A Legal question regarding service animals and the law in the US

[wolfie]

Here is a full list of that. Pretty much what it says. Doesn't matter if your allergic. if you have anyplace that allows customers, you must allow the service animals.

http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm

Its one of those expections of laws.

Actually, from what I've read in that link, it looks like you can ban a service animal if you're allergic:

10. Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or otherwise acts out of control?

A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.

The hypothetical case in the OP was a small store (presumably a sole proprietorship) where the owner was allergic to dogs. Even if there were other staff, the owner would have to be able to come into the store from time to time, and shed hair/dander would still be a hazard even if the dog and the store owner weren't on the premises at the same time.

When someone is allergic to dogs, the mere presence of a dog in the store is a direct threat to their health or safety, so I believe this would be covered under this exception.

It's an interesting case - a condition (e.g. blindness) for which someone has a service animal is a disability, so prohibiting service animals is discrimination against someone with the condition. An allergy to dogs is a disability, so allowing service dogs into the workplace of someone who is allergic to dogs is discrimination against the person with the allergy. Obviously, you've got to discriminate against someone's disability - whose disability has a higher rank?

The part of the ADA to which I take exception is the bit about not being able to require proof of that the dog is a service animal - that's a giveaway to sucky customers ("You have to take my word for it that Poochiekins is a service animal - IT'S THE LAW"). By the same token, the customer shouldn't be able to require proof that the employee is allergic to dogs before being ordered to take their anaphalaxis-inducing threat to the employee's life off the premises.

[jedimaster91]

Just that a person who is perhaps violently allergic to animals will still have to allow them into his/her store.

I never thought about the allergy issue before. Frankly forcing someone to endanger their health IS insane.

My cat allergy can be described as violent. And for some reason, pretty much everyone I know has cats. When I go to visit them, it doesn't take long for me to start having the itchy eyes, runny nose, and in really bad cases, wheezing. But I don't expect my friends to accomodate (sp?) my allergy. Sure, it's great if they at least vaccum a bit if they know I'm coming over, but if I go somewhere I might run into kitties, I take allergy meds before hand. And I keep a stash in my purse for emergencies. Since I can't get my Drixoral at the moment, I've been using generic Chlortabs and they are wonderful. And cheap. If someone's allergies are bad enough that having a service dog in the store is enough to set off an anaphalactic reaction, I would think they take precautions such as having an epipen on hand or taking meds.

We had someone in the bookstore occasionally with a black Lab seeing-eye dog. The only issue I ever saw with him was a little girl about 6 who was afraid of him. She freaked out and her dad had to explain to her about what the dog did and that he was well-trained and would not hurt her. (The dog didn't even blink at her crying hysterically when she saw him.)

He was a beautiful dog; always wished I could pet him.

When I worked at the library, one of the ladies that worked in the back had a service dog. Pokey actually was retireing just as I was leaving for my new job. Pokey got one day "off" once a week where she would still be around, but she had her harness off during the day. That was the day we all got to pet and coo over her. My last day at the library I sent some dog biscuits home with my coworker for Pokey's next time off.

Her new service dog is a beautiful black lab. Why can't service dogs be ugly so the rest of us aren't tempted by them?

Also - the shop can excuse / remove a service dog if it is considered a nuisance (here's where you can usually separate the pets form the real service dogs). Things like being destructive (damaging property), chasing people, excessive barking, acting in a threatening manner, going to the bathroom in the store can give the store the right to ask them to leave (and have the handler pay for any damages).

I wonder how many service dogs in training have fallen into this category since several typical service breeds have loooooooong puppyhoods. *cough* LABS *cough*

Therapy dogs are NOT service dogs (normally the handler is not the one who needs it).

There are schools that can train them but it is not required (there is also no official documentation).

Perhaps this is something that needs to be changed. I know when I was thinking about joining the local dog therapy group, they had special tags and harnesses to wear on duty. A special tag for the dogs to wear on their collars should be good enough documentation.

[dendawg]

The part of the ADA to which I take exception is the bit about not being able to require proof of that the dog is a service animal - that's a giveaway to sucky customers ("You have to take my word for it that Poochiekins is a service animal - IT'S THE LAW"). By the same token, the customer shouldn't be able to require proof that the employee is allergic to dogs before being ordered to take their anaphalaxis-inducing threat to the employee's life off the premises.

