7 ms·

In what way is verifying the service animal is legitimate discrimination by any metric? Said person has already announced their disability by bringing the anima

In what way is verifying the service animal is legitimate discrimination by any metric? Said person has already announced their disability by bringing the animal, the business is clearly willing to serve them, I don’t see a remote argument to the contrary.

wahern 7y ago
> (6) Inquiries. A public accommodation 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 accommodation 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 accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation 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). 28 CFR § 36.302(c)(6) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Seems to me that there should be a corresponding responsibility not to knowingly misrepresent an animal as a service animal. Seems like something that should be criminal, to me.
  - wahern 7y ago
    28 CFR § 36.302(f)(8) says, > Investigation of fraud. A public accommodation may investigate the potential misuse of accessible seating where there is good cause to believe that such seating has been purchased fraudulently. I don't know if there are any remedies available beyond civil tort and contract money damages, nor what the applicable criminal statute would be, if any. Seems like a complex area of law, but from reading bits of legal commentary dredged up with Google I get the impression that the government is deliberately erring on the side of reducing friction for the legitimately disabled and are well aware of the unintended consequence of increased fraud.
    - bredren 7y ago
      This happens in the concert scene. I was in a fan community where there was a spill of drama over someone feigned a disablement to get disabled seating tickets. They were outed and it was messy.

wahern 7y ago

> (6) Inquiries. A public accommodation 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 accommodation 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 accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation 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). 28 CFR § 36.302(c)(6) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302

microcolonel 7y ago
Seems to me that there should be a corresponding responsibility not to knowingly misrepresent an animal as a service animal. Seems like something that should be criminal, to me.
- wahern 7y ago
  28 CFR § 36.302(f)(8) says, > Investigation of fraud. A public accommodation may investigate the potential misuse of accessible seating where there is good cause to believe that such seating has been purchased fraudulently. I don't know if there are any remedies available beyond civil tort and contract money damages, nor what the applicable criminal statute would be, if any. Seems like a complex area of law, but from reading bits of legal commentary dredged up with Google I get the impression that the government is deliberately erring on the side of reducing friction for the legitimately disabled and are well aware of the unintended consequence of increased fraud.
  - bredren 7y ago
    This happens in the concert scene. I was in a fan community where there was a spill of drama over someone feigned a disablement to get disabled seating tickets. They were outed and it was messy.