Refused entry with service dog

[summerblue]

This does not make sense to me. The American with Disabilities Act is a Federal Law isn't it? So that means it is the same everywhere? I was told and read that you can not ask for a letter or card or anything else as proof. Also the animals do not have to wear vests, collar or tags. An owner of a service dog sued a local shop owner for requiring a letter or some sort of proof that the dog was a service animal. The owner of the service dog won and it was talked about in the paper. That is how I originally learned about the LAW.


When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two 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 cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

When my cousin was getting his service dog trained, it is what we were told was necessary. His dog is for diabetes. We were told we needed these things, so that no establishment could find a reason to deny Rooster (his dog) entrance anywhere. And the service collar/vest is mainly to keep other people from approaching the animal, to signal the animal is"on duty".

My cousins paperwork doesn't say what his disability is, just the name and breed of the dog and that he is a necessary registered service animal. He also has a vet letter saying he is up to date on all vaccinations. It may just be something the trainers here have started telling people to keep there from being issues, and to give them a stronger legal standing should an establishment try to deny them entrance. I realize it is apparently against the ADA law for an establishment require a person to present these documents, but is it a big deal to have them on hand, so when they ask if it is a service animal you just have a little card that shows they are in fact a service animal that is trained and registered.

I have never seen a service animal NOT wearing a special vest or collar to signify it as a service animal. If I had a service animal I would want it to wear one, if nothing else to signify don't touch my dog.

 

[aaarcher86]

The problem is that we have an honor system in place when many people have no honor.

I would guess that most of the animals (more than 50%) we see out and about that are declared as service animals, actually aren't.

 

[Burnedout]

The problem is that we have an honor system in place when many people have no honor.

I would guess that most of the animals (more than 50%) we see out and about that are declared as service animals, actually aren't.

Based on what?

I know a solid dozen people with trained service animals. (Including my aunts litte horse!) I know none who make claims that their animal is a service animal but not. And I work with a lot of groups of people. Lol I "know" far too many people.

It just seems way tok easy to throw out statements like this that are in no way based on fact.

 

[JLC44]

When my cousin was getting his service dog trained, it is what we were told was necessary. His dog is for diabetes. We were told we needed these things, so that no establishment could find a reason to deny Rooster (his dog) entrance anywhere. And the service collar/vest is mainly to keep other people from approaching the animal, to signal the animal is"on duty".

My cousins paperwork doesn't say what his disability is, just the name and breed of the dog and that he is a necessary registered service animal. He also has a vet letter saying he is up to date on all vaccinations. It may just be something the trainers here have started telling people to keep there from being issues, and to give them a stronger legal standing should an establishment try to deny them entrance. I realize it is apparently against the ADA law for an establishment require a person to present these documents, but is it a big deal to have them on hand, so when they ask if it is a service animal you just have a little card that shows they are in fact a service animal that is trained and registered.

I have never seen a service animal NOT wearing a special vest or collar to signify it as a service animal. If I had a service animal I would want it to wear one, if nothing else to signify don't touch my dog.

It could be 1 of 2 things, the training organization has made it their policy that handlers of their dogs have that stuff, or is in a state where state law offers more protection than the ADA, for example makes denying access a criminal offense, but to qualify for that extra protection you must have that stuff. Not having it in that case would mean the police cant help you, it is not a criminal offense, but it would still be a violation of the ADA.

I know of several handlers that choose to not vest or identify their dogs as service animals. Their reasoning is for them and in their experience the vest is a magnet for members of the public to come approach them, ask them rude invasive questions, tell them stories about every dog they have ever owned, pet and distract the dog. Unvested, people are leery and stay away. The handler understands that means more hassle with access challenges, but is willing to deal with that to avoid the more frequent hassles of the public. The law gives the ability to decide what is best for them.

EDIT: I wish the vest was a sign not to pet the dog, we do allow others to greet and pet the dog with our permission, but I can not tell you how many times people will try to sneak petting as they walk by or read his patch out loud "service dog ask to pet" while they are reaching down and petting him. That doesn't even account for the people that bark, call for him, or come up to us and try to have a conversation with the dog without acknowledging the handler. I completely understand why some would choose not to vest, it is not the right choice for us, but for some it is.