The problem to that being that remedies to allergies are readily available, ie Epi-Pens, or allergy medications. No such remedy exists for many of the conditions that would require a service dog, however, such as blindness or mobility issues.

[Fryk]

If someone's allergies are bad enough that having a service dog in the store is enough to set off an anaphalactic reaction, I would think they take precautions such as having an epipen on hand or taking meds.

The thing is, if the allergy is bad enough, what happens if they can't get to the meds in time, or they're taking them or they drop them or anything else like that. The problem to me is the endangering of someone else's health. It doesn't matter if they have meds to counteract it or not- if they have to take the meds, then their health is already endangered.

[draggar]

I wonder how many service dogs in training have fallen into this category since several typical service breeds have loooooooong puppyhoods. *cough* LABS *cough*

We had that issue with MacLeod (the collie) once, but we also knew it was his last trip. I guess he wasn't feeling well as we were running though the airport to catch our flight home and.. well.. he had to go. In the middle of the terminal.

#2 also - a lot of it.

But, he was a 10 year old collie at the time.

[DrFaroohk]

When I worked for Circle K the policy was that if any customer claims an animal is a service animal we just allow them in and don't drop it.

I heard somewhere that there is a type of service dog for the violent PTSDers, like basically the dog can sense when you're about to freak out and stab someone and it jumps on you or some such shit. Now that I think of it the source was unreliable so take it with a huge shaker of salt.

[jedimaster91]

The thing is, if the allergy is bad enough, what happens if they can't get to the meds in time, or they're taking them or they drop them or anything else like that. The problem to me is the endangering of someone else's health. It doesn't matter if they have meds to counteract it or not- if they have to take the meds, then their health is already endangered.

So people who are disabled and have service dogs to help them function in public shouldn't be allowed to shop because an employee might have a bad allergic reaction? Honestly, I doubt many of us encounter service dogs on a regular basis unless we know someone who has one.

In addition to cats, I'm highly allergic to perfume/cologne*, which is far more common to run into than service dogs. So should everyone stop wearing perfume/cologne because they MIGHT run into me on the street and set off an asthma attack?

Hate to tell you, but EVERYONE'S health is ALWAYS in danger. We could all be hit by cars, fall off a fire escape, have a heart attack, or eat a bad sandwich and end up with botulism. If someone has that severe of a health problem, they take precautions. When you work in retail (or really anywhere), there is a possibility you will encounter service dogs. People who have such debilitating allergies HAVE to take precautions in order to function. Believe me, it sucks to have them. I've gotten so sick from being around cats and people who wear perfume that I wished I was dying. But there is no way to eliminate all contact with every single allergin. The world is not marshmallowy and safe. It's dirt and sharp edges.



*Oddly enough, body spray doesn't bother me unless it's vanilla-y

[Plaidman]

So Jedimaster91,

Does that mean that if someone owns a shop, is the only worker there, that they need to /suck it up/ for that person with a service animal? Have severe allergic attack, (possibly death for those who are just that allergic), deal with the tiny hairs and dandriff that spreads throughtout there store, in the off beat chance that person with the service animal might buy a quarter item, or worst yet, just browsing? Why does the person with the service animal get priority? Just because their disabled? Yeah, everyone's health is in danger. That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to defend their lives, just because someone else has a disabity. Life isnt fair true. Life isn't fair that the person is disabled and requires and animal. Life isn't fair that a shop owner is so allergic that he can die from animal contact. Life isn't fair that disabled can't shop there. Life isn't fair that that owner lost a customer.

[MaggieTheCat]

It's sort of a fine line here. What if, instead of a service animal, a customer came into a store eating a bag of peanuts, and the owner is highly allergic to peanuts? To the point that if that customer touches anything in the store, and then the owner has to touch it (say, exchange of money) the owner will have a severe reaction? Should the owner not ask that person to leave?

Obviously not everyone is allergic to dogs, or peanuts, so a disabled person wouldn't likely be walking around never able to take their service animal with them. But if a shop owner has an allergy and someone walks into their shop with something that is going to trigger that allergy, the shop owner should have the right to tell them to leave, for their own health and safety.

