Ohio State University Lose Lawsuit of ADA Violations Over Students Service Dog in Sorority House

CNN News - Nov 19, 2017 - A judge has decided that a sorority sister who uses a service dog can return to live in the Chi Omega house at The Ohio State University for now, even though another sister claims that she’s allergic to the dog and it’s making medical conditions she suffers from even worse.

“The panic attacks restrict her breathing”

Madeleine Entine, a sophomore, sued the school’s ADA coordinator for forcing her and her service dog to move. She says the school violated the Americans with Disability Act and the Fair Housing Act in making its decision.

Entine says she suffers from panic attacks, ones so severe they interfere with her daily activities.

“The panic attacks restrict her breathing ability and cause her to hyperventilate. They also cause her muscles to lock up and prevent her from walking on her own,” court documents said.

So Entine gets relief from Cory, a service dog. Cory is trained to climb on her stomach and apply pressure. That helps bring her relief so she can restore her ability to breathe and move, court documents say. He also helps her have less frequent attacks.

“The two individuals are at odds”

At the start of the school year, Entine and Cory moved into the Chi Omega house. Just a few weeks later, another sister in the house began complaining about Cory, saying she was allergic to dogs.

Freshman and sophomore students are required to live either on-campus or in Greek housing. Since she’s the Chi Omega chapter vice president, she lives in her sorority house.

Court documents say Cory exacerbates the other sister’s “allergies and asthma, which, in turn, causes a flare-up of Housemate’s Crohn’s disease.” According to court filings, the dog is regularly played with by others throughout the house.

The lawsuit does not name the other sorority sister.

The situation made its way to the university’s Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator, Scott Lissner, to intervene. Lissner determined that, “…over time, continued exposure to dog dander would ultimately be untenable and unsafe for Housemate.”

Because of this conundrum, Lissner based his course of action on who signed the lease first: in this case, the sister with the allergy. OSU says they’ve used this same parameter in other cases.

So Entine was forced to decide: either move out of the sorority house or stay in it without Cory.
“Physcial parameters” would allow separation

Entine claimed that the proposed solutions violated the Americans with Disabilites Act and asked if she could remain at the house, but with “physical parameters” that would allow separation between Cory and the other sorority sister, the complaint says.

In a letter to Entine’s attorney Bart Keyes, OSU said that “Due to room configuration and house mechanical systems, it was determined that restricting the dog to a certain area or assigning the students to different living locations or rooms within the house would not accommodate the disabilities of both students.”

OSU said it provided Entine an “offer of assistance from the University to make alternative housing arrangements, which she declined.”

Ultimately, the university stood by Lissner’s assessment, and Entine was given two weeks to make a decision.

Allergies “are not valid reasons for denying access”

In the federal suit filed by Entine, she maintains that this is a clear violation of the ADA, and quotes the federal regulations.

“Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.”

But Ohio State says the situation is difficult to manage.

The “case is not about whether plaintiff can have her assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation. She can. Instead, this is about how OSU, specifically Lissner, must accommodate two students with disabilities whose accommodations are in conflict.”

Entine’s lawsuit claims Lissner violated the ADA, the Fair Housing Act and other Ohio codes.

US District Judge Algenon L. Marbley heard the case and issued a preliminary injunction, allowing Entine to remain in the sorority house with her dog until a verdict is handed down after trial. A trial date has not been assigned yet, Keyes told CNN.

The judge’s decision was based on the fact that “Lissner did not perform the inquiry required under the ADA before disallowing the use of a service animal. In fact, Lissner did not even establish that it was Cory who aggravated the symptoms of (the other sister’s) disability,” according to the court documents.

CNN reached out to OSU, but officials said the university does “not comment on pending litigation.” Calls to the Chi Omega sorority have not been returned.

TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT 2017 CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., A TIME WARNER COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Illinois Service Dog Advocates Warn Against Passing Pets Off As Working Service Animals

Judy Peltier of Gurnee walks with her Seeing Eye dog, Janet, several times a week at the Independence Grove forest Preserve, where dogs are not allowed. (Frank Abderholden / Lake County News-Sun)

Article by Frank Abderholden for the Lake County News-Sun | Nov. 2, 2017                           

ILLINOIS - Freedom and Independence could be two good dog names, but for Judy Peltier of Gurnee, her Seeing Eye dog Janet literally gives Peltier her freedom and independence.

She wanted to make a point in the wake of October's blindness awareness month that service dogs serve a special need and people need to be aware of that, whether she is taking to task those "fake" service dog people or giving special thanks to all the people she crosses paths with while exercising three days a week at Independence Grove Forest Preserve in Libertyville, where dogs are not allowed as a rule.

"What's really great is that other fitness enthusiasts there understand, respect and support us as a guide-dog team," Peltier said.

"They don't interfere or obstruct," she said of her fellow walkers and runners at the forest preserve.

Peltier began going blind at age 5 with an inherited disease called retinitis pigmentosa, through which she lost her night vision first, then her day vision. Eventually, what sight she had became tunnel vision.

"All I see are silhouettes and no details," she said.

She got her first guide dog in 1999 and is now on her fourth, all of which were trained at The Seeing Eye in Morristown, N.J.

"You work with the dog for seven to eight years, and then you give them a good retirement," she said, which can mean adopting them out. "But I'm lucky I have a sighted husband (Tom) who loves to take my retired dogs," she said with a laugh.

"A guide dog offers enhanced mobility as opposed to using a white cane. It's just a choice to those who are legally blind," she said.