 

[si-am]

I feel for your dad, I would definitely be unhappy since your dad's dog is a legitimate service animal.

I don't know if it is the same everywhere, but here service animals (not emotional support animals, which technically do not have to have any special training) have to wear either a collar or vest identifying them as service animals, people are also required to have a letter stating the animal is a certified service dog and is upto date on its shots. The owner and animal cannot be denied entrance anywhere.

Now emotional support animals, because they technically do not have to be trained CAN be denied entrance into restaurant , grocery stores, etc where there would be a reasonable health code concern. But they being an ESA means you can take them on planes, public transits, etc.

My mother in law has an ESA, which most of our local restaurants do allow inside, mainly because everyone knows her and the dog is well trained.

Withs ESA it is up to the individual establishment, but with actual service animals they cannot be denied.

This reminded me of a strange thing we saw at Disney last month. We were having some drinks in the Tambu Lounge a t the Poly, when two women in their early 20s came in pushing a little terrier looking dog in a stroller. The dog didn't have a vest or collar of any kind, and they parked the stroller a few feet away while they sat at the bar. Not to be judgey (but okay maybe a little), they looked like they were trying a little too hard to be cool, overly made up, wearing sunglasses inside and not removing them.

I couldn't help but wonder if they were trying to be chic a la Paris Hilton with their toy dog... Or if it was legitimately needed for some reason.

Didn't bother me, really, but it was curious, and I was wondering if they could just roll that dog everywhere with no questions asked.

 

[bcla]

If you were offered seating on the patio, then you were not denied service.

As for your Mom reading the law out loud in the restaurant so that the other patrons could hear it, didn't that add to the "uncomfortable situation?"

I would never advise taking legal advice from the police, they are not lawyers.

The interpretation of the ADA is that those with service animals are not to be treated differently. So only offering patio (rather than indoor) seating is a violation. If there aren't many people on the patio, that could be considered trying to isolate the patron, and limiting a service animal to certain areas could also be considered treating the patron less favorably.

http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.

 

[Viva Las Disney]

Didn't bother me, really, but it was curious, and I was wondering if they could just roll that dog everywhere with no questions asked.

They most likely take the dog everywhere with no questions asked.

I work in a casino in Las Vegas and see dogs on a regular basis, 99% have no indication they are a service animal but our policy is to assume they are and treat them as a service animal unless they are barking, acting aggressive, etc and then we contact security to handle the situation.

It's not worth risking your job over something as trivial as whether a dog is a service animal or just a pet.

 

[undertheradar]

The interpretation of the ADA is that those with service animals are not to be treated differently. So only offering patio (rather than indoor) seating is a violation. If there aren't many people on the patio, that could be considered trying to isolate the patron, and limiting a service animal to certain areas could also be considered treating the patron less favorably.

So if other patrons had concerns about the dog, who has the deciding right? Most people do not go to a restaurant to eat with someone's animal, there has to be some common sense applied to the situation. The OP stated that her Mom read the ADA aloud to the restaurant patrons, causing further attention and disruption to those dining. If patrons were complaining about the dog being allowed into the restaurant and the restaurant offered the party with the dog seating away from those who were complaining, how can it possibly violate ADA? Sorry, this is a case where no matter what the restaurant staff did, somebody was not going to be happy. Total no win for all involved!

 

[sbtrfly74]

I dont understand why everyone is focusing on OPs father having PTSD? He also has MS and the service dog could very well be helping him with mobility issues.

As far as the dog that bit and pee'ed on the floor was probably one of those service dogs that you bought the paper off of the internet.

 

[Unas]

I'm surprised that some people are against regulating service animals in any manner. Just about everything is regulated, some things admittedly way too much but completely not regulating these animals is surprising.

What public purpose would be served by the government regulating service animals? In those situation, and I think it is way less than 50%, when a person provides a dishonest answer to the permitted question(s), what is the harm to the "public good?"

 

[mamacatnv]

Based on what?