[linguist]

It's sort of a fine line here. What if, instead of a service animal, a customer came into a store eating a bag of peanuts, and the owner is highly allergic to peanuts? To the point that if that customer touches anything in the store, and then the owner has to touch it (say, exchange of money) the owner will have a severe reaction? Should the owner not ask that person to leave?

by that same token, if someone has a pet allergy that is that severe, it's likely that any exposure, even indirect exposure, is going to trigger an attack. should they ban all pet owners because they might come in with pet hair or dander on their clothes?

[jedimaster91]

Does that mean that if someone owns a shop, is the only worker there, that they need to /suck it up/ for that person with a service animal?

Legally? Possibly. ADA gets pretty irate if disabled people are denied stuff. A good lawyer could probably win that suit, too, because if the person wasn't disabled, they wouldn't need the animal ergo, disabled person was discriminated against because they're disabled. And we all know there's a lawyer that would take the case since ADA suits tend to pay out big bucks. Dog allergies aren't legally protected the way disabilities requiring the assistance of a service dog are. Personally, I've never heard of a dog allergy THAT severe, so the link you posted about "direct threat" to others may be stretching it. Not to say it doesn't exist, but there are far more common severe allergies such as peanuts.

Morally? In a perfect world everyone would be understanding and accomodating. And if you ever find that world, let me know. However, the day that one employee is working may be the only day the disabled person can get out and about. The disabled person may be the litigous type and sue for being asked not to bring the dog in despite being told of the employee's allergy. We all know SCs don't really care about our well being. Maybe they don't have anyone else to keep an eye on the dog while they shop. I know I wouldn't want to leave my dog unattended where someone might hurt or steal it. Or a thousand other possibilities.

The point I was trying to make is that people can expect REASONABLE accomodations by businesses, but they do have to take a certain amount of responsibility for themselves. I cannot expect a scented candle store to stop selling its product just because everytime I walk by I get a headache. That's not reasonable. It is reasonable for me to either avoid the store or make sure I have my medication with me if I do go in.

People with severe allergies cannot expect for the world to treat them like they live in a plastic bubble. They have to take responsibility for their own health safety because eliminating all possible contact with allergins is just not possible. Working anywhere around other people means there is a chance you will encounter service animals whether from customers or coworkers. That's a given, and those with bad dog allergies should be aware of this and be prepared for it.

I am not insensitive to those with allergies. I have a few myself and at times, it's miserable. But I know I have allergies that I sometimes can't avoid and I prepare for it. And that's the point I was trying to make: working people know they might run into service animals and if they happen to be allergic, they should prepare for it and take responsibility for their own health.

[Plaidman]

Right. People with disabilities have the right to make people with allergies suffer. People with service animals are perfectly allowed to discriminate. They are 100 % allowed to cause people to get sick, and not be punished, because its not fair to expect them to shop somewhere else. They must shop at that store and have the worker get choked up, can't breath, suffer attacks. Because, well it sucks for them to be that sick. It is their fault their sick. Its completely unreasonable to not allow them to shop there.


Glad we have that cleared up.

[DrFaroohk]

How allergic are we talking anyway? These all sound like extreme examples, what with the choking and dying, and I wonder how this person manages to even walk down the street without having a fatal attack.

While I'm sure such extreme cases exist, most of the people I've encountered with allergies have sniffly, runny noses, maybe a sore throat, and itchy eyes. It's really not any worse than a common cold. Usually around June or July I get hit with my pollen allergies, and its pretty severe at times but I'm not about to die.

[Fryk]

I am fully aware that a case that severe would likely never happen. I was just curious what would happen. By the same token, though, if the case is really that rare, then it probably wouldn't effect the service dog owner that much to not bring the animal in. Since it would prbably only happen once in their lives.

If such a case did exist, I would think it would be sort of like triage. She with the most life threatening case is given way to. If the person with the dog allergy would end up hospitalized, and the disabled person wouldn't, hospitalized wins.

In the spirit of fairness, though, if such a person did exist, if they were that allergic to dogs, they'd probably never make it long enough to be old enough for employment anyway.

[Nyoibo]

Same as people with severe penut allergies and such, they carry an epipen and take precautions to not come into contact with said allergen, if you have an allergy that severe you don't put yourself in a position where it can be set off at any time, usually this includes limiting exposure to other people.