While she can see some shapes, her dog helps her navigate as it stops at crosswalks and for any change in the elevation, a step down or up, or something blocking her path entirely.

"Even doorways. They are trained to stop you when a car is pulling out of the driveway. These dogs take their final test in midtown Manhattan. These dogs are trained to save both our lives," she said.

"The mall is a great training ground," she said, which is where she walks in the winter. "The dog has to get you around strollers, kids running in and out of stores, kiosks with those little squeaky things," she said.

What she wants to remind people is that they should not act like she has a regular dog. In fact, she was reluctant to reveal Janet's name for that very reason.

"That's very critical. Sometimes people will start talking to the dog and distracting the dog. But, these dogs are to be ignored because they are working, and people need to know how to act," Peltier said.

And dog owners who try to pass their dogs off as service dogs prompts real scorn from Peltier, who has experienced unruly pets inside stores in the past.

"They were clearly not working dogs. They were barking and lunging at my dog," she said. "A service dog is trained to ignore other dogs. When people do that, it disrupts the work of the legitimate dog."

At The Seeing Eye training facility, dogs are taken to train stations, "so they feel the ground move, and (are) around traffic and loud noises so they become used to it," she said.

President and CEO, James A. Kutsch Jr. of The Seeing Eye dog training school, first established in 1929, says Peltier is right about giving a service dog space. Their organization kicked off a campaign recently to remind people not to disturb service dogs or let their dogs distract service dogs.

"Any poorly trained or poorly controlled dog can interfere with the effective use of service animals, and can jeopardize the safety of both the disabled handler and the service dog," said Kutsch, who has had Seeing Eye trained dogs since 1970.

He believes incidents where a dog barks and lunges in a business as putting the business owner in a bad situation, because people can use social media against the business.

"Businesses are put in a tough place and the general public needs to be educated. There needs to be an awareness," he said.

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), business owners can ask a disruptive dog and owner to leave an establishment.

"If the general public understands that, then social media can be positive and the business gets approval and not condemnation from the public," Kutch said. "Businesses and the general public need to be more aware that they are not required to tolerate bad behavior from any animal, be it a fake or a legitimate service animal."

The only thing a business owner can ask a person with a service dog is, "What task is the dog trained to do to mitigate the disability?" he said.

Some politicians want to be able to certify dogs, but he is against that idea.

"There are many proponents of that solution. People with disabilities struggle enough that this just becomes an additional burden," he said. It's like every time you go to pull out of your driveway, you're asked for your driver's license, he added.

"A well-behaved dog doesn't bother me, whether it's a legitimate service dog or not," Kutsch said, but he's not encouraging people to try and pass off the family pet as a service dog.

"I personally think it's always been a problem," but media and legislative attention seems to "backfire," he said. "Look how easy it is. The general public says 'Why didn't I think of that.' And, as a result, we are seeing more of it," he said.

In fact, he warns against buying some package readily sold on the internet from $21.99 to $125 that offers training and an official looking harness, because the ADA does not require it.

"Everyone needs to remember the equipment doesn't make it legitimate. There is no way to tell by breed or size (they use three-quarter yellow Labrador and a quarter golden retriever for their dogs, which are specially trained for four months) to know if it's a service animal or not," Kutsch said.

"A dog for the blind is obvious, but dogs are trained to detect low blood sugar in diabetics and the onset of an epileptic seizure, and that can't be easily identified by the passerby," he said.

It boils down to good behavior can't be faked, and most family pets are out of their element, so his general message to anyone thinking about faking it is not to.

"Don't do it, because your dog is probably not prepared for the stress and it will misbehave. Don't do it, because you give a black eye to legitimate dogs and users who are trying to go about their daily life," he said.

Annie Thompson, spokeswoman for the Illinois Office of the Attorney General, said the ADA defines a service animal as any dog individually trained to provide assistance to a person with a disability, regardless of whether the animal is certified by a particular entity or wearing identifying markers.

"The Disability Rights Bureau enforces state and federal laws to ensure people with disabilities have equal access to their communities, and that includes educating businesses and the public about the importance of accommodating people who use service animals," she said in an email.

Individuals can contact the Disability Rights Bureau to file complaints or obtain additional information about service animals and other disability laws at 312-814-5684 in Chicago or 217-524-2660 in Springfield. The attorney general's link for ADA is at http://www.ag.state.il.us/rights/servanimals.html.

Kutsch offered this link for their effort to encourage the general public not to distract service dogs at https://www.guidedogatwork.org/. He also offered this link to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, at http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html.

Peltier said the Chicago-based Equip For Equality website is also helpful for people with disabilities at https://www.equipforequality.org/.

She recently recently did the five-mile Mackinaw Bridge walk in Michigan, where she and Janet carved through 25,000 participants without a hitch. No pet dogs were allowed.

"With hand on harness, this six-footed team has many more miles to roam and bridges to cross with freedom and independence," she said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/news/ct-lns-service-dogs-serious-work-st-1031-20171105-story.html

HUD CHARGES MINNESOTA LANDLORD WITH HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AFTER DENYING VETERAN THE RIGHT TO KEEP HIS ASSISTANCE DOG

October 2016 - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) today announced it is charging the owner and manager of a West St. Paul, Minn., apartment complex with discrimination for refusing to allow an Army veteran, who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, to keep an emotional support animal. Click here to read the charge.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from denying or limiting housing to people with disabilities, or from refusing to make reasonable accommodations in policies or practices for people with disabilities. Allowing people with disabilities to have assistance animals that perform work or tasks, or that provide disability-related emotional support, is considered a reasonable accommodation under the Act.