I know a solid dozen people with trained service animals. (Including my aunts litte horse!) I know none who make claims that their animal is a service animal but not. And I work with a lot of groups of people. Lol I "know" far too many people.

It just seems way tok easy to throw out statements like this that are in no way based on fact.

And I know about as many who have abused the system. ie

My Aunts friend who flies often between two homes, he got some certificate from his Dr to declare the dog a service dog so that he can carry the dog on the airplane without having to pay the extra fee's.

A former co-workers Mother, had a small dog that was her "child", she too had a note from her Dr. and got a "service animal" designation of some sort and takes the obnoxious little dog everywhere.

Then I know people who have guide dogs who are so well trained its amazing.

If there is a loophole, someone somewhere will find a way to wiggle through it.

So if other patrons had concerns about the dog, who has the deciding right? Most people do not go to a restaurant to eat with someone's animal, there has to be some common sense applied to the situation. The OP stated that her Mom read the ADA aloud to the restaurant patrons, causing further attention and disruption to those dining. If patrons were complaining about the dog being allowed into the restaurant and the restaurant offered the party with the dog seating away from those who were complaining, how can it possibly violate ADA? Sorry, this is a case where no matter what the restaurant staff did, somebody was not going to be happy. Total no win for all involved!

I agree, Mom reading the law to the restaurant patrons was somewhat obnoxious but as for the patrons concerns, the law wins on this one.

I find it funny, so many people get up in arms because when I go to a restaurant I don't want to be seated near small children but it would never ever occur to me to make a noise about a service animal whether it was "identified" or not. If the animal was barking, running around or peeing/pooping then it is obvious its not a "trained" animal and that type of behavior would raise eyebrows.

 

[kaytieeldr]

The interpretation of the ADA is that those with service animals are not to be treated differently. So only offering patio (rather than indoor) seating is a violation. If there aren't many people on the patio, that could be considered trying to isolate the patron, and limiting a service animal to certain areas could also be considered treating the patron less favorably.

So if other patrons had concerns about the dog, who has the deciding right? Most people do not go to a restaurant to eat with someone's animal, there has to be some common sense applied to the situation. The OP stated that her Mom read the ADA aloud to the restaurant patrons, causing further attention and disruption to those dining. If patrons were complaining about the dog being allowed into the restaurant and the restaurant offered the party with the dog seating away from those who were complaining, how can it possibly violate ADA? Sorry, this is a case where no matter what the restaurant staff did, somebody was not going to be happy. Total no win for all involved!

The party volunteered to be seated away from other patrons in this large restaurant; the "solution" they were offered is far from equal:

As far as other patrons go, we asked if we could just be seated far away from them, as the restaurant is fairly sizeable. We were told we could eat out on the deck (it was raining.)

 

[aaarcher86]

Based on what? I know a solid dozen people with trained service animals. (Including my aunts litte horse!) I know none who make claims that their animal is a service animal but not. And I work with a lot of groups of people. Lol I "know" far too many people. It just seems way tok easy to throw out statements like this that are in no way based on fact.

I know several. One if my friends even posted one if those BS sites on Facebook where you can 'pay to certify your dog' and it sparked a but debate.

Even if I knew none, the dogs I've run into in public are so poorly behaved it's not hard to tell they aren't actually service dogs. And most of the little old ladies I've met with a nippy chihuahua will own up to fibbing in public so they can take FiFi wherever they go.

 

[bcla]

So if other patrons had concerns about the dog, who has the deciding right? Most people do not go to a restaurant to eat with someone's animal, there has to be some common sense applied to the situation. The OP stated that her Mom read the ADA aloud to the restaurant patrons, causing further attention and disruption to those dining. If patrons were complaining about the dog being allowed into the restaurant and the restaurant offered the party with the dog seating away from those who were complaining, how can it possibly violate ADA? Sorry, this is a case where no matter what the restaurant staff did, somebody was not going to be happy. Total no win for all involved!

That's opening up whole can of worms. Who has the deciding right when the request is unreasonable because of civil rights laws? Suppose someone gets upset because a black family is seated at the next table. Other patrons' discomfort with animals is not a legal rationale for treating someone with a service dog differently. A business can't deny someone with a service animal their civil rights because of another customer's prejudices. Now someone with allergies (who aren't generally protected by the ADA) may be reasonably accommodated by being moved away.

