The Americans with Disabilities Act wasn't passed so ordinary, everyday Americans could take their pets anywhere they please — aboard jetliners or into restaurants, grocery stores or concert venues.
But the law does the public no favors by limiting what owners of "service animals" can be asked to gain entry to public places, creating a free-for-all environment that ends up hurting the people who need to be accommodated the most.
The ADA defines "service animals" to include only those dogs or miniature horses that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Pets, "comfort animals," and "emotional support animals" are not included. Remember that the next time you see someone trying to make the case that the boa constrictor on their shoulders is a service animal.
But when it comes to dogs, it's difficult to separate true service animals from a pet. The law only permits two questions to be asked of owners: whether the dog is required because of a disability and what tasks the dog is trained to perform. It's illegal to ask the nature of the owner's disability or request documentation for the dog.
States have tried to crack down on people trying to pass off their pets as service animals. Colorado is one of them. Beginning Jan. 1, 2017, it's a crime to intentionally misrepresent that an animal is a service animal for a person with a disability.
But a recent ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals makes it nearly impossible to ascertain a service animal's legitimacy.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by a former Colorado Mesa University student. Dustin Stalder sued alleging violations of the ADA and the state's Anti-Discrimination Act after CMU officials barred him from bringing his dog into the gym.
The university argued — and a district judge agreed — that a "legitimate suspicions" doctrine allowed school officials to question whether Stalder's dog was an emotional support animal rather than a service dog.
The three-judge appellate panel reversed the summary judgment, concluding there is no requirement as to the amount or type of training that a service animal must undergo "and there is no requirement as to the amount or type of work a service animal must provide for the benefit of a disabled person."
CMU overstepped, but it's easy to understand why. It has rules allowing service animals, but bars "therapy dogs" from campus buildings. It was trying to make a distinction that the appellate court says is not permissible.
Ideally, owners of service animals would be provided with a card documenting the animal's certification. But the court said the law makes no provisions for training. Education and awareness seem to be the only reasonable way to preserve the law's intent.
Untrained, misbehaving dogs posing as service animals give real service animals a bad rap. Or worse, they distract the actual service dogs from paying attention to their owner's needs.
With proprietors of establishments having no real way of determining whether a dog is a real service animal, we're all on the honor system. Please don't take a dog grocery shopping just because you can. It undermines the actual service dog's job, which is to provide care and attention to someone who really needs it.
Conversely, please hold back your impulse to shame folks whose pet appears to be masquerading as a service animal.
You might be surprised.
But the law does the public no favors by limiting what owners of "service animals" can be asked to gain entry to public places, creating a free-for-all environment that ends up hurting the people who need to be accommodated the most.
The ADA defines "service animals" to include only those dogs or miniature horses that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Pets, "comfort animals," and "emotional support animals" are not included. Remember that the next time you see someone trying to make the case that the boa constrictor on their shoulders is a service animal.
But when it comes to dogs, it's difficult to separate true service animals from a pet. The law only permits two questions to be asked of owners: whether the dog is required because of a disability and what tasks the dog is trained to perform. It's illegal to ask the nature of the owner's disability or request documentation for the dog.
States have tried to crack down on people trying to pass off their pets as service animals. Colorado is one of them. Beginning Jan. 1, 2017, it's a crime to intentionally misrepresent that an animal is a service animal for a person with a disability.
But a recent ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals makes it nearly impossible to ascertain a service animal's legitimacy.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by a former Colorado Mesa University student. Dustin Stalder sued alleging violations of the ADA and the state's Anti-Discrimination Act after CMU officials barred him from bringing his dog into the gym.
The university argued — and a district judge agreed — that a "legitimate suspicions" doctrine allowed school officials to question whether Stalder's dog was an emotional support animal rather than a service dog.
The three-judge appellate panel reversed the summary judgment, concluding there is no requirement as to the amount or type of training that a service animal must undergo "and there is no requirement as to the amount or type of work a service animal must provide for the benefit of a disabled person."
CMU overstepped, but it's easy to understand why. It has rules allowing service animals, but bars "therapy dogs" from campus buildings. It was trying to make a distinction that the appellate court says is not permissible.
Ideally, owners of service animals would be provided with a card documenting the animal's certification. But the court said the law makes no provisions for training. Education and awareness seem to be the only reasonable way to preserve the law's intent.
Untrained, misbehaving dogs posing as service animals give real service animals a bad rap. Or worse, they distract the actual service dogs from paying attention to their owner's needs.
With proprietors of establishments having no real way of determining whether a dog is a real service animal, we're all on the honor system. Please don't take a dog grocery shopping just because you can. It undermines the actual service dog's job, which is to provide care and attention to someone who really needs it.
Conversely, please hold back your impulse to shame folks whose pet appears to be masquerading as a service animal.
You might be surprised.
Service animal guidelines need greater clarity
The Americans with Disabilities Act wasn’t passed so ordinary, everyday Americans could take their pets anywhere they please — aboard jetliners or into restaurants, grocery stores or concert venues.
www.gjsentinel.com
