Seems easy enough to me.

[Stelio Kontos]

My only issue with the service animal issue is the individuals who insist on making some unusual animal their service animal.

Dogs are fine, I wouldn't question one. But I'm sorry, I don't you want you bringing your "emotional support" chicken or turkey in and shitting everywhere.

Thankfully, from what I see, emotional support animals don't fall under the same protections as a service animal.

[chrisberb]

It's more that;

1> The business has no right to know what the customer's disability is, or what training their dog has; that's private and none of their business.
2> Denying service to someone because they're disabled is a civil rights violation, and that includes making them leave because of their service animal.

If the dog's behaviour is bad, you can kick them out over that alone. That they're a service animal doesn't overrule that. So really, the only way this could come up is in a case where someone with a well-behaved animal was being asked to leave, and was protesting that it was a service animal. In which case, yeah; just leave them alone, the animal wasn't causing a problem.

Also note that while you're not required to tell the business owner/employees what your disability is and what the dog does for you, you are going to have to prove that if you take this stuff to court. So if you're sure they're lying, kick 'em out. They can't sue you, because they don't have a disability in the first place, and they'd have to be able to prove otherwise to make a lawsuit stick. If you're wrong, though, you're hosed.

So if the animal isn't causing any issues, just leave them alone. Seems easy enough to me.

And what if the pet ISN'T trained? And bites someone? Is the business responsible because they allowed the animal inside? Will the federal govt pick up the tab since they'll allow it? My criticism isn't about the person and their disability, it's that the animal can go wherever, and you can't even inquire if it's ACTUALLY trained.

[Dextroden]

So for some reason Youtube put a video titled "Pizza Hut Employee Grabs My PHONE!.
I begin watching the video, and it's basically about a guy eating in Pizza Hut with his service dog, and the employees are asking him to leave because they don't think he's allowed to have an animal in the restaurant, or it's against their policies, or whatever. The guy has obviously had this issue before because he can quote what an Americans with Disabilities Act website says.
He provides this website: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html.
Some quotes from the site:




TLDR: According to the ADA, anyone can bring any breed dog with no sort of certification or proof of training, into almost any establishment, and not only are you forbidden from asking them to leave, you're forbidden to ask almost anything about it.
I was really surprised to see this. I'm not one to accuse people of abusing laws, but this seems like it could so easily be abused that it's essentially a "you can now bring your dogs anywhere" law.
Am I just a dick for thinking it's a bit far reaching for the law to tell any business "you must allow dogs"?

I wanna say yes and no.

For the people that legitimately use Service animals and have properly trained or at least behaved ones, it is a perfectly fine thing. Having something to steady you or help you with a disability is fine.

For the people you can just tell learned how to quote the law so they can take their dog anywhere, you are justified in being annoyed by. They ruin shit for the first group and make accepting the idea of service animals sound like a scam.

I got to see both working at the mall.

First group was a service animal training group. Well behaved, quuet, clean and friendly. No trouble. Saw them weekly.

Second group was random. But I would think people serious about a service animal would just leave dog shit sitting on mall tile. And two running loose in a store.

Service animals are good. But we always ruin good things by being stupid.

[Polyxo]

I want a service dog who provides the service of mauling people that don't believe it's a real service dog.

[daenerys]

And what if the pet ISN'T trained? And bites someone? Is the business responsible because they allowed the animal inside? Will the federal govt pick up the tab since they'll allow it? My criticism isn't about the person and their disability, it's that the animal can go wherever, and you can't even inquire if it's ACTUALLY trained.

If the pet isn't trained, than it's not a certified service animal. Service animals are specifically trained from birth for several months for that roll. No legitimate service animal would bite anyone.

[chrisberb]

If the pet isn't trained, than it's not a certified service animal. Service animals are specifically trained from birth for several months for that roll. No legitimate service animal would bite anyone.

According to law, there is NO certification required for a service animal. The law also states that a service animal doesn't need to have professional training.

[Dextroden]

If the pet isn't trained, than it's not a certified service animal. Service animals are specifically trained from birth for several months for that roll. No legitimate service animal would bite anyone.

There's the rub. Q15 says it can be trained by the owner. Which a handful of jackasses will never do and just claim it.

[therealbowser]

While I think the guy was intentionally trying to pick a fight and was an asshole, he was still in the right and the employees were not really much better.

What a shitshow.

I stopped watching the movie as soon as he said what the dog was for, and everything started making sense. I'm not going to judge, but all the same it just feels really, really wrong.

[Garnier Fructis]

If the pet isn't trained, than it's not a certified service animal. Service animals are specifically trained from birth for several months for that roll. No legitimate service animal would bite anyone.

