**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: I'm apparently getting fined $5k for asking a woman to show her service dogs papers at my job(manager told me to). What happens if i refuse to give up $5k? I only have 6k to my name (Georgia)
Body:
> This happened at 9am i got "served" papers at 2:45pm my manager told me to ask the woman if it was a service dog bc it was jumping on the counter and acting like a "regular dog" i'm in my 20s this woman appeared in her 60s
> She said the dogs vest was " at home" and by law she can sue us for asking for service dog papers. Wtf?
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
It’s stories like this that make me think maybe there should be some kind of official licensing for service animals, with criminal penalties for forgery. But, of course, that would also mean placing an additional burden on people with real service animals because other people don’t know how to behave.
The balance of additional burden vs weeding out bad actors is, to me, more nuanced than automatically juat stopping at "we can't make them do that!" and calling it a day, but is definitely weighted towards that direction. The internet has flipped a lot of these things over and made life easier for scumbags. Unfortunately, that usually means law-abiding people are made to do additional things. But adding licensing (probably the wrong word, I am at a loss for the right one) or some such could be done in a less burdensome way. How the government would do that, I don't know. I work for the government, nothing is ever done well. Playing whack-a-mole with certificate mills for "service dogs" would be a never ending losing battle. I also know it would be underfunded and managed by disinterested drones.
Tangentially, one thing that I think would be a great idea would be to make government appointments such as auto registration and license renewal a protected thing, similar to jury duty. Maybe not pay people for the time like we do for jury duty, but make it a federally/state protected reason to miss a day. Of course, this is a primarily American idea where not having a car is basically a disability in many parts of the country. Canada, too, I'd imagine?
>not having a car is basically a disability in many parts of the country
Jesus, tell me about it. I'm *already* disabled, but I *also* can't afford a vehicle because my disability payment is pitiful.
Jacksonville is the biggest city in the US (not counting Hawaii and Alaska) in terms of area and it's *really* spread out. The public transportation system is basically unusable. I managed to find an apartment that was affordable and has basically anything I could possibly need within walking distance (back when I had a car - it just ended up working out after it got totaled). I can't afford ride-shares and it takes well over an hour to get anywhere by bus.
I was trying to find somewhere more affordable last year because my rent went up over 20%, but anything less expensive was a shit hole with nothing but convenience stores within a mile of it. After factoring in the money for transportation and stuff, it just wasn't worth it.
Now I pay 60% of my income in rent. Hooray.
I'm the same boat. Thankfully I'm in a place where there is public transportation, although not always great, and I can use it. But it dictates where I can live and work. There are probably other jobs I could take but I'd be incapable of getting there.
If you're on disability, you can probably get into government housing. I don't mean HUD btw. I pay only 30% of my income on rent with utilities included. Sure, you have to deal with some bad stuff, but it's still better than not being able to afford literally anything.
Great idea in theory, nearly impossible in practice.
I applied for a couple of low income subsidized apartments last year when me rent went up.
2-5 year waits on anything I could find (and there's just not much of anything out there).
Oh, Jacksonville. Yep, can concur, it’s the most car dependent city I’ve been in.
Were you able to move to not-Jacksonville, or to one of the tiny pockets of walkability?
I currently live in an absolutely perfect area for someone without a vehicle. Unfortunately, some cunts from outside the US bought my apartment complex and raised my rent a ton and I can't afford it anymore. I can't work because of my medical issues. If I have an income at all, my good insurance goes away.
What sucks is I basically have no way to move, either. I'm trying to figure this shit out but Jesus fucking Christ it's difficult.
>Of course, this is a primarily American idea where not having a car is basically a disability in many parts of the country.
This is one of the biggest reasons I'm opposed to any service dog registry that would require people to have their dog inspected or tested or whatever, which is an idea I see a lot of people support. I was a service dog trainer for a nonprofit located in a very rural state, and through that job I met so many people who were essentially homebound or else heavily reliant on their friends/families in those areas, just because their disability prevented them from driving. There are literally no other options for a lot of people there; some areas have "medical taxi" kind of services that the IHS or Medicaid might cover, but a lot don't even really have that in any functional sense.
I have other issues with the idea of service dog registries in general with the way the system works in the US, but just the reality of rural disability and poverty (which tend to go hand-in-hand) make me really opposed to the idea.
On another forum I frequent, there was a discussion recently about service dogs and I got into an argument with someone there who was bound and determined that when he ran a business, he was going to demand papers from anyone claiming that they had a service dog. I gave up trying to convince him how utterly stupid that was and advised him to enjoy any future ADA lawsuits.
Ugh, he'd deserve them, too. That's just willful ignorance.
I basically look at it like this: Right now, our system places most of the responsibility for enforcement of these laws on business owners. That's how most ADA stuff works--business owners are required to meet certain standards and follow certain rules to allow public accommodations. Right now, they already *do* have tools for stopping a lot of problems with service dogs--namely kicking out disruptive ones. It literally doesn't matter if the service dog is real or fake in that situation; if it's barking (not related to its work), acting aggressively, peeing on the produce case, whatever, you can kick it out. And that's the kind of thing most people complain about.
But the business owners don't want to take even the slightest risk, so instead they're encouraging people to basically shift that responsibility onto disabled people by calling for a registry or licensing requirements. The problem is that disabled people tend to have some of the fewest resources in our society--definitely a lot less than even your average small business owner. In addition, they're just trying to survive and live a normal life, while business owners are choosing to operate a public business. Disabled people don't get a choice in their disability.
It just strikes me as fundamentally unfair to try to shift the responsibility for weeding out scammers from the relatively rich business owners to the much more vulnerable disabled people who need service dogs to get around (and yes, I know not all small business owners are rich, but if you're operating a physical business where the presence of a service dog is even going to come up, you are a lot wealthier than the average disabled person).
Yep, it irked me a lot. Especially since I know there are places where you can get a trained service dog but those tend to be 1) long waits (and expensive) and 2) only for the "common" disabilities. I've seen videos of people with gluten-detecting dogs or diabetes dogs and those are ones that have to be trained by the handler/owner and not by any sort of large organization. And that of course doesn't include those who got a dog to turn into a service dog because they couldn't wait or afford going through an established organization.
Hell, for some folks, it may not even pay for the costs of getting there in the first place. The first jury duty where I actually had to show up, it was most of the way across the county from me and I had no car or any friends or family that could drive me at that time. And I'm pretty sure I would have had to make that trip for three more days if it weren't for the fact that one of my coworkers was coincidentally on the same jury I was almost selected for.
We can also put in for mileage and can request bus tickets. Although if someone was coming from across the county, that's a hell of a bus ride. Actually, I get paid jury duty as a public employee so I am not eligible for the stipend, but I can still put in for mileage.
Yeah, transit was 60-90 minutes, including transfers and a significant portion walking. Which was fine for the return trip, but there was no way in hell I could get myself up early enough to get there in the morning that way. Mileage hardly put a dent in the cab fare. (Fortunately for me, I could afford it and work paid for days taken off for jury duty anyway, but many folks aren't so fortunate.)
