Assistance Dogs That We Have Aided

Funding For:
Food
Medical Care

Items Given:
Food
Vet approved Medical Supplies
Treats
Food Pans
Grooming Equipement (Shampoo, Brushes)
Capes

Transporting for Training:
Vehicle/Delivery or Pickup
Airport/Delivery or Pickup

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the Assistance Dogs that we have helped:

CA - SD (German Shepherd - M)
Medical / EPI - Enzymes
1 year supply of Treats

FL - SD (German Shepherd - F)
Training

FL - SD - In Home Only, Medical Alert (Chihuahua/Dachshund Mix - F)
Medical Exam
Spay
Rabies Vac.
Boarding
Transport
Food
Collar & Leash

FL - SDIT (Lab - M)
Boarding, Training, Food, Training Treats, Transport

FL - SD (Lab Mix - F)
Food, Treats, Transport, Cape

FL - Hearing, In Home only (small mix - M)
Food, Treats

MI - SD (Flat-Coated Retriever - M)
Food, Medical Care
http://www.wickedlocal.com/sharon/news/x1137372609/Friends-for-Life-Shar...

MO - SD (German Shepherd - M)
1 year supply of Treats

MO - SD (German Shepherd - F)
1 year supply of Treats, Cape

MO - SDIT (German Shepherd - F)
Training Treats

TX - SD (Dalmation - M)
1 year supply of Treats

Some Background Behind Changes

There were some very important definition changes proposed to the ADA of 1990. The DOJ was open for 90 days in 2008 to listen to comments and suggestions from various individuals and organizations in the AD/SD world.

Public Comment and Submission Form
DOJ's ADA NPRM Public Comment Submission Website
Regulations.com Site
NPRM: Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Ogranizatins that were behind the proposed changes as of 06-02-2008:

1. AARP
2. AARP Foundation
3. American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
4. American Council of the Blind
5. American Diabetes Association
6. American Foundation for the Blind
7. American Psychological Association
8. APSE: The Network on Employment
9. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
10. Brain Injury Association of America
11. Council for Learning Disabilities
12. Easter Seals
13. Epilepsy Foundation
14. Hearing Loss Association of America
15. Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA)
16. Mental Health America!
17. National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)
18. National Association of Community Health Charities
19. National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities
20. National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD)
21. National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)
22. National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)
23. National Health Council
24. National Multiple Sclerosis Society
25. National Spinal Cord Injury Association
26. Paralyzed Veterans of America
27. The ARC of the United States
28. United Cerebral Palsy
29. United Spinal Association

From Becky Barnes, President, Guide Dog Users, Inc

From Becky Barnes, President, Guide Dog Users, Inc

Below, find a copy of GDUI's public comment on the sections of the DOJ's NPRM as they relate to proposed changes in the service animal definition, the inadvisability of retaining "minimal protection" language, opposition to the phrase "do work" as characterized by the term "grounding" and service animal height, weight and species requirements. GDUI offers sincere thanks to IAADP's Joan Froling for her arduous efforts in ferreting out the sections of the very lengthy document to get to the heart of service animal issues requiring our attention. GDUI also wishes to thank Joan and Ed Eames for excellent work on CADO's first draft before Becky Barnes, GDUI's new president, gave her blessing for me to represent GDUI on the CADO draft subcommittee, which document served as an excellent spring board for GDUI's comments. ...

Guide Dog Users, Inc. 14311 Astrodome Drive Silver Spring, MD 20906 866-799-8436
July 29, 2008
U.S. Department of Justice Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division Washington DC

Docket ID: DOJ-CRT-2008-0015
RE: ADA Service Animal Definition and Regulations

Guide Dog Users, Inc. (GDUI) is an international organization of more than 1000 members dedicated to advocacy, peer support, public education and all aspects of training, working and living with dogs specially-trained to guide individuals who are blind and visually impaired. GDUI does not train or place guide dogs, but acts as an independent resource network, providing information, support and advice concerning guide dogs, guide dog training and access laws to its members, the media and the public at large. GDUI strives to promote civil rights and enhance the quality of life for working guide dog teams. Drawing on the experiences and varied knowledge of its members, GDUI provides peer support, advocacy and information to guide dog users everywhere. In addition, GDUI works with public entities, private businesses and individuals to ensure that guide dog users enjoy the same rights to travel, employment, housing, and participation in all aspects of life that people without disabilities enjoy. GDUI is a special interest affiliate of the American Council of the Blind