"Assistance animals play a vital role in helping our veterans cope with service-related disabilities," said Anna Maria Farías, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. "Housing providers have an obligation to permit these animals, and HUD ensures that they meet this obligation."

The case came to HUD's attention when the veteran filed a complaint alleging that the owner and manager of Westview Park Apartments denied his request to keep an assistance animal, despite the veteran explaining in detail his right to have the animal. In a letter responding to the veteran's request, the owner suggested that he get a cat instead, citing the property's policy of allowing cats but not allowing assistance animals weighing more than 12 pounds. The owner also stated that, even for an animal under 12 pounds, the veteran would need to provide proof that the animal was licensed.

The veteran responded by providing a copy of his license for the animal, a certificate of training, and additional information about the animal, but the owner still refused his request, stating the dog had to be removed from the property. In a subsequent letter, the manager notified the veteran that he was in violation of his lease by having the dog and that he had two weeks to vacate the unit. The eviction action was later withdrawn, but the veteran, still not being allowed to keep the animal, moved out of the apartment at the end of his lease.

Disability is the most common basis of complaint filed with HUD and its partner agencies. Last year alone, HUD and its partners considered more than 4,500 disability-related complaints, nearly 55 percent of all fair housing complaints.

HUD's charge will be heard by a United States Administrative Law Judge unless any party elects for the case to be heard in federal court. If the administrative law judge finds after a hearing that discrimination has occurred, he may award damages to the complainant for his loss as a result of the discrimination. The judge may also order injunctive relief and other equitable relief, as well as payment of attorney fees. In addition, the judge may impose civil penalties in order to vindicate the public interest.

People who believe they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint by contacting HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY). Housing discrimination complaints may also be filed by going to hud.gov/fairhousing, or by downloading HUD's free housing discrimination mobile application, which can be accessed through Apple and Android devices.

source: HUD Oct. 6, 2017 press release

Federal Court Rules Against Landlord in Disability Discrimination Case, Who Insisted on Security Deposit for Service Animal

Justice Department Obtains $37,000 Verdict in Disability Discrimination Case Against Montana Landlord

May 17, 2017 - A federal jury in Butte, Montana today returned a $37,343 verdict against a Bozeman, Montana landlord for charging a tenant with physical and psychiatric disabilities $1,000 to have a service animal, the Justice Department announced today.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Butte, alleged that Jaclyn Katz, the owner and manager of rental properties in Bozeman, discriminated against Kristen Newman, a tenant with physical and psychiatric disabilities, by charging her a $1,000 deposit as a condition for allowing her to keep her service dog, Riley.  At trial, Newman, her treating therapist and an independent expert testified that Riley assisted Newman in living with the symptoms of her disabilities, including providing emotional support, helping to predict migraines, and reducing suicidal thoughts.  Newman also testified that she repeatedly informed Katz that charging a deposit for a service animal was illegal and that Newman understood that she would have to pay for any actual damage caused by her service dog.  Nevertheless, Katz continued to levy this charge and, at one point, even threatened to terminate Newman’s tenancy.  The case arose out of a complaint filed by Newman with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The verdict includes $11,043 in compensatory damages for Newman, $20,000 in punitive damages for Newman, and $6,300 for Montana Fair Housing, Inc., which assisted Newman with her fair housing complaint. 

“Persons with disabilities have the right to live in and enjoy their communities, just as all families do throughout our nation,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Tom Wheeler of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.  “We commend the jury for recognizing that the Fair Housing Act prohibits landlords from discriminating against persons with disabilities, and we will continue to work to eliminate discriminatory barriers in housing for persons with disabilities.”

“Many people with disabilities require the assistance of an animal to carry out major daily activities,” said General Deputy Assistant Secretary Bryan Greene of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “Complaints alleging disability discrimination now account for the majority of the complaints HUD receives. HUD will continue to enforce the law and educate the public on the rights of people with disabilities in housing.”

The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at www.justice.gov/crt. Persons who believe that they have experienced unlawful housing discrimination may contact the Justice Department at 1-800-896-7743, or by e-mail at fairhousing@usdoj.gov(link sends e-mail). 

source: press release

EEOC Sues CRST for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation - Refused to Hire Veteran Because He Uses a Service Dog

Trucking Company Refused to Hire Veteran Because He Uses a Service Dog, Federal Agency Charges

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - March 3, 2017 - CRST Expedited Inc., a national trucking company, violated federal law when it failed to accommodate, refused to hire and retaliated against a job candidate because he used a service dog, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a disability discrimination lawsuit it filed on March 2, 2017.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Leon Laferriere applied for a truck driver position with CRST in Fort Myers and signed up for the drivers' certification course with CRST's partner training company. After being admitted to the truck driver training program, but prior to leaving for to begin it, Laferriere disclosed his disabilities and use of a trained service dog. Laferriere is a veteran who uses a trained service dog to help control anxiety and to wake him from nightmares caused by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Laferriere successfully completed the training program, but was denied advancement to orientation and additional on-the-road training. CRST told Laferriere that he could not advance to the on-the-road program, which requires overnights away from home, due to CRST's "no pet" policy. Laferriere was subsequently denied hire.

The EEOC also alleges that around the same time that CRST denied Laferriere's request for accom­modation, CRST developed a new "Service Dog Process" to address accommodation requests seeking the use of a service dog. But CRST denied Laferriere the opportunity to qualify for accommodation under the new policy.