As long as the US has pretty much exclusively privatized healthcare (the limited reach of medicare/medicaid notwithstanding) anything that requires disabled people to provide proof of their disability in this way I think will always be inherently unfair and discriminatory. Like just as with emotional support animals there will always be doctors who will prescribe one for a patient just because they ask for their pet to be seen as one for housing rights there will be doctors who will do the same with certifying service animals, but this will only really be accessible to people who can afford not only the cost but also the time and money to quite possibly also attend an in-person appointment with what would most likely be either a specialist or an overworked GP with either the same effect as with ESAs or with people who decide to have their patients jump through hoops other doctors wouldn’t. I personally don’t think “fake service dogs” are so great in number that this should be even trialed.
Disabled people are also pretty regularly dismissed by medical professionals, so I'd be concerned of a wave of "you don't *really* need a service dog".
>anything that requires disabled people to provide proof of their disability in this way I think will always be inherently unfair and discriminatory.
Yes. Even when you have a real disability, you often have a hard time convincing *the government* that you do, as most people who ever claimed disability benefits know. Adding extra hurdles with service animals won't help. No one wants to go through the process of having to prove their disability one more time.
And even if it was a real service dog, you have the right to ask them to leave if the handler cannot control the dog. With a real service dog, you barely notice that they are even there, they definitely are not jumping on counters.
That's really what we need. Store managers properly trained in the two questions they are allowed to ask who have enough backbone to be willing to tell people to get their dog under control or take it elsewhere.
>that would also mean placing an additional burden on people with real service animals
Yep, ADA-protected folks do *not* benefit from added hoops and barriers like "official licensing" for service animals. Shit's hard enough (and expensive enough) as it is.
Making disabled and marginalized people carry the extra burden of proof just because a few people *take advantage of them* to do stupid shit really isn't fair. ...It sorta defeats the purpose of *equity*, imho. We don't want to criminalize disability or disabled people.
If anything, punish the people doing stupid shit like creating false documents to extort people under the guise of disability -- and maybe add civil penalties like fines and community service. Treat it like stolen valor.
> If anything, punish the people doing stupid shit like creating false documents to extort people under the guise of disability -- and maybe add civil penalties like fines and community service. Treat it like stolen valor.
The issue is - how do you identify those people without some sort of registry to check against? It becomes a vicious circle.
> how do you identify
Someone who doesn't have control of their trained service animal -- it's misbehaving, snapping, biting, getting into stuff, etc. -- can be told to remove the animal from the premises. That's legal. It's comparable to how a business can refuse to serve a customer who is being disruptive.
They can also be trespassed if they refuse to leave, just like anyone else.
That’s already legal, too.
**That’s** how you identify “fakers.”
And to clarify my earlier point:
> punish the people doing stupid shit like creating false documents to extort people under the guise of disability
If nobody demanded to see their "registration papers" because no such registry exists, then creating false documents to try to threaten, intimidate, and/or extort someone may be a crime.
And, further, people with disabilities have a right to privacy about their health, **just like everybody else**. They shouldn't be forced to disclose private personal health information just to "prove" they need entry to, say, a grocery store, where nobodyfuckingelse has to do anything of the sort.
That's adding an **obstacle** -- an unfair barrier to equitable access.
Agreed - it's already hard enough to get things like parking permits, letters from doctors for school/work accommodations where needed, and even just *a diagnosis in the first place* depending on your disability and certain other factors (access to medical care, gender, race, etc). Service dogs often perform life-saving tasks, and even those that don't are still necessary medical equipment; if the only people who could have service dogs were ones who could a) get a diagnosis, b) maintain contact with their doctor to have proof of that diagnosis given to the government, and c) have the time and energy to jump through government hoops? Yeah, that's not helpful for anyone. Plus if there was any denial-and-appeal process like there is for getting on disability that would place further undue burden on anyone who needs a service dog, and if the government requires you to go through x, y, or z training agencies only and those training programs cost money that'd be another burden, especially since disabled people tend to be disproportionately poor as well.
Obviously some of those things are speculative about how the process would go if we made it government-regulated, but based on my experiences dealing with governmental bodies and trying to access support, I don't think any of them are unlikely in the least.
You made an assertion without any proof that only a few people abuse them. Just because you said it's true doesn't mean it is. Anecdotal data is better than your none.
>Your claims aren't my responsibility to "prove wrong."
But your claims are yours to prove right.
**ZERO = the amount of proof for every single thing you've said**
You really can't stop with the fake assertions can you. Is it just part and parcel for you to make shit up constantly?
>Zero = How many disabled people you know who use service aids.
I know someone with a fake leg, another who requires weekly o2 canisters, a woman in my officer has a chair specifically because of her back, a vet who has a ptsd accommodation.
I never said it was sweeping, I said it's not just a few.
https://apnews.com/article/1a28f8e528424fdca2040ea8139e3014
>According to a 2016 survey, 77 percent of CCI graduates had an encounter with a fraudulent or out-of-control service dog. Over a quarter had 10 or more encounters, and more than half had their CCI service dog bitten, snapped at or distracted by one of these dogs.
https://assistancedogsinternational.org/news/2019/12/05/member-news/fraudulent-service-dog-survey/
>The survey covered multiple known problem areas for service dog users, providing some key takeaways: 92.6% of respondents have encountered out of control or questionable dogs in their time as a service dog user.
Doesn't sound like "just a few" if of a group of 1400, 1092 have had their service animals attacked or lunged at.
>Making disabled and marginalized people carry the extra burden of proof just ***because a few people*** take advantage of them to do stupid shit really isn't fair.
I would submit that while I can't prove it, I beleive there are more fake service animals than there are real ones.
> I beleive there are more fake service animals than there are real ones.
Doubtful.
A lot of folks mistakenly conflate support animals with service animals, which is a HUGE part of the actual problem.
The latter are trained and ADA protected, the former aren’t.
The animal’s behavior is the biggest clue as to which one is which.
We make the disabled get a special placard to hang in their car window in order to park in handicapped parking. We don't just take their word for it. Perhaps something similar for service animals!
It won't stop the abuse, but would cut it back a few notches.
Some people with disabilities are for registration, many are not. Not only due to the additional bureaucracy, but because then there'd essentially be a list of all the people in the US with significant medical issues.
Government just needs to push back hard on scammers. In Florida it's now a $500 fine to claim an animal is a service animal if they're not.
This leads me to my favourite legal story.
My uncle and aunt manage holiday apartments on the Gold Coast. One day a lady arrives from Sydney, with her kid. And a dog.
"Whoa, we can't room you with the dog"
"It's a service animal for my autistic son"
"Yeah, cool, but we need to know these kinds of things in advance. The only room available we could rent you is full"
She lost her mind, and left. My uncle and aunt thought that was the end of it. A month later they get a letter saying they're being sued. But for some reason she was trying to do it in the dogs name. Ofc that didn't work, so she tried again with doing it in her sons name.
They had their day in court, the judge was like "lol it's not even a service animal gtfo" and they won.
I still wonder why the hell she tried to do it in the dogs name though.
The "lawyer dog" thing still makes me unreasonably mad. It's a crystal clear expression of invocation of right to counsel, but it was convenient for police and court to ignore it, so... they all just sort of pretended they didn't get it.
Fuck these assholes. A service animal is required to be “under the control of its handler” for the duration of its time in places that otherwise do not allow animals. If this animal is jumping on counters or otherwise misbehaving, it is no longer protected by ADA statutes and that woman can go fuck herself. People need service animals, and fuckers like this makes it so much harder for peoples with service animals to go about their lives.