GDUI along with all CADO's other member organizations are united in their desire to preserve the public access rights granted by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) for the next generation. Collectively we remain deeply concerned about the abuses of the ADA taking place due to accidental or intentional misinterpretation of the original Service Animal definition. After careful review of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued June 17, 2008, along with CADO, GDUI commends the Disability Rights section in the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice for a number of the changes in wording that have been proposed and for the unequivocal statement that makes clearer the fact that emotional support animals and companion animals are not service animals. We support the Department's decision to incorporate policies from its 1996 and 2002 interpretative guidance documents into the ADA regulation ( 28 CFR 36.302c) which will give these policies greater standing legally as well as educationally. We welcome the addition of the housebreaking requirement and the emphasis on keeping an animal under control in the newly proposed definition of a service animal. However we believe the effort to end the misinterpretations of the definition of a service animal falls short of achieving the intended goal in some areas. Below, GDUI will address the three questions posed in the NPRM pertaining to service animals as well as another important issue we strongly encourage the DOJ to reconsider, the retention of "Do Work" in the proposed new definition which contains the term "grounding" as an example.

QUESTION NINE: Should the Department clarify the phrase "providing minimal protection" in the definition or remove it?

GDUI is strongly opposed to the retention of the words "minimal protection" or any mention of "protection." Protection language is often incorrectly interpreted by individuals and training programs alike as a license to train aggression related protection behaviors. In a 2003 GDUI survey, 89% of guide dog handlers reported incidents of interference from uncontrolled dogs, and some of these attacks were perpetrated by other assistance dogs. In the NPRM the DOJ itself makes the point that despite its best efforts, the phrase continues to be misinterpreted. While the Department may not condone attack or aggression training, incidences of intentional and unintentional abuse and attack will certainly continue until the word "protection" is removed from the definition. This word has very specific meaning within the dog training industry, where it means only one thing, aggression training. In the NPRM, the Department said it tried to clarify "minimal protection" in 2002 with the example "alerting and protecting a person having a seizure," in its interpretative guidance document, "Business Brief; Service Animals." Unfortunately this clarification has also been misinterpreted as sanctioning protection training. There is far too much confusion for businesses attempting to figure out how much vocalizing or aggressive behavior is too much and represents grounds for asking an offending team to leave the premises. Therefore, any use whatsoever of the term "protection" which will further exacerbate these confusing and difficult situations is unproductive and notably unacceptable to GDUI members. Standing with CADO, GDUI believes the new task example cited in the proposed Definition, "assistance during a seizure" is a much more accurate description of tasks required to accomplish the goal of ensuring the inclusion of people who have a disabling seizure disorder. In conclusion, GDUI respectfully requests that the Department give further consideration to eliminating this misleading language in the service animal definition.

QUESTION TEN: Should the Department eliminate certain species from the definition of "service animal"? If so, please provide comment on the Department's use of the phrase "common domestic animal" and on its choice of which types of animals to exclude.

GDUI sincerely thanks the DOJ for responding to the many issues raised concerning the use of species which may pose a threat to public safety or which can't be housebroken or task trained. As a founding member of CADO, we believe the continuing use of such species will have a seriously eroding impact on societal tolerance for service animal teams in public places. In support of CADO's carefully considered position although some members are opposed to the use of any species other than dogs, , GDUI does not oppose the use of another species such as a miniature horse for guide work if, and only if, the animal can meet the same or equivalent standards for behavior and training that assistance dogs must meet to qualify for public access with handlers who are disabled. This approach is intended to place the emphasis for teams to qualify, more specifically on higher standards of public behavior and appropriate task training and would represent a far less arbitrary and discriminatory approach to this serious dilemma.

QUESTION ELEVEN: Should the Department impose a size or weight limitation for common domestic animals, even if the animal satisfies the "common domestic animal" prong of the proposed definition?

GDUI supports the Department's current policy of not imposing a weight or size limit on service animals. With the caveat and understanding that unless an oversized animal causes a fundamental alteration, we believe a size or weight limit on common domestic animals such as assistance dogs would unfairly discriminate against individuals whose height, weight and / or the severity of their mobility impairment necessitates a match with an assistance dog of sufficient size and strength to prevent falls and perform other useful tasks without injury to the dog.