Again - from the Dept of Justice website on ADA and service animals:

Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.

 

[Unas]

More managers of public accommodations covered by the ADA need to have the "stones" to ask the two permitted questions when it isn't readily apparent what work or tasks the dog performs.

Take a look at this . . . http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7d97f8a1-d1ba-43b7-9ec7-db4c05b508e7 . . . The questions do work.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

If asking about the nature of a person's disability is off-limits (as it should be) then how is the second question of the two "permissible questions" okay to ask? (What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?) For example, how can someone answer that their dog is trained to detect seizures without essentially disclosing that they have epilepsy? That question seems invasive to me. Im surprised that would be considered a permissible question.

 

[bcla]

If asking about the nature of a person's disability is off-limits (as it should be) then how is the second question of the two "permissible questions" okay to ask? (What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?) For example, how can someone answer that their dog is trained to detect seizures without essentially disclosing that they have epilepsy? That question seems invasive to me. Im surprised that would be considered a permissible question.

It doesn't have to be. I met someone with a service dog who had a condition where she might collapse randomly and awake in a woozy state where she might not be fully coherent. Her dog was trained to take her home. For something like that, the answer would be "He's trained to take me home if my condition occurs." Simple, to the point, and not terribly invasive. If the handler doesn't want to give up to much, the answer can be vague, such as "detect when my condition happens and protect me from harm."

For someone who is blind, the condition should be pretty obvious and the dog will almost certainly have the standard setup for a guide dog.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Based on what?

I know a solid dozen people with trained service animals. (Including my aunts litte horse!) I know none who make claims that their animal is a service animal but not. And I work with a lot of groups of people. Lol I "know" far too many people.

It just seems way tok easy to throw out statements like this that are in no way based on fact.

I know someone who has. I know they did because they told me. They were taking Amtrak and weren't leaving the dog behind. So service dog she was. Actually, an ESA which is not covered by ADA. Not sure what they told Amtrak. But the dog did ride the train.


I don't know of it is 50% of the population. But fakers do exist.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

We treat the vest as such. My kids are taught that those dogs are working and we are to never bother the owner. Now some owners may not mind--but I cannot fathom why people think a vested dog is an invitation for interaction. They should know better.

It could be 1 of 2 things, the training organization has made it their policy that handlers of their dogs have that stuff, or is in a state where state law offers more protection than the ADA, for example makes denying access a criminal offense, but to qualify for that extra protection you must have that stuff. Not having it in that case would mean the police cant help you, it is not a criminal offense, but it would still be a violation of the ADA.

I know of several handlers that choose to not vest or identify their dogs as service animals. Their reasoning is for them and in their experience the vest is a magnet for members of the public to come approach them, ask them rude invasive questions, tell them stories about every dog they have ever owned, pet and distract the dog. Unvested, people are leery and stay away. The handler understands that means more hassle with access challenges, but is willing to deal with that to avoid the more frequent hassles of the public. The law gives the ability to decide what is best for them.

EDIT: I wish the vest was a sign not to pet the dog, we do allow others to greet and pet the dog with our permission, but I can not tell you how many times people will try to sneak petting as they walk by or read his patch out loud "service dog ask to pet" while they are reaching down and petting him. That doesn't even account for the people that bark, call for him, or come up to us and try to have a conversation with the dog without acknowledging the handler. I completely understand why some would choose not to vest, it is not the right choice for us, but for some it is.

 

[JLC44]

We treat the vest as such. My kids are taught that those dogs are working and we are to never bother the owner. Now some owners may not mind--but I cannot fathom why people think a vested dog is an invitation for interaction. They should know better.

Yeah it was a real eye opener for us, especially because generally speaking the adults are much worse than the kids, kids especially young kids get some leeway and I will use it as a teaching moment. Here is a commercial from the Norwegian Assoc for the Blind, so think about that it is bad enough that they made a commercial. Thankfully too because their commercials are fantastic, and hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_Vb7y8Omf8