Can You Ask if a Dog Is a Service Dog

Past John W. Egan

From our experience, businesses often 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 do take a mechanism for ferreting out service fauna imposters.

Nether the ADA Title Three regulations issued by the Section of Justice (DOJ), there are two questions that a business or other public adaptation may enquire to decide if an animal qualifies every bit a service animal:

(i) Is the animal required because of a disability?; and

(ii) What work or job has the animate being been trained to perform?

However, a business may non enquire these two questions when information technology is readily apparent that the service animal 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 nigh the nature or extent of a patron's disability and requests for proof of service creature training, licensing or certification.

The public accommodation in Lerma v. California Exposition and Country Fair et al. was well-served past this protocol.  The Plaintiff in Lerma tried to enter a fair in Sacramento, California with a cocker spaniel puppy.  When a police officer employed by the venue approached her, Plaintiff claimed the puppy was a service fauna and demanded to enter the park.  The officeholder asked her what task the canis familiaris had been trained to perform.  Plaintiff reportedly replied, "all I take to tell you is it's a service domestic dog and I'k going to sue you."  When the officer asked Plaintiff how she would handle the puppy's need to salvage itself, or whether it was housebroken, Plaintiff again refused to answer the officer'due south questions and threatened legal activity.  After this line of questioning, the officeholder told Plaintiff that because he could not make up one's mind whether the domestic dog qualified equally a service fauna under the ADA, information technology should be removed from the bounds.  The Plaintiff later on filed a lawsuit alleging that this conduct violated the ADA.

At her deposition, Plaintiff admitted that the canis familiaris was not trained to assist her with a disability.  In fact, the merely training the domestic dog received was housetraining and full general obedience training.  Plaintiff testified at deposition that she "needed the dog to be able to get through the mean solar day."

Considering these facts, Magistrate Gauge Gregory G. Hollows ruled that Plaintiff'due south dog was not a service animal under the ADA and recommended the complete dismissal of this action.  (Note that while the Court's discussion was express to the ADA, the definition of a service animal under other federal laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Air Carrier Admission Act, as well every bit some State and local laws, are broader than the ADA's definition and should be always be consulted.)

The Court held that Plaintiff's dog was not an ADA service animal considering it was non trained to perform tasks that would benefit a person with a disability.  Too, the Court observed that Plaintiff'south reasons for having the dog with her – – for emotional support and comfort – – were expressly excluded from the definition of a service animal under ADA regulations.  (Run into our prior blog on service animals here , and annotation that while emotional support and condolement are not qualifying functions for an ADA service fauna, a person with a psychological disability can accept a service creature.  Dogs trained to, for example, at-home a person with Postal service Traumatic Stress Disorder during an anxiety attack, or remind a person with a mental illness to accept prescribed medications, may authorize every bit service animals under the ADA.)

The Courtroom too determined that the police officer acted properly in handling the interaction with Plaintiff.  First, he asked ane of the two permissible questions – – what task had the dog been trained to perform.  Second, he asked whether the animate being was housebroken.  The ADA permits businesses to exclude even bona fide service animals if they are non housebroken, or if they are out-of-control.  Third, the officeholder told Plaintiff that she could render and enter the park without the brute.  The regulations require that after properly excluding an animal, a business must provide the private with a disability with an opportunity to obtain its appurtenances or service without the animal's presence.

Equally the Lerma example illustrates, using the questions allowed nether the ADA tin exist an constructive tool for public accommodations to ferret out service animal imposters and ensure individuals with legitimate working service animals are afforded equal access nether the ADA.

Edited by Minh North. Vu and Kristina M. Launey

constantinothinscion1974.blogspot.com

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

Share this post