Additional Issue: RETENTION OF "DO WORK" IN THE NEW DEFINITION

GDUI is pleased that the Department was receptive to CADO's educational efforts concerning individuals with psychiatric disabilities, autism and other mental impairments. On behalf of the entire assistance dog movement, CADO has been working to create a better definition of service animals, one that would maintain a clear distinction between those animals which are individually trained to perform tasks to mitigate the effects of a disabling mental or physical condition and any animal whose mere presence or companionship provides emotional support or some other therapeutic physical health or mental health benefit. We've all been hoping for a new definition that would end the confusion in the media, disabled community and the public and private sectors as to what qualifies an individual with a disability to legal public access with a well trained, public appropriate animal. While there is much improvement in the proposed definition in the NPRM, a serious flaw has come to our attention. It concerns the Department's explanation titled "Task Emphasis" in the NPRM. The content is so contradictory to the Department's own interpretative guidance document, "Business Brief : Service Animals" from 2002 and to the intent of the proposed definition, which is to eliminate misunderstandings on what qualifies an animal to be a service animal, GDUI joins all the other organizations CADO represents in vehemently opposing the retention of the phrase "do work," particularly if this phrase is defined by the use of the term, "grounding." We refer to the DOJ's statements: "Tasks are by their nature physical, so the Department does not believe that such a change [ to physical tasks in the definition ] is warranted. In contrast, the phrase "do work" is slightly broader than "perform tasks" and adds meaning to the definition. For example, a psychiatric service dog can help some individuals with dissociative identity disorder to remain grounded in time or place." This discussion, giving grounding as the example of "do work" followed by the assertion that "in some cases, critical forms of assistance can't be construed as physical tasks," leads the reader to conclude that work is a form of assistance that is NOT a physical task. It suggests an animal will qualify as a service animal if a mentally disabled owner says the dog's presence or companionship helps to keep him or her grounded in time or place. GDUI has been acutely aware that for years, pet owners with psychiatric impairments have used the "my pet keeps me grounded" rationale for bringing their non task trained animal into places of public accommodation, which actions currently represent acts of blatant service animal fraud. We are all deeply concerned that this "do work" example will be cited in the future as proof that task training is unnecessary for animals belonging to people with a psychiatric, cognitive or mental disability. Certainly the idea that work can be a non physical form of assistance and not a task will further confuse the distinction between service animals and pets. Therefore, in the interest of eliminating further confusion and abuse, GDUI urges the Department to reconsider this "do work" issue. We respectfully point out the fact that the Department's own interpretative guidance in 2002 excluded the phrase "do work" from the way it defined a service animal. The updated guidance document reads:

Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities, such as guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure or performing other special tasks. Service animals are working animals, not pets.

The 2002 interpretative guidance on the ADA goes on to say: "Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards.....etc."

Since 2002, the Department's own emphasis on the fact that Task Training is fundamental to the definition of a service animal in the Business Brief has been relied on by the disabled community, businesses, colleges and other interested parties. The DOJ has educated the public and businesses that the performance of tasks is the crucial distinction between specially trained service animals and other animals, whatever their label. It appears to GDUI that the "do work" phrase in the original definition had nothing to do with a non physical form of assistance. Rather, it merely reflected the fact it was customary to discuss the trained behaviors performed on command or cue by guide dogs as "guide dog work." Guide dog work is a series of trained tasks performed as needed, such as leading a blind person around obstacles, halting to indicate changes in elevation like a curb, avoiding traffic in the team's path, finding the location of a building's exit and finding an empty seat in a classroom or on a bus. These are trained tasks and stand in sharp contrast to the DOJ's example of the ambiguous concept of grounding. Since 2002, the work performed by service animals has been task defined, arguably making the retention of "do work" and its given example of grounding in the proposed new definition confusing and easily misinterpreted. Unfortunately, due to the impression the average person receives from the NPRM discussion cited above, the phrase "do work" if defined by a term such as "grounding" will seriously undermine the Department's profoundly essential goal of distinguishing between service animals and pets whose presence or companionship will provide emotional support, therapy, comfort, or other therapeutic benefits. Based on these considerations, GDUI in solidarity with all the other organizations which comprise CADO, strongly recommends the elimination of "do work" in the final rule's definition. Failing that, we request illustrating the phrase "do work" with appropriate examples to eliminate the devastating consequences of using the ambiguous term "grounding" as an example. If the DOJ persists in using grounding, GDUI believes it will undoubtedly undo and reverse many of the positive effects gained in educating the public, businesses and even the disabled community following the issuance of the widely distributed 2002 interpretative guidance document.

