Dear patient with a service animal

[RoadKingLarry]

Which is why I support requiring them to pass tests on social behavior regardless of "legitimate need" because it gets down to the point - if you're going to have the animal out in public on and off private and public land, it needs to be well behaved.  Don't worry about what task(s) it has been trained to do on the medical side, that's hard to assess.  Whether the thing can be out and about without tearing people's faces off is the more important concern.

The same argument could be made for many people and their get.

[Hawkmoon]

Your first part has already been done.  Under the ADA your choices have been restricted down to dogs and miniature horses.  Cats, pigs, monkeys, regular sized horses, and all need not apply. Monkeys are no longer allowed because they're considered too dangerous, and too smart - it's cruel to keep them as a service animal.

As for the comfort animals, they typically aren't actually protected, it's more that there isn't a specific listing of what conditions it applies to because it would be too damn long.  Blindness, deafness, seizure, panic attacks, paralysis(fetching, toting, opening doors) are only the start of reasons to have a service animal.

As such, people pushing it generally get away with it because the people in the location don't want trouble and aren't familiar with the exact details of the law.

Which is why I support requiring them to pass tests on social behavior regardless of "legitimate need" because it gets down to the point - if you're going to have the animal out in public on and off private and public land, it needs to be well behaved.  Don't worry about what task(s) it has been trained to do on the medical side, that's hard to assess.  Whether the thing can be out and about without tearing people's faces off is the more important concern.

So-called "comfort animals" are NOT service animals, but a lot of people who try to pass of their pet as a "comfort animal" take advantage of the fact that most people (and most business managers) don't really know there's a difference. Also, the ADA doesn't require that service animals have any sort of certification, and I think that's a mistake. The way the ADA rules are set forth and administered, the system is completely set up to encourage cheaters to cheat.

It's not that I'm a hard-hearted b*****d (although I am) -- in fact, as an architect I've been an accessibility advocate for forty years. And that's why I get [bleeped] when I see losers abusing the accessibility regulations. I feel the same way about people who park in handicapped parking spaces when they don't have a handicapped parking permit. (Or like the executive assistant to the owner of a firm I used to work for. Her husband had a handicapped parking placard, for a legitimate disability. She decided that meant she was entitled to park in handicapped spaces even when her husband wasn't with her.

[230RN]

"She decided that meant she was entitled to park in handicapped spaces even when her husband wasn't with her."

A lot of people still think the hang tag (placard) goes with the car.  No, it goes with the person, and can't be used by anyone else.  The same thing goes even if there are handicapped license plates on the car.

Twice I have seen the same guy in the local Supermarket hauling two dogs around on leashes with no service dog vests or whatever you call them.  As well as others, but with only one critter.  One little dog seemed to enjoy being pushed around in the kid's seat in the shopping cart.  Judging from the smiles the owner got, I reckon most people thought it was cute.  

[MillCreek]

Here are the pertinent parts of my service animal policy that I wrote:

Federal law defines service animals as a dog or miniature horse.  XXX employees must permit service animals access when it is readily apparent that the dog or miniature horse is trained to do work or perform a task for a disabled person.  Examples include guiding a person who is blind or has low vision; pulling a wheelchair; or providing assistance with stability or walking.

If the need for a service animal is not readily apparent, XXX employees shall ask only these two questions:

1.  Is that a service animal required because of a disability?
2.  What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?

If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’ and the person identifies a work or task that manages or assists with a disability, the person and service animal are permitted entry to XXX facilities. 

If the answer to the first question is ‘No’, or the person cannot identify a work or task that manages or assists with a disability, it is not a service animal and XXX will not permit entry of the animal to XXX facilities. 

If the animal is identified as a pet, emotional support or comfort animal, XXX will not permit entry to XXX facilities. If the animal is denied entry, the patient shall be offered the opportunity to obtain services without the animal.

XXX employees shall not require the person or service animal produce any documentation of training or certification of the service animal; require the service animal to wear any harness, vest, badge, ID tag or other markers of service animal status; ask that the animal demonstrate its work or task; or ask any questions about the person’s disability.

If there is doubt if the service animal qualifies for access, XXX employees shall permit entry to XXX facilities and then consult with the Risk Management Administrator or Clinic Manager regarding future access.

General considerations for service animals include service dogs can be any type of dog breed. Allergies, cultural prohibitions of dogs and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service dogs. Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal. The handler is responsible for caring for, supervising and cleaning up after the service animal.

A service animal may be prohibited from entering the premises, and the handler may be asked to remove the service animal from the premises, such as if:
•   the service animal is out of control or causes a risk of harm and the handler does not take effective action to control it;
•   the service animal is not housebroken;
•   the facility cannot accommodate the miniature horse’s type, size, and weight;
•   admitting the service animal would fundamentally alter the nature of a service or program; and
•   the service animal’s presence will compromise legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation of the facility, or poses a legitimate safety concern or direct threat to the health and safety of patients, visitors, and staff that cannot be eliminated.

Please consult with the Risk Management Administrator or Clinic Manager before denying access or asking for the removal of a service animal.