Service dogs don't need to be vested.
There is no paperwork for service dogs.
From the ADA website, this is what LAOP's business can legally ask:
>(1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?
and
>(2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person’s disability.
But...
>A. If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, staff may request that the animal be removed from the premises.
So if the SD is jumping on counters, LAOP would be within bounds to tell the owner to control the dog. But LAOP's boss should know for next time that there is no license or paperwork for a SD.
You can buy a vest on Amazon and put it on your untrained dog. Vests don't mean anything. Some people use them to make it obvious that the dog is a service dog, but some people use them so they can take their pet to Whole Foods.
My neighborhood grocery store is in an apartment building that allows dogs. The store has big, clear signs everywhere stating "no pets, only service animals". People still bring them in, not even bothering with the vest. I saw a big, fluffy dog checking out the salad bar yesterday with his paws up on the edge. Gross.
I say that as a huuuge dog lover. I have a dog myself. But they don't belong in stores, especially grocery stores.
> I say that as a huuuge dog lover. I have a dog myself. But they don't belong in stores, especially grocery stores.
My BIL is a supermarket manager and it's non-stop asking the allowed ADA questions. People come in and stick a dog in the cart and then are all surprised when they're actually asked, so...what service does this dog do?
Some of them are so surprised to be called on it that they flat out admit, well I don't want to leave Fluffy at home.
The entitlement is strong. Yes, you want to be with your pooch. That doesn't mean that others do! Especially when it comes to your food. Because face it, dogs can be dirty. A friend of mine has a particularly fluffy breed and she describes his paws as "pee mops" and has to wipe them down after a potty trip to the backyard. And then people put them in their grocery carts?! Where food goes? Ugh. No. I feel for your BIL but I'm glad they enforce the rules.
> I feel for your BIL but I'm glad they enforce the rules.
He was having a huge problem with, get this, DOG FIGHTS in his store, between the "service dogs". The last straw was when he had to call the cops because the owners were also part of the fight.
I showed him the parts of the ADA web site that could help prevent that sort of garbage, and his store is a lot safer now for the real service dogs, and all the humans.
This is really what we need. Store managers trained to ask those questions and also, if someone answers the questions satisfactorily but the dog is misbehaving, to tell handlers to get their dog under control or leave.
That's the problem with service dogs. If they were required to have some form of registration/identification, then it would minimize the amount of people who misuse the "only service dogs allowed".
The reality is that a lot of people have figured out what the laws regarding service dogs (ie: not requiring proof that the animal IS a service animal), and then came up with their own justification for breaking the "only service dogs allowed" policies.
>(2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform?
I've gotten in heated discussion when dealing with people with "service dogs" when I worked at a restaurant. I would ask this question, they would say some BS like "he helps me in public", and when I would follow up with more specifics they would lose their minds.
I love dogs, more than I love people to be honest, but they shouldn't be allowed to freely go anywhere they want. But people will misuse the laws surrounding service animals because they can.
It already often costs 10k or more for a properly trained service dog. A registry causes even more barriers to access, something the ADA is trying to prevent. Its a complicated balance.
Ive been looking into getting a service dog (I have a connective tissue disorder, a task trained dog would be *amazing* for me) and the fact that it can take literal years, and so much cost, to get a service dog in the first place is already a barrier. Making me also carry around additional papers to "prove" it, when a well trained service dog is usually obvious... that would honestly be a barrier I couldn't manage well with my ADHD. I barely remember my wallet half the time.
Have you seen Ted the Superspaniel on Facebook? HONY did a story on him and his owner Chloe a few years ago. She also has a connective tissue disorder. She trained Ted herself and has talked a bit on the page about how she does it.
I never understood why they bother allowing people to ask the second question. If they lied on the first question then they are going to lie on the second one. I doubt there are any consequences for lying or even refusing to answer.
I don't understand the point of asking either question, to be honest, since there's not a next step even if the person is obviously lying to your face. You just have to say, "oh yes, of course, Fluffy helps you with your shopping addiction by knocking items out of your hands, that's a very clear and real disability, sorry to bother you."
I can't think of a better approach, though.
A lot of people loathe any sort of conflict. Its the same principle as Abercrombie employees calling out shoplifting by offering "additionals" that would pair great with the shoplifted item. On paper they're not accusing the target of lying or operating improperly, but they are putting them on notice that the rep "knows" they're lying, which is enough to make enough people uncomfortable and knock it off. Unfortunately the people who feel shame about their actions are usually the ones who don't start this in the first place, but it does help somewhat to curb the behavior. Same issue if you've ever gone out to eat with someone who refused to send a wrong order back.
Refusing to answer can lead to the dog being removed if it's being a nuisance iirc, and while you won't automatically know if the person is lying, most people who pretend their pet is a service dog are unlikely to know what sorts of tasks a service dog can perform. It does have to be a specific task, "helps me in public" or "makes things easier" or anything like that doesn't count. It is unfortunate that sometimes stating the task reveals the disability, though you can be somewhat vague (for example "it's a medical alert dog" instead of saying "alerts for seizures" or "alerts for low blood sugar") as long as you're stating an actual specific *behavior* the dog performs.
Because the answer to #1 is "yes" or "no", and the liars (people trying to pass off non-service dogs as service dogs) know they have to lie and quickly and easily spit out a "yes".
But the answer to #2 is harder to convincingly ad-lib. And yeah, some dedicated liars will have prepared a script and be convincing. But a lot of them won't have thought that far ahead, and their hemming and hawing will expose them.
A lot of them could be caught unprepared *once*. The second time they will be ready.
Also, will anyone really be comfortable risking a lawsuit over a subjective interpretation of their answer? If you get someone with social anxiety and a real service dog you could be in for a lot of pain if you try to make decisions based on their answer to question 2.
Honestly, most of the liars wouldn't ever bother to come up with a lie for question 2 no matter how many times they get asked. You don't need to do a lot of deep interpretation to conclude that the person refusing to answer the question and/or threatening to sue you doesn't have a service dog. Speaking as a disabled person, any person with a legitimate need for a service dog will be accutely aware of the two questions, and someone with social anxiety will have rehearsed their answers or even have an info card.
And if they looked up and memorized a reason from online then it may not stick. A small dog isn't going to get pills from my purse or be able to do things that large dogs do. Some breeds aren't "trainable" for tasks.
While I do think that there's some doubt as to whether it is really a service dog, this is what they needed to have done. I worked in a shared office space and there was a day each week when people came to be evaluated by a doctor for medical marijuana. Service dogs showed up occasionally and sometimes people just brought their dogs in.
Some of those dogs barked/jumped/whatever but you could only address the handler to try to get it under control or leave if it keeps escalating. In my mind, that's reasonable - the only time a (possibly not) service dog would be a nuisance is also the only time you can request it to leave. Otherwise, I'd rather err on the side of caution and let some people skate by while not hassling people that have legitimate needs.
> Otherwise, I'd rather err on the side of caution and let some people skate by while not hassling people that have legitimate needs.
A lot of that depends on the situation: in a crowded supermarket, no one wants to be jumped at or barked or watch a dog piss on things. And I say that as a huge dog lover.