Guide Dog Users, Inc. thanks the DOJ for its efforts to help clarify the issues which have created so much confusion and misinterpretation of the original service animal definition and regulations. GDUI members are proud of their long and successful history conquering public access barriers in partnership with well trained guide dogs. In closing, GDUI respectfully asks that you seriously consider its jointly expressed concerns regarding these issues, so very important to guide dog handlers.

Sincerely,

Becky Barnes, President, Guide Dog Users, Inc

From Service Dog Central

Other Species

Some other species of animals are used as assistance/service animals. Primates are sometimes used for their greater manual dextarity, for example. In recent years, prompted in large part by a rule change by the U.S. Department of Transportation grouping emotional support animals in with service animals, many unexpected species have turned up as "service animals."

According to the Seattle Times, the U.S. Department of Justice is planning to put restrictions on just what species can be used for service work.

"Under this definition, monkeys would not qualify as service animals. The proposed rules also would exclude snakes and other reptiles; amphibians; rabbits, ferrets and rodents; and farm animals such as horses, pigs and goats."
--Seattle Times

This is not an arbitrary decision based on the social acceptability of various species. There are some very troubling concerns about the safety of people with disabilities relying upon some of these animals for assistance.

So called "guide horses," for example, though they have garnered much attention in the press are not considered safe by the National Federation for the Blind, by guide users, or by miniature horse breeders. The NFB has even gone so far as to pass a resolution in opposition to the use of guide horses.

To read this article in full --> http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/278

From The International Association of Assistance Dog Partners (IAADP)

From the IAADP Website

Quote:
The International Association of Assistance Dog Partners (IAADP) represents more than 2000 disabled program graduates and owner-trainers who work with service, hearing and guide dogs to increase their independence. Seven years ago we formed a coalition with Assistance Dogs International, which represents more than 100 non profit assistance dog training programs in the USA. Other members include the Council of U.S. Dog Guide Schools and Guide Dog Users, Inc. Together we petitioned the U.S. Department of Justice to develop a better definition of a Service Animal as soon as the regulations for the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) came up for review. All of us were very worried about the future of the assistance dog movement due to widespread misunderstandings about the service animal definition.

The good news is that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has finally proposed a new definition of a Service Animal, in an attempt to correct the problems with the old definition. Before finalizing the new Definition, its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on the ADA regulatory language is seeking comments from the public on three Questions pertaining to service animals. IAADP has also identified a fourth issue we see as critical.

From The New York Times

June 16, 2008
Sweeping ADA update would affect millions
The Bush administration is about to propose far-reaching rules that would give people with disabilities greater access to tens of thousands...
By ROBERT PEAR

The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is about to propose far-reaching rules that would give people with disabilities greater access to tens of thousands of courtrooms, swimming pools, golf courses, stadiums, theaters, hotels and stores.

The proposal would substantially update and rewrite federal standards for enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark civil-rights law passed with strong bipartisan support in 1990.

The new rules would set more stringent requirements in many areas and address some issues for the first time, in an effort to meet the needs of an aging population and growing numbers of disabled war veterans.

More than 7 million businesses and all state and local government agencies would be affected. The proposal includes some exemptions for parts of existing buildings, but any new construction or renovations would have to comply.

The new standards would, for example, affect the location of light switches, the height of retail service counters and the use of monkeys as service animals.

The Bush administration approved the proposal in May after a five-month review. It is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, with 60 days for public comment. After considering those comments, the government would issue final rules with the force of law.

The proposal is stirring concern. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it would be onerous and costly, but advocates for disabled people say it does not go far enough.

The Census Bureau says more than 51 million Americans have a disability, with nearly two-thirds reporting severe impairments.

... snip ...

Limits on service animals

The proposed rules affirm the right of people with disabilities to use guide dogs and other service animals in public places, but they tighten the definition to exclude certain species.

When the existing rules were adopted in the early 1990s, the Justice Department said, few people anticipated the current trend toward "the use of wild, exotic or unusual species" as service animals.

The proposed rules define a service animal as "any dog or other common domestic animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks" for a person with a physical or mental disability.

Under this definition, monkeys would not qualify as service animals. The proposed rules also would exclude snakes and other reptiles; amphibians; rabbits, ferrets and rodents; and farm animals such as horses, pigs and goats.