There are people out there who file agency complaints or legal claims if they are denied access with a service animal or inappropriate questions are asked, or inappropriate requirements are imposed.  This is why I emphasize to my staff about only asking two questions, and not asking for registration papers, dog vests, or the disability of the handler.

[Hawkmoon]

There are people out there who file agency complaints or legal claims if they are denied access with a service animal or inappropriate questions are asked, or inappropriate requirements are imposed.  This is why I emphasize to my staff about only asking two questions, and not asking for registration papers, dog vests, or the disability of the handler.

This is where I have a problem with the ADA. Because of the abuse, I think service dogs should have some sort of documentation/certification, and I think property owners, managers, and employees should be allowed to ask for such documentation before allowing service animals to enter. Furthermore, I don't think many people who have legitimate service animals would have a problem with this.

A corollary is that several states (most, if not all, in the uber-liber northeast corner of the country) have enacted legislation requiring that handicapped signage now use a symbol called the "active and engaged" wheelchair symbol instead of the internationally-recognized, standard wheelchair symbol. The new symbol does NOT meet ADA requirements -- the feds have said that, through two different agencies. Nonetheless, these states have made the new symbol mandatory, which means they have mandated violating the ADA. I mention this because, in the furor over this new symbol, it has come out that people with real disabilities don't have any problem with the standard symbol. The demand for the new symbol has been created by a bunch of liberal activists looking for another excuse to claim "discrimination." Their claim is that the standard symbol conveys a message that people in wheelchairs are somehow less able than other people.

In response, the people in wheelchairs respond that, no, that symbol doesn't say anything about me or my abilities -- it just tells me where the accessible entrance is located.

There is a cottage industry out there, with a cadre of lawyers standing ready to serve (if not create) a group of so-called "victims," that makes a healthy income out of fabricating and prosecuting [alleged] ADA "violations."

[MechAg94]

Should we now go to the discussion about if the ADA is really necessary at all?  It isn't that I don't think businesses should accommodate handicapped people, but this law has led to thousands of regulations, permit requirements, and compliance rules that are a drain on running a business or doing pretty much anything outside of purely private use.  It is also difficult to have any system of regulation that doesn't create wiggle room for compliance Nazi's and cheaters to make all that even worse. 

[Hawkmoon]

From many years of being involved in accessibility issues, I think the ADA is necessary. I also think the ADA regulations are reasonable. What's missing is a severe financial penalty for people (lawyers) who pursue frivolous claims under the ADA for the sole intent of getting a payout rather than actually trying to help a person with a disability who was genuinely prevented from doing something because a company or service failed to accommodate his/her disability.

[Scout26]

From many years of being involved in accessibility issues, I think the ADA is necessary. I also think the ADA regulations are reasonable. What's missing is a severe financial penalty for people (lawyers) who pursue frivolous claims under the ADA for the sole intent of getting a payout rather than actually trying to help a person with a disability who was genuinely prevented from doing something because a company or service failed to accommodate his/her disability.

FTFY

[Brad Johnson]

From many years of being involved in accessibility issues, I think the ADA is necessary. I also think the ADA regulations are reasonable. What's missing is a severe financial penalty for people (lawyers) who pursue frivolous claims under the ADA for the sole intent of getting a payout rather than actually trying to help a person with a disability who was genuinely prevented from doing something because a company or service failed to accommodate his/her disability.

There are also the militant members of the American Association of People with Disabilities who weaponize the ADA. AAPD executive management gives lip service to curbing abuse but turn a blatantly obvious blind eye to their members who are the problem. These militant individuals and attorney groups sue for every technical infraction, no matter how minor. Some individuals have lawsuits ranging in the multiple hundreds. Their attorneys? Cases in the thousands.

Back during the early 2000's a militant paraplegic and her attorney were making their way through town with a level and measuring tape. If they found a ramp that was out of technical parameters in any way, shape, or form, they pounced. I was privy to the discussion around one of the lawsuits, a case where a wheelchair ramp was a single inch off the acceptable total rise over the entire length of the ramp. Both the plaintiff and their attorney came in with guns blazing, threatening everything short of public execution. No nod to the owner's efforts to make things right, no compromise or desire to work together, nada. All or nothing, and in the most antagonistic and ethically reprehensible way possible. No idea how it played out but, given the ADA's absolutes, I'm guessing the owner had no choice but to comply.

Brad

[Hawkmoon]

A few years ago there was a law firm that was dispatching scouts around the country, checking all hotels with swimming pools to see if they had either a ramp or a winch for handicapped guests to get into and out of the pool. When they found a venue without the required access, they would pay someone in a wheelchair to spend a night in the hotel so they could establish standing -- then they'd sue for big bux.

Those kinds of lawyers should be taken out and shot at dawn, without a blindfold.

[zxcvbob]

There are also the militant members of the American Association of People with Disabilities who weaponize the ADA. AAPD executive management gives lip service to curbing abuse but turn a blatantly obvious blind eye to their members who are the problem. These militant individuals and attorney groups sue for every technical infraction, no matter how minor. Some individuals have lawsuits ranging in the multiple hundreds. Their attorneys? Cases in the thousands.