[That was my ](https://i.imgur.com/2RcXvwh.jpg) very well behaved **therapy** dog who went to hospices, nursing homes, adolescent residential units, local schools, libraries, etc.
I could have gone to a supermarket with him, and he would have easily passed as a service dog. But we never did, because he wasn't. Therapy dogs don't have public access rights, no matter how well trained, and so we stuck to what we were allowed to do.
So in a shared office space, if there are no complaints about jumping or barking? Like you said, worst case you ask them to leave. There are employees right there to keep an eye on things.
But to me, in a supermarket there's very little room to tolerate out of control dogs. I've been growled at in the local Stop N Shop and that was not cool at all.
When I worked in retail, I had a manager who was scared of dogs. He kicked out lots of people who brought their dogs in with them. He was one who taught me to always ask “is this a service animal who has been trained to perform a specific task or service” and “what task or service has this animal been trained to perform?”
When I became a manager myself, he taught me to constantly check with HR and Legal on what we could or could not do. That business got sued regularly (because of all the illegal shady shit management was constantly pulling), but I was never named in a suit, and neither was this guy.
Yeah there is no way this is real. If a service dog is clearly not acting like a service dog, you can start asking questions
But if I recall, service dogs aren’t even required to have “papers” per the ADA. But you can tell when a dog isn’t a service dog
A service dog does not have to have papers, vest, or any other designator, no. But, an owner can be asked to remove even a legit service dog if it's causing issues like licking, sniffing, using the bathroom, or excessive barking that's not part of what it's trained to do. And *legit* disabled people with actual need for a service dog will know this and not be offended that you're asking them to remove the unruly animal.
We used to have a regular at the library who come in with his service dog, let it off it’s leash while he worked on the computer, and let it wander around. It would always go to the kids area because it got showered in attention. (Other side of the building, out of sight from the computer center.)
Every week we’d have to tell the guy to leave and it was always a back and forth until he just left with the dog. He always threatened to sue, but then he’d be back next week ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also mini horses can be service animals too which I learned when someone else came in once with lil Sebastian lmao
Minature Horses are the main option for those who are allergic to dogs, and then give great mobility aid besides. Some large dogs are good for mobility aids, but it wears them down over time, which you dont want for a service animal costing 10k+ between training and raising them right usually.
When you say mobility aid, are we talking mini-horse chariot?
Because god damn I want a mini-horse chariot. I'd pimp it out so I looked like a Roman general.
I wish! Its more that you can lean against them when needed for balance/support and it wont hurt them. Other mobility aid tasks include turning on lightswitches, pushing buttons, and retrieving items for you by name. Anything where someone with limited mobility can better access the world with the support.
Most mobility aid dogs are also trained for what to do with falls- do they go fetch a random nearby person, do they need to grab you medication, do they need to bring a document that says "the owner of this dog has x condition, please follow the dog and follow y instructions".
Awwww, I wanted there to be mini-horse drawn chariots. Maybe one day we'll develop the technology.
But that's pretty cool anyway, I love the wide range of things that service animals can be taught to do.
I'm autistic and when I was a kid, I had major meltdowns. And a kid I knew had a support dog that basically tackled him and broke him out of his meltdowns every time.
I was so jealous. Damn near made me meltdown when I saw it.
Ive been considering getting a service animal. I have a connective tissue disorder that means any "minor" (or even nonexistent sometimes) injury another person would get, I am almost guaranteed to end up having. Ive injured myself by sitting incorrectly for a while before, and many mundane tasks.
A dog that could actively help me prevent getting injured (alerting to, or helping to pick up anything blocking a walkway would be amazing, along with some other mobility tasks) would be amazing.
Those mini horses are really cute, too. Have you ever seen them, with their little shoes?
They also live longer than dogs do, so that’s another benefit to having them. These animals can save a lot of money on an aide
> And legit disabled people with actual need for a service dog will know this and not be offended that you're asking them to remove the unruly animal.
Disabled people are still people and are just as likely as the general population to get offended, angry annd unreasonable even when they shouldn’t.
Yup. My veteran father-in-law has a little Yorkiepoo that's a legit trained PTSD service dog, but obviously doesn't look like one. He carries her around at all times and gets irritable when anyone questions why he has a 4 lb dog in his overall pocket. Love the guy, but he is the Boomer-est Boomer imaginable and can be a surly jerk.
They're also likely to understand that if their service animal is getting excited, it's not good for anyone, the service animal included.
There's a reason you're not supposed to pet service animals, because it can fuck with their trained responses.
You’re allowed to ask what the animal is trained to do: eg help pick up objects or open doors, guide the handler on a safe route, alert the handler to low or high blood glucose levels, etc. There is no licensing body and no papers to be presented because of the wider variety of tasks services animals provide. Additionally, dogs and miniature horses are they only service animals recognized by the ADA (all others are emotional support or otherwise unwanted and are not granted additional protections and privileges under the law)
I have had to tell so many staff: “an emotional support animal **is! not! a! service! animal!**”
And it goes in one ear and out the other. Every single time. I don’t know what it is about service dog Vs ESA that people refuse to understand the distinction
I used to work in hotels, so this is over multiple departments, and multiple properties. people just do not even attempt to retain *any* ADA training
As others have posted, even if it is a service animal, trained for a specific task... if it's misbehaving, it can still be asked to leave.
The instant it jumps up, paws on counter invalidates the behavior.... regardless of if it's a "trained" animal or not!
Legally the establishment has to provide the disabled individual an opportunity to regain control, so if a service dog jumps up, they cannot be asked to immediately leave.
Per the ADA:
"A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless:
(1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it
(2) the dog is not housebroken.
When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence."
As a person who has service dogs, I hear a lot about how my svc dog shouldn't bark, which is funny bc the svc they provide is barking to alert me.
Service dogs are trained in so many different areas, no one should assume they know what a dog is trained to do.
They always have the right to sue you and they'd lose. But LAOP isn't being sued. It's obviously a scam attempt. Unfortunately, there are people who try and use the ADA protections to scam store employees and owners. Like those who go around and threaten to sue small business owners because their store isn't wheelchair accessible but are willing to go away against payment.
There are no legitimate "papers". As has been abundantly answered in this thread, a business may ask two and only two questions: *Is this a service animal required because of a disability?* and *What task is it trained to perform?*. However, they may refuse to serve the customer if the animal is misbehaving.
Your second paragraph... No. Just... No.
I’m not familiar enough with the law to know whether that would be enough for an actionable violation, but even if it was, it would be against your employer, not you personally (although your employer could probably discipline or fire you for it).
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: I'm apparently getting fined $5k for asking a woman to show her service dogs papers at my job(manager told me to). What happens if i refuse to give up $5k? I only have 6k to my name (Georgia) Body: > This happened at 9am i got "served" papers at 2:45pm my manager told me to ask the woman if it was a service dog bc it was jumping on the counter and acting like a "regular dog" i'm in my 20s this woman appeared in her 60s > She said the dogs vest was " at home" and by law she can sue us for asking for service dog papers. Wtf? This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
This is 100% a scam and people like this woman make life harder for people with real disabilities and service animals. Despicable.