The point is that the law basically forbids establishments from actually verifying this, which means someone could bring in an untrained animal and lie about it and the establishment just has to accept it.

So his question is, what's the establishment's legal responsibility if someone lies about their animal and that animal then attacks someone?

I have no issues with these laws, but it's an interesting question.

[Dextroden]

The point is that the law basically forbids establishments from actually verifying this, which means someone could bring in an untrained animal and lie about it and the establishment just has to accept it.

So his question is, what's the establishment's legal responsibility if someone lies about their animal and that animal then attacks someone?

Realistically. I don't know the punishment. I'd assume it would be handled between owned and bite victim.

Public opinion court would blame the store for not having a safe environment and demand a juicy settlement for pain and suffering. And the dog was obviously a pit bull. So euthanasia on top of that.

[AlphaOut]

According to law, there is NO certification required for a service animal. The law also states that a service animal doesn't need to have professional training.

Correct, however if the animal isn't behaving in public, or barking constantly, the dog can legally be removed. So it doesn't matter whether or not certifications are needed. If it doesn't act trained, the owner of the animal is shit out of luck.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is that the law basically forbids establishments from actually verifying this, which means someone could bring in an untrained animal and lie about it and the establishment just has to accept it.

So his question is, what's the establishment's legal responsibility if someone lies about their animal and that animal then attacks someone?

I have no issues with these laws, but it's an interesting question.

If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, staff may request that the animal be removed from the premises.

[belfpala]

The point is that the law basically forbids establishments from actually verifying this, which means someone could bring in an untrained animal and lie about it and the establishment just has to accept it.

Oh my god, I just realized...

What if a person wants to use a bathroom that corresponds to something other than their birth biological sex AND wants to bring a service animal in with them????

...File under "Things people could do but it's not a problem, so nyah nyah who cares."

- - - Updated - - -

If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, staff may request that the animal be removed from the premises.

Fuck that, I'd kick the person out for cause. Actually, I don't need cause to kick a person out of a private establishment. Bang. Human, you leave. Dog, you're on the menu (j/k).

[Dextroden]

Oh my god, I just realized...

What if a person wants to use a bathroom that corresponds to something other than their birth gender AND wants to bring a service animal in with them????

...File under "Things people could do but it's not a problem, so nyah nyah who cares."

- - - Updated - - -



Fuck that, I'd kick the person out for cause. Actually, I don't need cause to kick a person out of a private establishment. Bang.

Gotta watch out for that. I'm sure that dude also practiced his "I'll sue the fuck out of you for discrimination" speech.

[Garnier Fructis]

If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, staff may request that the animal be removed from the premises.

Well that's reasonable.

[Xargoth6634]

So establishments are unable to say exclude service animals (or "service animals" since people can be assholes and would likely abuse the fact that no one can challenge their claims of needing a service animal) no matter what? What if I own a shop and I'm allergic to dog hair or whatever? What if I had a traumatic experience with a dog attack when I was younger?

No business should be COMPELLED to serve anyone they don't want to. Yes, I know about the historical precedent with the Jim Crow era; no, I don't think that's relevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Gotta watch out for that. I'm sure that dude also practiced his "I'll sue the fuck out of you for discrimination" speech.

They always do...

[belfpala]

Gotta watch out for that. I'm sure that dude also practiced his "I'll sue the fuck out of you for discrimination" speech.

Most of those people don't bring the lawsuit, and most of the ones that do get dismissed with a boilerplate motion.

In any case, if both the service animal and the person weren't causing trouble, I'd return the favor and everyone would go on with their day.

On the other hand, I'm not clear if, for example, other customers complain about having a dog allergy. Isn't that a disability too?

[Dextroden]

Most of those people don't bring the lawsuit, and most of the ones that do get dismissed with a boilerplate motion.

In any case, if both the service animal and the person weren't causing trouble, I'd return the favor and everyone would go on with their day.

On the other hand, I'm not clear if, for example, other customers complain about having a dog allergy. Isn't that a disability too?

This just popped up in my head because you asked that. Can the dog owner demand proof of allergy? Really, I don't think so. I just wonder how deep the service animal protections go.

[belfpala]

This just popped up in my head because you asked that. Can the dog owner demand proof of allergy? Really, I don't think so. I just wonder how deep the service animal protections go.

Yeah.

But again, I've been in some form of "hospitality" or customer service on and off for a better part of two decades and I've never seen anyone abuse the rules about service animals.

There are establishments that allow anyone to bring pets in, and... old ladies should not be allowed to have pets in public. That's all I'll say about that.