Is It Legal To Ask If An Animal Is A Service Animal?

By John Due west. Egan

From our experience, businesses oft must deal with customers and guests who claim that their pets or comfort animals are "service animals" to avoid "no animal" rules or extra charges for pets.  A recent determination from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California serves as a reminder that businesses practise have a mechanism for ferreting out service animal imposters.

Under the ADA Championship III regulations issued by the Section of Justice (DOJ), there are 2 questions that a business or other public accommodation may inquire to determine if an animate being qualifies as a service animal:

(1) Is the beast required because of a disability?; and

(2) What work or chore has the animal been trained to perform?

Yet, a business may not inquire these two questions when it is readily apparent that the service fauna is performing a task for a patron with a disability (for case, a dog that is observed guiding a person who is blind or has low vision). Besides off limits are questions about the nature or extent of a patron's disability and requests for proof of service animate being preparation, licensing or certification.

The public adaptation in Lerma v. California Exposition and State Off-white et al. was well-served by this protocol.  The Plaintiff in Lerma tried to enter a off-white in Sacramento, California with a cocker spaniel puppy.  When a police officer employed past the venue approached her, Plaintiff claimed the puppy was a service animal and demanded to enter the park.  The officeholder asked her what task the dog had been trained to perform.  Plaintiff reportedly replied, "all I take to tell yous is information technology'due south a service dog and I'm going to sue you."  When the officeholder asked Plaintiff how she would handle the puppy's need to save itself, or whether it was housebroken, Plaintiff again refused to reply the officeholder'south questions and threatened legal action.  Afterward this line of questioning, the officer told Plaintiff that considering he could not make up one's mind whether the dog qualified as a service brute nether the ADA, information technology should be removed from the premises.  The Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit alleging that this deport violated the ADA.

At her deposition, Plaintiff admitted that the dog was non trained to help her with a disability.  In fact, the simply preparation the dog received was housetraining and full general obedience training.  Plaintiff testified at deposition that she "needed the canis familiaris to be able to become through the day."

Considering these facts, Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows ruled that Plaintiff'south dog was not a service fauna under the ADA and recommended the complete dismissal of this action.  (Notation that while the Court's discussion was limited to the ADA, the definition of a service animal nether other federal laws such as the Fair Housing Deed and the Air Carrier Admission Human action, as well as some State and local laws, are broader than the ADA's definition and should exist ever be consulted.)

The Court held that Plaintiff's dog was not an ADA service creature because it was not trained to perform tasks that would do good a person with a disability.  As well, the Court observed that Plaintiff's reasons for having the canis familiaris with her – – for emotional support and comfort – – were expressly excluded from the definition of a service animal under ADA regulations.  (See our prior web log on service animals hither , and note that while emotional support and comfort are non qualifying functions for an ADA service beast, a person with a psychological disability can have a service animal.  Dogs trained to, for example, calm a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder during an anxiety attack, or remind a person with a mental illness to take prescribed medications, may qualify as service animals under the ADA.)

The Court also determined that the police force officer acted properly in handling the interaction with Plaintiff.  First, he asked one of the ii permissible questions – – what task had the dog been trained to perform.  Second, he asked whether the animal was housebroken.  The ADA permits businesses to exclude fifty-fifty bona fide service animals if they are not housebroken, or if they are out-of-command.  Third, the officeholder told Plaintiff that she could return and enter the park without the fauna.  The regulations require that after properly excluding an animal, a business organization must provide the individual with a disability with an opportunity to obtain its goods or service without the animal'southward presence.

As the Lerma instance illustrates, using the questions allowed under the ADA tin can be an effective tool for public accommodations to ferret out service animal imposters and ensure individuals with legitimate working service animals are afforded equal access under the ADA.

Edited by Minh N. Vu and Kristina Yard. Launey

Source: https://www.adatitleiii.com/2014/01/combatting-service-animal-fraud-those-two-questions-you-are-allowed-to-ask-do-work/

Posted by: healeycoled1948.blogspot.com

Share this post