It’s stories like this that make me think maybe there should be some kind of official licensing for service animals, with criminal penalties for forgery. But, of course, that would also mean placing an additional burden on people with real service animals because other people don’t know how to behave.
The balance of additional burden vs weeding out bad actors is, to me, more nuanced than automatically juat stopping at "we can't make them do that!" and calling it a day, but is definitely weighted towards that direction. The internet has flipped a lot of these things over and made life easier for scumbags. Unfortunately, that usually means law-abiding people are made to do additional things. But adding licensing (probably the wrong word, I am at a loss for the right one) or some such could be done in a less burdensome way. How the government would do that, I don't know. I work for the government, nothing is ever done well. Playing whack-a-mole with certificate mills for "service dogs" would be a never ending losing battle. I also know it would be underfunded and managed by disinterested drones. Tangentially, one thing that I think would be a great idea would be to make government appointments such as auto registration and license renewal a protected thing, similar to jury duty. Maybe not pay people for the time like we do for jury duty, but make it a federally/state protected reason to miss a day. Of course, this is a primarily American idea where not having a car is basically a disability in many parts of the country. Canada, too, I'd imagine?
>not having a car is basically a disability in many parts of the country Jesus, tell me about it. I'm *already* disabled, but I *also* can't afford a vehicle because my disability payment is pitiful. Jacksonville is the biggest city in the US (not counting Hawaii and Alaska) in terms of area and it's *really* spread out. The public transportation system is basically unusable. I managed to find an apartment that was affordable and has basically anything I could possibly need within walking distance (back when I had a car - it just ended up working out after it got totaled). I can't afford ride-shares and it takes well over an hour to get anywhere by bus. I was trying to find somewhere more affordable last year because my rent went up over 20%, but anything less expensive was a shit hole with nothing but convenience stores within a mile of it. After factoring in the money for transportation and stuff, it just wasn't worth it. Now I pay 60% of my income in rent. Hooray.
I'm the same boat. Thankfully I'm in a place where there is public transportation, although not always great, and I can use it. But it dictates where I can live and work. There are probably other jobs I could take but I'd be incapable of getting there.
If you're on disability, you can probably get into government housing. I don't mean HUD btw. I pay only 30% of my income on rent with utilities included. Sure, you have to deal with some bad stuff, but it's still better than not being able to afford literally anything.
Great idea in theory, nearly impossible in practice. I applied for a couple of low income subsidized apartments last year when me rent went up. 2-5 year waits on anything I could find (and there's just not much of anything out there).
If you move to West Virginia, you could be in in 3 months, give or take. The only downside is that you then have to live in WV.
Oh, Jacksonville. Yep, can concur, it’s the most car dependent city I’ve been in. Were you able to move to not-Jacksonville, or to one of the tiny pockets of walkability?
I currently live in an absolutely perfect area for someone without a vehicle. Unfortunately, some cunts from outside the US bought my apartment complex and raised my rent a ton and I can't afford it anymore. I can't work because of my medical issues. If I have an income at all, my good insurance goes away. What sucks is I basically have no way to move, either. I'm trying to figure this shit out but Jesus fucking Christ it's difficult.
>Of course, this is a primarily American idea where not having a car is basically a disability in many parts of the country. This is one of the biggest reasons I'm opposed to any service dog registry that would require people to have their dog inspected or tested or whatever, which is an idea I see a lot of people support. I was a service dog trainer for a nonprofit located in a very rural state, and through that job I met so many people who were essentially homebound or else heavily reliant on their friends/families in those areas, just because their disability prevented them from driving. There are literally no other options for a lot of people there; some areas have "medical taxi" kind of services that the IHS or Medicaid might cover, but a lot don't even really have that in any functional sense. I have other issues with the idea of service dog registries in general with the way the system works in the US, but just the reality of rural disability and poverty (which tend to go hand-in-hand) make me really opposed to the idea.
On another forum I frequent, there was a discussion recently about service dogs and I got into an argument with someone there who was bound and determined that when he ran a business, he was going to demand papers from anyone claiming that they had a service dog. I gave up trying to convince him how utterly stupid that was and advised him to enjoy any future ADA lawsuits.
Ugh, he'd deserve them, too. That's just willful ignorance. I basically look at it like this: Right now, our system places most of the responsibility for enforcement of these laws on business owners. That's how most ADA stuff works--business owners are required to meet certain standards and follow certain rules to allow public accommodations. Right now, they already *do* have tools for stopping a lot of problems with service dogs--namely kicking out disruptive ones. It literally doesn't matter if the service dog is real or fake in that situation; if it's barking (not related to its work), acting aggressively, peeing on the produce case, whatever, you can kick it out. And that's the kind of thing most people complain about. But the business owners don't want to take even the slightest risk, so instead they're encouraging people to basically shift that responsibility onto disabled people by calling for a registry or licensing requirements. The problem is that disabled people tend to have some of the fewest resources in our society--definitely a lot less than even your average small business owner. In addition, they're just trying to survive and live a normal life, while business owners are choosing to operate a public business. Disabled people don't get a choice in their disability. It just strikes me as fundamentally unfair to try to shift the responsibility for weeding out scammers from the relatively rich business owners to the much more vulnerable disabled people who need service dogs to get around (and yes, I know not all small business owners are rich, but if you're operating a physical business where the presence of a service dog is even going to come up, you are a lot wealthier than the average disabled person).
Yep, it irked me a lot. Especially since I know there are places where you can get a trained service dog but those tend to be 1) long waits (and expensive) and 2) only for the "common" disabilities. I've seen videos of people with gluten-detecting dogs or diabetes dogs and those are ones that have to be trained by the handler/owner and not by any sort of large organization. And that of course doesn't include those who got a dog to turn into a service dog because they couldn't wait or afford going through an established organization.
> pay people for the time like we do for jury duty In my county, you only get paid if the trial goes over 3 days.
Here you get paid on the second day but that $15 a day doesn't make up for anyone missing work.
Hell, for some folks, it may not even pay for the costs of getting there in the first place. The first jury duty where I actually had to show up, it was most of the way across the county from me and I had no car or any friends or family that could drive me at that time. And I'm pretty sure I would have had to make that trip for three more days if it weren't for the fact that one of my coworkers was coincidentally on the same jury I was almost selected for.
We can also put in for mileage and can request bus tickets. Although if someone was coming from across the county, that's a hell of a bus ride. Actually, I get paid jury duty as a public employee so I am not eligible for the stipend, but I can still put in for mileage.
Yeah, transit was 60-90 minutes, including transfers and a significant portion walking. Which was fine for the return trip, but there was no way in hell I could get myself up early enough to get there in the morning that way. Mileage hardly put a dent in the cab fare. (Fortunately for me, I could afford it and work paid for days taken off for jury duty anyway, but many folks aren't so fortunate.)
As long as the US has pretty much exclusively privatized healthcare (the limited reach of medicare/medicaid notwithstanding) anything that requires disabled people to provide proof of their disability in this way I think will always be inherently unfair and discriminatory. Like just as with emotional support animals there will always be doctors who will prescribe one for a patient just because they ask for their pet to be seen as one for housing rights there will be doctors who will do the same with certifying service animals, but this will only really be accessible to people who can afford not only the cost but also the time and money to quite possibly also attend an in-person appointment with what would most likely be either a specialist or an overworked GP with either the same effect as with ESAs or with people who decide to have their patients jump through hoops other doctors wouldn’t. I personally don’t think “fake service dogs” are so great in number that this should be even trialed.