Disability discrimination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA). The EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. CRST International Inc./CRST Expedited Inc., 3:2017cv00241 ) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The lawsuit asks the court to order CRST to hire Laferriere and to pay him appropriate back pay and front pay, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction enjoining CRST from failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for disability, failing to hire an applicant due to a disability, retaliating against an applicant for seeking a reasonable accommodation, and interfering with applicants' rights under the ADAAA.

"Laferriere did the right thing by disclosing that he used a service dog due to disabilities to the CRST recruiter before leaving for the driver's certification course," said Julianne Bowman, district director for the EEOC's Chicago District office, which investi­gated the charge of discrimination.

Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney for the Chicago District, said, "The use of a trained service dog can be a reasonable accom­modation. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to an employee with a disability."  

Jean Kamp, associate regional attorney for the Chicago District, added, "CRST's refusal to accommo­date Mr. Laferriere is an example of the hardships that returning veterans with disabilities can face as they seek to reintegrate into civilian life.  Those challenges are hard enough without an employer denying someone a job simply because he needs a service dog, as so many do."

The EEOC's Chicago and Miami District offices are working collaboratively on this litigation. The districts are responsible for investigating charges of employment discrimin­ation, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employ­ment dis­crimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

SOURCE: Press Release EEOC

U.S. Supreme Court Ruled in Favor of Ehlena Fry and Wonder the Service Dog's, Upholding The Rights of Students with Disabilities

Ehlena Fry and her service dog, Wonder, visit the Supreme Court. photo: An-Li Herring/NPR

Feb. 22, 2017 - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a very important case for students with disabilities, Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (see summary at this link). The case involved a girl with cerebral palsy named Ehlena Fry and her service dog Wonder. Ehlena's school would not allow Wonder to accompany her to classes. Ehlena's family filed suit based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to allow Wonder to go with Ehlena to school, and for monetary damages. Many well known disability rights advocates filed amicus ("friend of the court") briefs in support of Ehlena, and it was argued by disability rights attorney Sam Bagenstos, who is also known for his leadership on Olmstead rights. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Ehlena and Wonder; this is important in upholding the rights of students with disabilities under the ADA and the Rehab Act, not just the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Ehlena Fry and her goldendoodle, Wonder, photographed in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Fry's family can seek damages from a school district that balked at the service dog's presence in the classroom. (Michigan ACLU)

# # #
USA TODAY article FEB 22, 2017

article by Richard Wolf

WASHINGTON — The proverb "every dog has its day" came true at the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the family of a 13-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and her goldendoodle, Wonder.

In a case that was closely watched by the disability community, the high court ruled unanimously that Ehlena Fry's family can pursue a lawsuit against her former public school district for denying access to her service dog.

Lower courts had ruled that the family first had to exhaust all administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act before seeking damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the justices ruled that if the family did not pursue a solution under IDEA, it can sidestep that process in search of its real goal: providing Ehlena with greater physical and emotional independence.

The 8-0 ruling was delivered by Justice Elena Kagan. While it leans in the Fry family's direction, it leaves open the possibility that a lower federal court still could require exhaustion of the IDEA administrative process, depending on further fact-finding.

As often happens as court proceedings drag on, Ehlena was moved to a different Michigan elementary school that welcomed Wonder — now 10 and retired as a service dog — and even put the pooch's mug shot in the yearbook. Over the years, the lawsuit against the Napoleon Community Schools became more about principle than keeping the girl and her goldendoodle together.

A number of justices had seemed sympathetic to the Frys' argument during oral arguments in October. Forcing them to negotiate with school officials over Ehlena's educational program seemed unfair, they said, when her education wasn't the problem. Rather, the Frys wanted Wonder — not a human aide — to perform such tasks as helping Ehlena in the bathroom.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer expressed concern that a decision in the Frys' favor could allow families of children with disabilities to gain an advantage over school districts by threatening ADA lawsuits while negotiating their educational programs. But Roberts acknowledged that requiring the Frys to go through the IDEA process when their concerns were not about education was "a kind of charade."

The case was the first of two heard this term that could influence how schools handle children with disabilities. In January, the justices also appeared to side with the family of a Colorado student with autism seeking a more substantial education under the IDEA law. That case, likely to be decided this spring, could have a broader impact on thousands of students with disabilities.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/22/supreme-court-disabled-girl-wonder-service-dog/98214948/

# # #

RELATED POSTS:

• U.S. Supreme Court takes up case of girl with cerebral palsy 'service dog'
• Service Dog Visits Supreme Court In Case For The Right To Have Service Animals In Schools

"THESE 30 PLAYS" FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO BLIND PEOPLE in Chicago Jan 22nd

As part of the Neo-Access initiative, The Neo-Futurists will present a performance of our long-standing, ever-changing brand of brash, funny, poignant and relevant theater that is fully accessible to audience members who are blind or have visual impairments. "These 30 Plays" will include audio description, braille and large print programs and a touch tour before the show. 

This Neo-Access production will take place Sunday, January 22nd @ 7:00pm, at our own 2nd floor space in The Neo-Futurarium (5153 N. Ashland). Touch tour begins at 5:30pm. To request assistance in entering/leaving our space, details of the neighborhood, or other information, contact us at 773-878-4557, or email admin@neofuturists.org. 
Service animals are also welcome, just let us know if you plan on bringing one! 

Click HERE  to buy a ticket. 