Back during the early 2000's a militant paraplegic and her attorney were making their way through town with a level and measuring tape. If they found a ramp that was out of technical parameters in any way, shape, or form, they pounced. I was privy to the discussion around one of the lawsuits, a case where a wheelchair ramp was a single inch off the acceptable total rise over the entire length of the ramp. Both the plaintiff and their attorney came in with guns blazing, threatening everything short of public execution. No nod to the owner's efforts to make things right, no compromise or desire to work together, nada. All or nothing, and in the most antagonistic and ethically reprehensible way possible. No idea how it played out but, given the ADA's absolutes, I'm guessing the owner had no choice but to comply.

Brad

There's one of those around here, terrorizing small businesses over the smallest technical violation, real or imagined*, usually settling out of court.  They screwed up and sued a large ritzy downtown hotel, and the hotel said "challenge accepted" and also countersued (I'm not sure for what, perhaps defamation or professional ethics)  That was about the same time the lawyer's practice was shut down and he might have been disbarred, but there was not necessarily a connection.  I know this story is short on details, I will try to look up some because I'm curious too now about how it turned out.

*one that I'm aware of was a bar/pizza joint that was having some remodelling done, and one of the reserved parking signs was down for a day or so.  The parking spaces were painted, and only one sign was missing.  Didn't matter, that's exactly the kind of infraction they were looking for.

[230RN]

There are also the militant members of the American Association of People with Disabilities who weaponize the ADA. AAPD executive management gives lip service to curbing abuse but turn a blatantly obvious blind eye to their members who are the problem. These militant individuals and attorney groups sue for every technical infraction, no matter how minor. Some individuals have lawsuits ranging in the multiple hundreds. Their attorneys? Cases in the thousands.

Back during the early 2000's a militant paraplegic and her attorney were making their way through town with a level and measuring tape. If they found a ramp that was out of technical parameters in any way, shape, or form, they pounced. I was privy to the discussion around one of the lawsuits, a case where a wheelchair ramp was a single inch off the acceptable total rise over the entire length of the ramp. Both the plaintiff and their attorney came in with guns blazing, threatening everything short of public execution. No nod to the owner's efforts to make things right, no compromise or desire to work together, nada. All or nothing, and in the most antagonistic and ethically reprehensible way possible. No idea how it played out but, given the ADA's absolutes, I'm guessing the owner had no choice but to comply.

Brad

That's disgusting.  Take it from me under oath, that I am not guilty of that kind of crap.  As usual, it only takes 1% to screw things up for 99%.

On the "new" wheelchair symbol, that's another matter of someone seeking their 15 minutes.  But I  had to laugh at this rationale:

<holy crap>

Their claim is that the standard symbol conveys a message that people in wheelchairs are somehow less able than other people.

</holy crap>

Sweet blue-robed Mary, Mother of G-d, Co-Redemptrix of the Universe, where do these people come from?  Where will they go?

On the matter of the ADA being necessary, I say yes, but I have a vested interest in it, despite its tax-code-like-complications (TCLC).  And I hope that whomsoever suggests that it isn't necessary, doesn't get old enough to need handicapped spaces.
(:D)

Terry, 230RN

[Firethorn]

My grandfather never bitched about the symbol, despite never being in a wheelchair for any significant period.  He could walk, just not far or fast.

If the handicapped are that bitching in their wheelchair, they don't need close spots.

[BlueStarLizzard]

My grandfather never bitched about the symbol, despite never being in a wheelchair for any significant period.  He could walk, just not far or fast.

If the handicapped are that bitching in their wheelchair, they don't need close spots.

I thought the wheel chair issue was more about being able to get in and out of the car, which is why they have the big empty spaces on either side of the spot. Plus, it makes more sense to just have all your handicapped spots in one area, which is going to be closer for the people who can't walk very far.

[HeroHog]

It's like me, I can stand and walk but not long or far depending on my back pain and knees. I can stand and walk down the hall just fine some days and you wouldn't think there was anything wrong if ya saw it. On the trip back I would be grunting in pain and looking for a place to sit or, better yet, recline! I have a wheelchair that lives in the SUV and a lift on the back for my scooter.
 

[Hawkmoon]

I thought the wheel chair issue was more about being able to get in and out of the car, which is why they have the big empty spaces on either side of the spot. Plus, it makes more sense to just have all your handicapped spots in one area, which is going to be closer for the people who can't walk very far.

The controversy to which I refer isn't the size or the location of the handicapped parking spaces -- both of which are addressed in the ADA. The problem is that there's an internationally-recognized symbol for designating handicapped parking spaces (and ramps, entrances, toilet rooms etc.). It's the one most of you have probably been seeing for decades:



Recently, a bunch of SJWs with too much time on their hands decided that the international symbol of accessibility was derogatory and needed to be redesigned. They came up with:



Several states now mandate the use of this new symbol. The problem is that two federal agencies have stated flat-out that the new symbol does NOT comply with the ADA, and that it may not be used on any projects involving federal money no matter what the state law says.

[HeroHog]

I prefer this version

[HeroHog]

On that same subject, some of my favorite:













Then there's my favorite T-Shirt (Yes, I actually have one)