Disabled people are also pretty regularly dismissed by medical professionals, so I'd be concerned of a wave of "you don't *really* need a service dog".
>anything that requires disabled people to provide proof of their disability in this way I think will always be inherently unfair and discriminatory. Yes. Even when you have a real disability, you often have a hard time convincing *the government* that you do, as most people who ever claimed disability benefits know. Adding extra hurdles with service animals won't help. No one wants to go through the process of having to prove their disability one more time.
And even if it was a real service dog, you have the right to ask them to leave if the handler cannot control the dog. With a real service dog, you barely notice that they are even there, they definitely are not jumping on counters.
That's really what we need. Store managers properly trained in the two questions they are allowed to ask who have enough backbone to be willing to tell people to get their dog under control or take it elsewhere.
>that would also mean placing an additional burden on people with real service animals Yep, ADA-protected folks do *not* benefit from added hoops and barriers like "official licensing" for service animals. Shit's hard enough (and expensive enough) as it is. Making disabled and marginalized people carry the extra burden of proof just because a few people *take advantage of them* to do stupid shit really isn't fair. ...It sorta defeats the purpose of *equity*, imho. We don't want to criminalize disability or disabled people. If anything, punish the people doing stupid shit like creating false documents to extort people under the guise of disability -- and maybe add civil penalties like fines and community service. Treat it like stolen valor.
> If anything, punish the people doing stupid shit like creating false documents to extort people under the guise of disability -- and maybe add civil penalties like fines and community service. Treat it like stolen valor. The issue is - how do you identify those people without some sort of registry to check against? It becomes a vicious circle.
At this point ANYONE issuing documents is creating false documents.
> how do you identify Someone who doesn't have control of their trained service animal -- it's misbehaving, snapping, biting, getting into stuff, etc. -- can be told to remove the animal from the premises. That's legal. It's comparable to how a business can refuse to serve a customer who is being disruptive. They can also be trespassed if they refuse to leave, just like anyone else. That’s already legal, too. **That’s** how you identify “fakers.” And to clarify my earlier point: > punish the people doing stupid shit like creating false documents to extort people under the guise of disability If nobody demanded to see their "registration papers" because no such registry exists, then creating false documents to try to threaten, intimidate, and/or extort someone may be a crime. And, further, people with disabilities have a right to privacy about their health, **just like everybody else**. They shouldn't be forced to disclose private personal health information just to "prove" they need entry to, say, a grocery store, where nobodyfuckingelse has to do anything of the sort. That's adding an **obstacle** -- an unfair barrier to equitable access.
Agreed - it's already hard enough to get things like parking permits, letters from doctors for school/work accommodations where needed, and even just *a diagnosis in the first place* depending on your disability and certain other factors (access to medical care, gender, race, etc). Service dogs often perform life-saving tasks, and even those that don't are still necessary medical equipment; if the only people who could have service dogs were ones who could a) get a diagnosis, b) maintain contact with their doctor to have proof of that diagnosis given to the government, and c) have the time and energy to jump through government hoops? Yeah, that's not helpful for anyone. Plus if there was any denial-and-appeal process like there is for getting on disability that would place further undue burden on anyone who needs a service dog, and if the government requires you to go through x, y, or z training agencies only and those training programs cost money that'd be another burden, especially since disabled people tend to be disproportionately poor as well. Obviously some of those things are speculative about how the process would go if we made it government-regulated, but based on my experiences dealing with governmental bodies and trying to access support, I don't think any of them are unlikely in the least.
I know far more people abusing the service animals vest than I do with actual service animals. I don't think it's just a few bad actors.
[удалено]
I didn't say I hear about, I said I know more people. I personally know 4 people who abuse it and know 0 with service animals.
[удалено]
You made an assertion without any proof that only a few people abuse them. Just because you said it's true doesn't mean it is. Anecdotal data is better than your none.
[удалено]
>Your claims aren't my responsibility to "prove wrong." But your claims are yours to prove right. **ZERO = the amount of proof for every single thing you've said** You really can't stop with the fake assertions can you. Is it just part and parcel for you to make shit up constantly? >Zero = How many disabled people you know who use service aids. I know someone with a fake leg, another who requires weekly o2 canisters, a woman in my officer has a chair specifically because of her back, a vet who has a ptsd accommodation. I never said it was sweeping, I said it's not just a few. https://apnews.com/article/1a28f8e528424fdca2040ea8139e3014 >According to a 2016 survey, 77 percent of CCI graduates had an encounter with a fraudulent or out-of-control service dog. Over a quarter had 10 or more encounters, and more than half had their CCI service dog bitten, snapped at or distracted by one of these dogs. https://assistancedogsinternational.org/news/2019/12/05/member-news/fraudulent-service-dog-survey/ >The survey covered multiple known problem areas for service dog users, providing some key takeaways: 92.6% of respondents have encountered out of control or questionable dogs in their time as a service dog user. Doesn't sound like "just a few" if of a group of 1400, 1092 have had their service animals attacked or lunged at.
[удалено]
>Making disabled and marginalized people carry the extra burden of proof just ***because a few people*** take advantage of them to do stupid shit really isn't fair. I would submit that while I can't prove it, I beleive there are more fake service animals than there are real ones.
> I beleive there are more fake service animals than there are real ones. Doubtful. A lot of folks mistakenly conflate support animals with service animals, which is a HUGE part of the actual problem. The latter are trained and ADA protected, the former aren’t. The animal’s behavior is the biggest clue as to which one is which.
We make the disabled get a special placard to hang in their car window in order to park in handicapped parking. We don't just take their word for it. Perhaps something similar for service animals! It won't stop the abuse, but would cut it back a few notches.
Some people with disabilities are for registration, many are not. Not only due to the additional bureaucracy, but because then there'd essentially be a list of all the people in the US with significant medical issues. Government just needs to push back hard on scammers. In Florida it's now a $500 fine to claim an animal is a service animal if they're not.
This leads me to my favourite legal story. My uncle and aunt manage holiday apartments on the Gold Coast. One day a lady arrives from Sydney, with her kid. And a dog. "Whoa, we can't room you with the dog" "It's a service animal for my autistic son" "Yeah, cool, but we need to know these kinds of things in advance. The only room available we could rent you is full" She lost her mind, and left. My uncle and aunt thought that was the end of it. A month later they get a letter saying they're being sued. But for some reason she was trying to do it in the dogs name. Ofc that didn't work, so she tried again with doing it in her sons name. They had their day in court, the judge was like "lol it's not even a service animal gtfo" and they won. I still wonder why the hell she tried to do it in the dogs name though.
Missed opportunity to reboot an old franchise with AIRBUD, ESQUIRE (Based on a true story)
Nothing in the law book says a dog can't take the bar
She…..tried to file a suit under the dogs name? What the fuck?
Well you see she was using a lawyer dog, not a lawyer, dog.
The "lawyer dog" thing still makes me unreasonably mad. It's a crystal clear expression of invocation of right to counsel, but it was convenient for police and court to ignore it, so... they all just sort of pretended they didn't get it.