SOURCE: Press Release 

Airline Passengers Are Getting Upset Over Fake Service Animal Epidemic

While walking to his gate in an airport, a frequent Delta Air Lines flier snaps three pictures of passengers with emotional support animals

nice article by Ellen Eldridge for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution |Nov. 2, 2016

All three are women and all three service animals are small dogs.

One woman, who appears to be in her late 20s, sits at an airport cafe table. She wraps her right arm around her brown dachshund wearing a pink vest.

A second woman, perhaps in her 40s, walks toward the gate in a pink collared shirt and even brighter pink sneakers. Her Pomeranian doesn’t have any sort of service dog vest.

The third woman sits in a seat at the gate, hands folded across her belly and a black and white dog lying across her lap.

service dog on an airplane (Credit Twitter)

Eric Goldmann of Atlanta tries to find out if they are faking a disability to travel without paying a pet fee.

“When I see a dog in the airport, I befriend them,” Goldmann said recently. “I like dogs. I’m allergic, but I like them.”

He said he’s been traveling several times a week for business for about 15 years, but only in the last handful of years has he seen so many pets in airports. Goldmann had taken 142 flights this year by the end of October and said he saw so-called emotional support animals on about 40 percent of the planes.

“It’s the cool, new trend to travel with a pet,” he said.

Delta Air Lines spokeswoman Ashton Morrow said she couldn’t disclose the number of service animals on flights by year.

“Delta complies with the Air Carrier Access Act by allowing customers traveling with emotional support animals or psychiatric service animals to travel without charge in the cabin,” Morrow said. “We reserve the right to review each case and make every effort to accommodate our customers’ travel needs while also taking into consideration the health and safety of other passengers.”

YouTube published by WSB-TV

But people traveling with fake emotional support animals is a growing problem for flight attendants, frequent fliers and people with disabilities who have service animals for medical reasons.

Goldmann said he’s gotten people to admit they pay about $49 for an official certificate from a licensed therapist and another $149 or so for the service animal vest.

Those who bring a pet on an airplane because they are nervous or afraid to fly are not covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Jennifer Schwenker said.

Schwenker is the mother of twin boys with autism and her family has a service dog, Barkley.

“We worked hard to provide Barkley for our boys,” she said. “We work hard yearly to keep him properly trained, make sure he has veterinarian care and is certified yearly through 4 Paws for Ability.”

She said people who pretend to need an animal for support just to travel without paying fees are being disrespectful of those with disabilities.

“When someone says to me, ‘I wish I could bring my dog with me everywhere,’ I ask, ‘What disability would you like to have in order to do this?’ That response always ends that conversation!”

Jen Williams, who has been an Atlanta-based flight attendant since 1996, said she’s seen an incredible increase in support animals in the past year.

emotional support dog in blue vest:Credit Twitter

While pets are allowed on flights, they have to follow more rules than service animals.

Delta charges $125 to bring a dog, cat or household bird on board a domestic flight, excluding Hawaii, and Fido counts as a carry-on item. Passengers must call Delta ahead of time as the number of pets per flight is limited and arrangements are accepted on a first-come, first-serve basis, according to its website.

Williams said one family, which was planning to travel for a month, followed those rules. They alerted the airline, paid the fee for their 14-pound dog and brought along a kennel because pets are not permitted out of their cages during flights. The dog couldn’t stand up inside the kennel, thus violating the rule. So it was kicked off the flight.

If the family had lied and said their pet was an emotional support animal, they wouldn’t have had to take off without the dog, Williams said.

“It’s definitely gotten carried away to the point where people are taking advantage of the system,” Williams said. “It’s hard when someone is following protocol and they’re not allowed to take the animal out of the cage, but others use the loophole to have an animal sit on their lap.”

The ticket counter agents are responsible for ensuring that a dog has its proper paperwork as a service animal, Williams said. By the time the animal gets to the plane, there is little a flight attendant can do or legally ask.

“It’s getting to be ridiculous,” Williams said. “A co-worker saw a ferret wearing a diaper that was supposedly an emotional support animal.”

She’s seen dogs get loose and use the aisle as a lavatory. A co-worker told Williams a so-called service dog once bit a passenger and medics had to meet the flight when it landed.

“A lady on a flight was allergic, so we moved her away, but she broke out in hives,” Williams said. “A nurse on the flight gave her Benadryl that we wouldn’t have had if she didn’t happen to be on the plane.”

Though Williams said she hopes something will change, she doesn’t expect new regulations. In fact, Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport recently added pet relief areas for service animals to be in compliance with a new federal requirement.

http://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/fake-service-animals-why-airline-passengers-are-upset/foof3Zb7pCLfEtDxj2RjBJ/

For more on the "Fake Service Animal" epidemic, view our  previous posts.

Service Dog Visits Supreme Court In Case For The Right To Have Service Animals In Schools

Ehlena Fry and her service dog, Wonder, visit the Supreme Court. photo: An-Li Herring/NPR

article by MICHAEL DOYLE for the Miami Herald | Oct. 31, 2016
Wonder the goldendoodle reached the peak of the U.S. judicial system on Monday with a Supreme Court case potentially crucial to disability rights.

Few lawyers, let alone canines, ever snag a bone this big.

Now semi-retired as a service dog, Wonder’s work for a young Michigan girl with cerebral palsy set in motion the legal proceedings that culminated in an hour’s worth of mostly technical oral argument Monday morning. Facing some poignant facts, justices stuck closely to the dry but significant basics.

Even so, while Wonder waited on the plaza outside the court, several justices seemed sympathetic to the family that once relied on him, and skeptical about the school board on the other side.