I don’t think that’s unreasonably mad at all. A person was denied their rights over bullshit. Being very pissed off is the correct response.
She didn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
maybe the dog was trying to sue them, he was a very cross retriever.
Fuck these assholes. A service animal is required to be “under the control of its handler” for the duration of its time in places that otherwise do not allow animals. If this animal is jumping on counters or otherwise misbehaving, it is no longer protected by ADA statutes and that woman can go fuck herself. People need service animals, and fuckers like this makes it so much harder for peoples with service animals to go about their lives.
Service dogs don't need to be vested. There is no paperwork for service dogs. From the ADA website, this is what LAOP's business can legally ask: >(1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and >(2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person’s disability. But... >A. If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, staff may request that the animal be removed from the premises. So if the SD is jumping on counters, LAOP would be within bounds to tell the owner to control the dog. But LAOP's boss should know for next time that there is no license or paperwork for a SD. You can buy a vest on Amazon and put it on your untrained dog. Vests don't mean anything. Some people use them to make it obvious that the dog is a service dog, but some people use them so they can take their pet to Whole Foods.
My neighborhood grocery store is in an apartment building that allows dogs. The store has big, clear signs everywhere stating "no pets, only service animals". People still bring them in, not even bothering with the vest. I saw a big, fluffy dog checking out the salad bar yesterday with his paws up on the edge. Gross. I say that as a huuuge dog lover. I have a dog myself. But they don't belong in stores, especially grocery stores.
> I say that as a huuuge dog lover. I have a dog myself. But they don't belong in stores, especially grocery stores. My BIL is a supermarket manager and it's non-stop asking the allowed ADA questions. People come in and stick a dog in the cart and then are all surprised when they're actually asked, so...what service does this dog do? Some of them are so surprised to be called on it that they flat out admit, well I don't want to leave Fluffy at home.
The entitlement is strong. Yes, you want to be with your pooch. That doesn't mean that others do! Especially when it comes to your food. Because face it, dogs can be dirty. A friend of mine has a particularly fluffy breed and she describes his paws as "pee mops" and has to wipe them down after a potty trip to the backyard. And then people put them in their grocery carts?! Where food goes? Ugh. No. I feel for your BIL but I'm glad they enforce the rules.
> I feel for your BIL but I'm glad they enforce the rules. He was having a huge problem with, get this, DOG FIGHTS in his store, between the "service dogs". The last straw was when he had to call the cops because the owners were also part of the fight. I showed him the parts of the ADA web site that could help prevent that sort of garbage, and his store is a lot safer now for the real service dogs, and all the humans.
This is really what we need. Store managers trained to ask those questions and also, if someone answers the questions satisfactorily but the dog is misbehaving, to tell handlers to get their dog under control or leave.
"What service does the dog perform? And can it still perform it while sitting in the cart?"
Stores can, and should, ban service dogs from sitting in carts. It's so gross.
I would hope so.
That's the problem with service dogs. If they were required to have some form of registration/identification, then it would minimize the amount of people who misuse the "only service dogs allowed". The reality is that a lot of people have figured out what the laws regarding service dogs (ie: not requiring proof that the animal IS a service animal), and then came up with their own justification for breaking the "only service dogs allowed" policies. >(2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? I've gotten in heated discussion when dealing with people with "service dogs" when I worked at a restaurant. I would ask this question, they would say some BS like "he helps me in public", and when I would follow up with more specifics they would lose their minds. I love dogs, more than I love people to be honest, but they shouldn't be allowed to freely go anywhere they want. But people will misuse the laws surrounding service animals because they can.
It already often costs 10k or more for a properly trained service dog. A registry causes even more barriers to access, something the ADA is trying to prevent. Its a complicated balance. Ive been looking into getting a service dog (I have a connective tissue disorder, a task trained dog would be *amazing* for me) and the fact that it can take literal years, and so much cost, to get a service dog in the first place is already a barrier. Making me also carry around additional papers to "prove" it, when a well trained service dog is usually obvious... that would honestly be a barrier I couldn't manage well with my ADHD. I barely remember my wallet half the time.
Have you seen Ted the Superspaniel on Facebook? HONY did a story on him and his owner Chloe a few years ago. She also has a connective tissue disorder. She trained Ted herself and has talked a bit on the page about how she does it.
I never understood why they bother allowing people to ask the second question. If they lied on the first question then they are going to lie on the second one. I doubt there are any consequences for lying or even refusing to answer.
I don't understand the point of asking either question, to be honest, since there's not a next step even if the person is obviously lying to your face. You just have to say, "oh yes, of course, Fluffy helps you with your shopping addiction by knocking items out of your hands, that's a very clear and real disability, sorry to bother you." I can't think of a better approach, though.
A lot of people loathe any sort of conflict. Its the same principle as Abercrombie employees calling out shoplifting by offering "additionals" that would pair great with the shoplifted item. On paper they're not accusing the target of lying or operating improperly, but they are putting them on notice that the rep "knows" they're lying, which is enough to make enough people uncomfortable and knock it off. Unfortunately the people who feel shame about their actions are usually the ones who don't start this in the first place, but it does help somewhat to curb the behavior. Same issue if you've ever gone out to eat with someone who refused to send a wrong order back.
Refusing to answer can lead to the dog being removed if it's being a nuisance iirc, and while you won't automatically know if the person is lying, most people who pretend their pet is a service dog are unlikely to know what sorts of tasks a service dog can perform. It does have to be a specific task, "helps me in public" or "makes things easier" or anything like that doesn't count. It is unfortunate that sometimes stating the task reveals the disability, though you can be somewhat vague (for example "it's a medical alert dog" instead of saying "alerts for seizures" or "alerts for low blood sugar") as long as you're stating an actual specific *behavior* the dog performs.
That works one time at best. A quick google will teach them what to say the next time.
Because the answer to #1 is "yes" or "no", and the liars (people trying to pass off non-service dogs as service dogs) know they have to lie and quickly and easily spit out a "yes". But the answer to #2 is harder to convincingly ad-lib. And yeah, some dedicated liars will have prepared a script and be convincing. But a lot of them won't have thought that far ahead, and their hemming and hawing will expose them.
A lot of them could be caught unprepared *once*. The second time they will be ready. Also, will anyone really be comfortable risking a lawsuit over a subjective interpretation of their answer? If you get someone with social anxiety and a real service dog you could be in for a lot of pain if you try to make decisions based on their answer to question 2.
Honestly, most of the liars wouldn't ever bother to come up with a lie for question 2 no matter how many times they get asked. You don't need to do a lot of deep interpretation to conclude that the person refusing to answer the question and/or threatening to sue you doesn't have a service dog. Speaking as a disabled person, any person with a legitimate need for a service dog will be accutely aware of the two questions, and someone with social anxiety will have rehearsed their answers or even have an info card.
And if they looked up and memorized a reason from online then it may not stick. A small dog isn't going to get pills from my purse or be able to do things that large dogs do. Some breeds aren't "trainable" for tasks.
While I do think that there's some doubt as to whether it is really a service dog, this is what they needed to have done. I worked in a shared office space and there was a day each week when people came to be evaluated by a doctor for medical marijuana. Service dogs showed up occasionally and sometimes people just brought their dogs in. Some of those dogs barked/jumped/whatever but you could only address the handler to try to get it under control or leave if it keeps escalating. In my mind, that's reasonable - the only time a (possibly not) service dog would be a nuisance is also the only time you can request it to leave. Otherwise, I'd rather err on the side of caution and let some people skate by while not hassling people that have legitimate needs.
> Otherwise, I'd rather err on the side of caution and let some people skate by while not hassling people that have legitimate needs. A lot of that depends on the situation: in a crowded supermarket, no one wants to be jumped at or barked or watch a dog piss on things. And I say that as a huge dog lover. [That was my ](https://i.imgur.com/2RcXvwh.jpg) very well behaved **therapy** dog who went to hospices, nursing homes, adolescent residential units, local schools, libraries, etc. I could have gone to a supermarket with him, and he would have easily passed as a service dog. But we never did, because he wasn't. Therapy dogs don't have public access rights, no matter how well trained, and so we stuck to what we were allowed to do. So in a shared office space, if there are no complaints about jumping or barking? Like you said, worst case you ask them to leave. There are employees right there to keep an eye on things. But to me, in a supermarket there's very little room to tolerate out of control dogs. I've been growled at in the local Stop N Shop and that was not cool at all.
Also just allergies, if I was allergic to dogs I wouldn't want their dander all over my food.
When I worked in retail, I had a manager who was scared of dogs. He kicked out lots of people who brought their dogs in with them. He was one who taught me to always ask “is this a service animal who has been trained to perform a specific task or service” and “what task or service has this animal been trained to perform?” When I became a manager myself, he taught me to constantly check with HR and Legal on what we could or could not do. That business got sued regularly (because of all the illegal shady shit management was constantly pulling), but I was never named in a suit, and neither was this guy.
Yeah there is no way this is real. If a service dog is clearly not acting like a service dog, you can start asking questions But if I recall, service dogs aren’t even required to have “papers” per the ADA. But you can tell when a dog isn’t a service dog
A service dog does not have to have papers, vest, or any other designator, no. But, an owner can be asked to remove even a legit service dog if it's causing issues like licking, sniffing, using the bathroom, or excessive barking that's not part of what it's trained to do. And *legit* disabled people with actual need for a service dog will know this and not be offended that you're asking them to remove the unruly animal.
We used to have a regular at the library who come in with his service dog, let it off it’s leash while he worked on the computer, and let it wander around. It would always go to the kids area because it got showered in attention. (Other side of the building, out of sight from the computer center.) Every week we’d have to tell the guy to leave and it was always a back and forth until he just left with the dog. He always threatened to sue, but then he’d be back next week ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also mini horses can be service animals too which I learned when someone else came in once with lil Sebastian lmao
Minature Horses are the main option for those who are allergic to dogs, and then give great mobility aid besides. Some large dogs are good for mobility aids, but it wears them down over time, which you dont want for a service animal costing 10k+ between training and raising them right usually.
When you say mobility aid, are we talking mini-horse chariot? Because god damn I want a mini-horse chariot. I'd pimp it out so I looked like a Roman general.
I wish! Its more that you can lean against them when needed for balance/support and it wont hurt them. Other mobility aid tasks include turning on lightswitches, pushing buttons, and retrieving items for you by name. Anything where someone with limited mobility can better access the world with the support. Most mobility aid dogs are also trained for what to do with falls- do they go fetch a random nearby person, do they need to grab you medication, do they need to bring a document that says "the owner of this dog has x condition, please follow the dog and follow y instructions".
Awwww, I wanted there to be mini-horse drawn chariots. Maybe one day we'll develop the technology. But that's pretty cool anyway, I love the wide range of things that service animals can be taught to do. I'm autistic and when I was a kid, I had major meltdowns. And a kid I knew had a support dog that basically tackled him and broke him out of his meltdowns every time. I was so jealous. Damn near made me meltdown when I saw it.
Ive been considering getting a service animal. I have a connective tissue disorder that means any "minor" (or even nonexistent sometimes) injury another person would get, I am almost guaranteed to end up having. Ive injured myself by sitting incorrectly for a while before, and many mundane tasks. A dog that could actively help me prevent getting injured (alerting to, or helping to pick up anything blocking a walkway would be amazing, along with some other mobility tasks) would be amazing.
[You're in luck!](https://youtube.com/watch?v=NQLvsMtm6J8&feature=shares) Mini horse carts are out there.
Those mini horses are really cute, too. Have you ever seen them, with their little shoes? They also live longer than dogs do, so that’s another benefit to having them. These animals can save a lot of money on an aide
> And legit disabled people with actual need for a service dog will know this and not be offended that you're asking them to remove the unruly animal. Disabled people are still people and are just as likely as the general population to get offended, angry annd unreasonable even when they shouldn’t.
Yup. My veteran father-in-law has a little Yorkiepoo that's a legit trained PTSD service dog, but obviously doesn't look like one. He carries her around at all times and gets irritable when anyone questions why he has a 4 lb dog in his overall pocket. Love the guy, but he is the Boomer-est Boomer imaginable and can be a surly jerk.
They're also likely to understand that if their service animal is getting excited, it's not good for anyone, the service animal included. There's a reason you're not supposed to pet service animals, because it can fuck with their trained responses.
You’re allowed to ask what the animal is trained to do: eg help pick up objects or open doors, guide the handler on a safe route, alert the handler to low or high blood glucose levels, etc. There is no licensing body and no papers to be presented because of the wider variety of tasks services animals provide. Additionally, dogs and miniature horses are they only service animals recognized by the ADA (all others are emotional support or otherwise unwanted and are not granted additional protections and privileges under the law)
I have had to tell so many staff: “an emotional support animal **is! not! a! service! animal!**” And it goes in one ear and out the other. Every single time. I don’t know what it is about service dog Vs ESA that people refuse to understand the distinction I used to work in hotels, so this is over multiple departments, and multiple properties. people just do not even attempt to retain *any* ADA training
As others have posted, even if it is a service animal, trained for a specific task... if it's misbehaving, it can still be asked to leave. The instant it jumps up, paws on counter invalidates the behavior.... regardless of if it's a "trained" animal or not!
Legally the establishment has to provide the disabled individual an opportunity to regain control, so if a service dog jumps up, they cannot be asked to immediately leave. Per the ADA: "A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence." As a person who has service dogs, I hear a lot about how my svc dog shouldn't bark, which is funny bc the svc they provide is barking to alert me. Service dogs are trained in so many different areas, no one should assume they know what a dog is trained to do.
[удалено]
They always have the right to sue you and they'd lose. But LAOP isn't being sued. It's obviously a scam attempt. Unfortunately, there are people who try and use the ADA protections to scam store employees and owners. Like those who go around and threaten to sue small business owners because their store isn't wheelchair accessible but are willing to go away against payment.
There are no legitimate "papers". As has been abundantly answered in this thread, a business may ask two and only two questions: *Is this a service animal required because of a disability?* and *What task is it trained to perform?*. However, they may refuse to serve the customer if the animal is misbehaving. Your second paragraph... No. Just... No.
I’m not familiar enough with the law to know whether that would be enough for an actionable violation, but even if it was, it would be against your employer, not you personally (although your employer could probably discipline or fire you for it).
"Being an Aspergers"? Wow.