“I’m so confused by your position,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the school board’s attorney, Neal Katyal. “I’m so horribly confused.”

Wonder is not the first dog to reach the Supreme Court.

In 2013, a Florida-based drug-sniffing dog named Aldo anchored a decision in which the court upheld a sniff search of a suspect’s car. That same year, the court struck down a front-door sniffing search conducted by a Miami-Dade Police Department chocolate Labrador named Franky.

In a 2005 case that began in LaSalle County, Illinois, the court upheld a sniffing search during a traffic stop by a drug-detection dog named Pet.

Wonder provided a different kind of service for Ehlena Fry, who is now 12 and who is identified in court proceedings as “E.F.” Ehlena and her parents were in the courtroom Monday for the hourlong oral argument.

In 2009, when she was 5 years old, Ehlena obtained Wonder with the help of community fundraising. The dog helped her in a number of ways, from retrieving dropped items and helping her balance when she used her walker to opening and closing doors.

School district officials in Jackson County, Michigan, eventually blocked Wonder from accompanying Ehlena, citing the potential for distractions to other students, among other reasons. The family subsequently home-schooled Ehlena, and later moved to nearby Washtenaw County, where she and Wonder were both permitted to attend.

The specific question facing the eight justices Monday was whether Ehlena’s family first had to exhaust state administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act before they filed federal suit under the separate Americans with Disabilities Act.

“We are seeking emotional distress damages,” attorney Samuel R. Bagenstos told the court.

The state of Illinois, as well as groups including Psychiatric Service Dog Partners Inc. in South Carolina, sided with Ehlena in saying her federal lawsuit could proceed.

The National School Boards Association is backing the Michigan school board, warning against lawsuits that would “harm more than help.” One way or another, many could be affected. Some 6 million students nationwide, including nearly 11 percent of California students, are covered by programs established under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“Congress said you’ve got to go through this process,” Katyal said.

The court seemed divided about the issue; potentially, along unusual lines.

While Justice Elena Kagan sounded skeptical of the school board’s position, her fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer warned of the consequences of letting more lawsuits proceed.

“That would seem to gut the carefully written procedural system,” Breyer said.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. suggested concerns from both sides, cautioning that opening the door to more lawsuits might give families “a lot more leverage” against school districts, but he also raised questions that seemed sympathetic to the family.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in keeping with his standard practice, was the only justice not to speak or ask a question during the argument. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article111611197.html#storylink=cpy

Can You Tell If A 'Service Dog' is Legitimate, or Identify a 'Fake service Animal'?

One of unfortunate issues that people with disabilities that use a service animal endur is the "Fake Service Animal" epidemic. There is a misconception, and at times intentional that a 'Companion Animal' (such as my 17 yr old kitty) is a service animal  - they are not!

article post by Jim Watkins, Ability Chicago Info May 5, 2016

(1) While Emotional Support Animals or Comfort Animals are often used as part of a medical treatment plan as therapy animals, they are not considered service animals under the ADA. These support animals provide companionship, relieve loneliness, and sometimes help with depression, anxiety, and certain phobias, but do not have special training to perform tasks that assist people with disabilities. Even though some states have laws defining therapy animals, these animals are not limited to working with people with disabilities and therefore are not covered by federal laws protecting the use of service animals. Therapy animals provide people with therapeutic contact, usually in a clinical setting, to improve their physical, social, emotional, and/or cognitive functioning.  - ADA National Network article Service Animals and Emotional Support Animals

The other unfortunate dilemma is those that do not have a disability, and pass off their pet as a Service Animal so they can bring their pet with them any where they please. SHAME ON YOU!

What’s the best way to tell if a dog is a Service Animal and not a pet? Ask! The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows for Service Animal owners to be taken at their word and you are limited to only two questions — and only if it isn’t obvious that the animal is a Service Animal. You may not demand proof that the animal has been certified, trained or licensed.

Not every disability is apparent.
Be aware that many disabilities are invisible, such as deafness, epilepsy, autism, multiple sclerosis (M.S.), life-threatening allergies, psychiatric disabilities, ptsd, and others. In some cases, you may not be able to determine if someone is disabled or the extent of their disability.

It is illegal under Federal law for anyone to require documentation. Many disabled individuals choose to provide a vest for their Service Dog and/or carry identification, however it is not required that they do. You may encounter a disabled individual who chooses to keep their disability private. Their Service Dog may not be wearing a vest and they may not be carrying any documentation on their person. Other disabled individuals choose to make their own identification materials at home. If a person with a disability decides to present you with a card or other identification, it is their choice. Also understand what is involved with training and using a Service or Assistance Animal; how important their behavior,  and that of their Service or Assistance Dog is perceived by the general public; the legal definition of a Service or Assistance Animal; the Minimum Training Standards for a Service or Assistance Animal and what is involved with a Public Access Test.

Vests or other identifying gear is not required. Federal law is very specific about not requiring vests or other forms of identification. Many disabled individuals who use Service Dogs choose not to provide a vest for their dog because they don’t want to be labeled as disabled. Such identifying vests are readily available in retail stores, online sources ebay, amazon, etc. - anyone can purchase such vests, or identification, which makes the 'fake service animal' epidemic so easily achieved.  

Service Dogs come in all shapes, sizes and breeds.
The ADA does not limit breed or size. For example, large dogs can be used for bracing those with balance or mobility issues. Small dogs are perfectly suited as Hearing Dogs or Medical Alert Dogs.

There is no universally recognized “certification” for Service Dogs (or trainers).
There is no such thing as a universally or legally-recognized certification, registration or training standards for Service Dogs — or trainers. While some trainers and organizations may say they “certify” their graduates, that status is something granted by them and is not recognized under law, and often not by other trainers or organizations. Anyone can call themselves a trainer and because there is such a wide variety of training techniques, styles, schools, online courses and more, there is no universally recognized standard. Some of the best trainers in the world have never graduated from a course, as well, some of the best Service Dog trainers do not come from programs.

Dogs may be trained by an individual trainer, an organization or by the disabled handler themselves.
As said above, there are no universal standards for Service Dog trainers. Service Dogs may be trained by an individual trainer, an organization or by the disabled handler themselves.

You are limited by Federal law as to what you can ask.

• Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or ask about the person's disability.
• View the U.S. Department of Justice ADA Business Brief: Service Animals in your browser, or as a PDF.

The law states:

§ 35.136 Service animals
(f) Inquiries. A public entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public entity shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public entity may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person’s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).

Source: Part 35 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (as amended by the final rule published on September 15, 2010)

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 12134.
Subpart A—General § 35.104 Definitions

View the full ADA Legislation.

Behavior is the best indication whether it’s a well-trained or not. If a “Service Dog” is interrupting a business’ daily operation with its behavior, causing problems in a housing situation, is a danger to anyone or its conduct is NOT conduct acceptable in a Service Dog (barking, growling, stealing food from other clients, knocking people over, jumping, or many other behaviors), by law, the manager or business owner has every right to ask the person to remove the dog from the premises, “Service Dog” or not.  

#
(1) ADA National Network post - Service Animals and Emotional Support Animals.

For more on the "Fake Service Animal" epidemic, view our  previous posts.

VA Testing Benefits of Mobility Service Dogs for Veterans with Mental Health Conditions

WASHINGTON – The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced today that it is piloting a protocol to implement veterinary health benefits for mobility service dogs approved for Veterans with a chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility associated with mental health disorders.

“We take our responsibility for the care and safety of Veterans very seriously,” said VA Under Secretary for Health, Dr. David J. Shulkin. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is committed to providing appropriate, safe and effective, compassionate care to all Veterans. Implementing the veterinary health benefit for mobility service dogs approved for Veterans with a chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility associated with mental health disorders may prove to be significantly beneficial for some Veterans. The Service Dog Benefits Pilot will evaluate this premise.”

VA has been providing veterinary benefits to Veterans diagnosed as having visual, hearing or substantial mobility impairments and whose rehabilitation and restorative care is clinically determined to be optimized through the assistance of a guide dog or service dog. With this pilot, this benefit is being provided to Veterans with a chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility associated with a mental health disorder for whom the service dog has been identified as the optimal way for the Veteran to manage the mobility impairment and live independently.

Service dogs are distinguished from pets and comfort animals because they are specially trained to perform tasks or work for a specific individual with a disability who cannot perform the task or accomplish the work independently. To be eligible for the veterinary health benefit, the service dog must be trained by an organization accredited by Assistance Dogs International in accordance with VA regulations.

Currently, 652 Veterans with approved guide or service dogs receive the veterinary service benefit. This Pilot is anticipated to provide the veterinary service benefit to up to 100 additional Veterans with a chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility associated with a mental health disorder.

The VA veterinary service benefit includes comprehensive wellness and sick care (annual visits for preventive care, maintenance care, immunizations, dental cleanings, screenings, etc.), urgent/emergent care, prescription medications, and care for illnesses or disorders when treatment enables the dog to perform its duties in service to the Veteran.

Additional information about VA’s service dog program can be found at http://www.prosthetics.va.gov/ServiceAndGuideDogs.asp

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Press Release

U.S. Supreme Court takes up case of girl with cerebral palsy 'service dog'

photo: Ehlena Fry and her goldendoodle, Wonder.

WASHINGTON (June 28, 2016)- The Supreme Court is taking up an appeal from an 11-year-old Michigan girl with cerebral palsy who wasn't allowed to bring her service dog to school.

The justices said Tuesday they will consider whether Ehlena Fry's family can sue the school district for violations of federal disability laws.

Fry's family obtained a goldendoodle to help her open doors and retrieve items. Her school district initially refused to allow Wonder at school. Officials relented a bit in 2010, but they placed many restrictions on Wonder. Ehlena and her dog later transferred to another school.

Her family sued the school district for violations of federal disability laws. The case was dismissed after a judge said the Frys first had to seek an administrative hearing. An appeals court last year upheld that decision 2-1.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the family, says the case is important because school districts around the country have repeatedly denied children with disabilities their right to bring service dogs to school. These districts often claim the service animals are not necessary and that the schools can help the children through other means.

The ACLU wants the justices to declare that children prevented from using service animals at school can proceed directly to court without having to go through administrative hearings that can be costly, time consuming and burdensome.

The school argues that exhausting administrative remedies encourages parents and schools to work together to determine the best plan for each child and are a cheaper way to resolve educational disputes.

The Obama administration has backed the Fry family, saying the appeals court's decision was wrong and "leads to unsound results." The government said at the time the lawsuit was filed, Ehlena had already moved to a new school district and there was no ongoing dispute to compromise. Requiring her to go through administrative proceedings "would waste time a resources without offering any chance of resolving their actual dispute," the Justice Department said in a brief to the court.

The high court will hear the case, Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 15-497, when the new term begins in the fall.

Ehlena Fry and her goldendoodle, Wonder, photographed in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Fry's family can seek damages from a school district that balked at the service dog's presence in the classroom. (Michigan ACLU)

© 2016 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

We will report on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court when available.
*reposted with above available photo

Settlement Agreement to End Discrimination Against Blind Uber Riders Who Use Guide Dogs

from a Press Release on April 30, 2016.

National Federation of the Blind.

April 30, 2016 – Berkeley, California – In an unprecedented settlement announced today, Uber has agreed to take affirmative steps to prevent discrimination against blind riders who use guide dogs in its transportation network across the United States.

The settlement resolves a lawsuit—National Federation of the Blind of California, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.—brought by the National Federation of the Blind, its California affiliate, and individuals who use guide dogs, to ensure that guide dog users have full and equal access to vehicles in the Uber network. This is the first nationwide class-action settlement of its kind against an app-based transportation network company.

While the growth of Uber’s on-demand transportation services has the potential to be a boon to blind people, drivers using the Uber platform have denied rides to blind people who use guide dogs. Any such discrimination violates federal and state laws that protect the rights of people with disabilities. Under the settlement, Uber will work to end this discrimination and blind individuals will be able to use Uber without the threat of discrimination.

Uber has agreed to take affirmative steps to tell drivers about their obligations to transport riders who are disabled and use service animals. Uber will require that existing and new drivers expressly confirm that they understand their legal obligations to transport riders with guide dogs or other service animals. Uber will also implement stricter enforcement policies—Uber will remove a driver from the platform upon a single complaint if Uber finds that the driver knowingly denied a person with a disability a ride because the person was traveling with a service animal. In addition, if Uber receives complaints that a driver denied a person a ride because of a service animal on more than one occasion, the driver will permanently be removed from the Uber platform regardless of the driver’s intent.

Uber will also enhance its response system for complaints related to discrimination against guide-dog users, and will track detailed data on all allegations of such discrimination. Additionally, the National Federation of the Blind and its California affiliate will deploy testers over a multi-year period to evaluate Uber’s compliance with the settlement.

Mark A. Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “Access to reliable and effective transportation is critical to the ability of blind people to live the lives we want. Uber and similar services can be a great asset to the blind when they are fully and equally available to us. The National Federation of the Blind is therefore pleased with Uber's commitment to effectively enforce a nondiscrimination policy with respect to blind people who use guide dogs. We look forward to working with Uber to ensure that all blind passengers can take advantage of the innovative transportation service it offers.”

Plaintiff Michael Hingson commented: “This settlement is a great step forward for all blind people. Uber can be such a convenient transportation option. I’m looking forward to being able to use the Uber services when Uber makes the changes needed to fix its discrimination problem and bring true access to guide dog users.”

Attorney Larry Paradis of Disability Rights Advocates said: “This settlement sets important precedent and shows that companies cannot ignore the rights of people with disabilities just because they use a new technology or a novel business model. We are pleased we could come to an agreement with Uber and look forward to working with the company to ensure a more accessible system.”

Attorney Michael Bien of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP observed: “Technology-enabled services such as Uber have tremendous potential to empower people with disabilities to live more independent lives. By ensuring reliable equal access for blind riders with service animals to Uber’s services, this agreement harnesses that potential.”

Plaintiffs and defendant submitted the proposed settlement to the court on April 29, 2016, and seek approval from the court to settle as a nationwide class action. Copies of the settlement and other documents can be found at http://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-of-california-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/.

Plaintiffs are represented by Larry Paradis and Julia Marks of Disability Rights Advocates, Timothy Elder of TRE Legal, and Michael Bien and Michael Nunez of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP.

###About the National Federation of the Blind:
The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want; blindness is not what holds you back. For more information, visit http://nfb.org.

About the California Affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind:
The NFB of California (NFBC) is the state affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind. The NFBC knows that blindness does not define you or your future. For more information, visit http://nfbcal.org/.

About Disability Rights Advocates:
Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) is one of the leading non-profit disability rights legal centers in the nation. With offices in Berkeley and New York City, DRA’s mission is to advance equal rights and opportunities for people with all types of disabilities nationwide. To advance that mission, DRA regularly advocates for greater access to transportation services and modern technologies. DRA recently negotiated a landmark settlement that will dramatically improve access to taxis in New York for people with mobility disabilities. DRA has also negotiated access improvements to several types of popular modern technologies, including the website Target.com in National Federation of the Blind v. Target, Corp. and Redbox touchscreen video rental kiosks in Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired et al. v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC et al. For more information, visit www.dralegal.org.

About TRE Legal:
Founded by Timothy Elder, TRE Legal is a civil rights law firm fighting discrimination and specializing in the rights of the blind and other disabled people to access employment, education, government programs, public accommodations, digital information, and all other aspects of modern society. TRE Legal has helped negotiate collaboration agreements between the blindness community and several mobile app developers to make their respective technologies independently accessible to the blind. For more information, visit www.trelegal.com.

About Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP:
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP (RBGG) is a private law firm that specializes in complex litigation, including with respect to business disputes, employment matters, institutional reform, and civil rights. RBGG has extensive experience representing individuals and classes of people with disabilities in litigation both against private entities and in the criminal justice context. For more information, visit http://rbgg.com/

Press Release contact:
Chris Danielsen
Director of Public Relations
National Federation of the Blind  

(410) 659-9314, extension 2330

(410) 262-1281 (Cell)
cdanielsen@nfb.org

https://nfb.org/groundbreaking-settlement-end-discrimination-against-blind-uber-riders-who-use-guide-dogs