To read this article in full --> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004479214_ada16.html

PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ADA REFORMATION ACT

A BILL

To restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'ADA Restoration Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

(a) Findings- Congress finds that-
(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Congress intended
that the Act 'establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination
on the basis of disability' and provide broad coverage;
(2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical and mental disabilities
in no way diminish a person's right to fully participate in all aspects of society,
but that people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently precluded from
doing so because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the failure to remove societal
and institutional barriers;
(3) while Congress expected that the definition of disability under the ADA would
be interpreted consistently with how courts had applied the definition of handicap
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that expectation has not been fulfilled;
(4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S.
471 (1999) and its companion cases, and in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky,
Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) have narrowed the broad scope of protection
intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals
whom Congress intended to protect; and
(5) as a result of these Supreme Court cases, lower courts have incorrectly found
in individual cases that people with a range of substantially limiting impairments
are not people with disabilities.
(b) Purpose- The purposes of this Act are-
(1) to carry out the ADA's objectives of providing 'a clear and comprehensive national
mandate for the elimination of discrimination' and 'clear, strong, consistent, enforceable
standards addressing discrimination' by reinstating a broad scope of protection
to be available under the ADA;
(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United
Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases that whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to
the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures;
(3) to reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc.,
527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to coverage under the third prong of the definition
of disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme Court in School Board
of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987) which set forth a broad view of
the third prong of the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
(4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing,
Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms 'substantially'
and 'major' in the definition of disability under the ADA 'need to be interpreted
strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled,' and that to
be substantially limited in performing a major life activity under the ADA 'an
individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual
from doing activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives';
and
(5) to provide a new definition of "substantially limits" to indicate that Congress
intends to depart from the strict and demanding standard applied by the Supreme
Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams and by numerous
lower courts.

SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.

Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101) is
amended-
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right to fully
participate in all aspects of society, yet many people with physical or mental
disabilities have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination; others
who have a record of a disability or are regarded as having a disability also have
been subjected to discrimination;'
(2) by striking paragraph (7).

SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED.

Section 3 (42 U.S.C. §12102) is amended:
By revising subsection (2) to read as follows:
(2) DISABILITY -
(i) IN GENERAL--The term "disability" means with respect to an individual --
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having an impairment that falls under (A) or (B).
By inserting after subsection (2) the following new subsections:
(3) SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY -- The term "substantially limits
a major life activity" means materially restricts a major life activity.
(4) MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES--
(A) In General -- Major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring
for oneself, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending,
speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and
working.
(B) Major Bodily Functions -- A major life activity also includes the operation
of a major bodily function. Major bodily functions include, but are not limited
to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder,
neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine and reproductive functions.
(5) REGARDED AS -
(a) In General -- Subject to subsection (b), an individual meets the requirement
of "being regarded as having an impairment that falls under (A) or (B)" if the
individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited
under this Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment,
whether or not the impairment is perceived to substantially limit a major life
activity.
(b) Transitory and Minor Impairments -- This subsection shall not apply to impairments
that are transitory and minor. "Transitory" means an impairment with an actual
or expected duration of six months or less.
(c) Reasonable Accommodation -- An employer is not required to provide a reasonable
accommodation to an individual who meets the definition of disability solely under
2(C).
(6) STANDARDS FOR APPLYING THE DEFINITION OF DISABILITY -
(A) To achieve the remedial purposes of this Act, the definition of "disability"
shall be construed broadly.
(B) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit
other major life activities in order to be considered a disability.
(C) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially
limit a major life activity when active.
(D) (a) When determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life
activity, such determination shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects
of mitigating measures such as:
(i) medication, medical supplies, equipment or appliances, low vision devices (which
do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, as defined in (b)), prosthetics
including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable
hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies;
(ii) use of assistive technology;
(iii) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or
(iv) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.
(b) The term "ordinary eye glasses or contact lenses" means lenses that are intended
to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error.
(c) Low vision devices are devices that magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a
visual image.
(E) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or
contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially
limits a major life activity.
(F) Nothing in this Act alters the standards for determining eligibility for benefits
under state worker's compensation laws or under state and federal disability benefit
programs.

SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.

(a) Section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking `with a disability because of the disability
of such individual' and inserting `on the basis of disability'; and
(2) in subsection (b) -
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking `discriminate' and inserting
`discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability'.
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsections:
(c) Notwithstanding section 6(E), a covered entity shall not use qualification standards,
employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an individual's uncorrected
vision or unaided hearing unless the standard, test, or other selection criteria,
as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question
and consistent with business necessity.
(d) Nothing in this Act shall give rise to a claim by a person without a disability
that he or she was discriminated against because of his or her lack of disability.
Section 101(Cool is amended -
in the paragraph heading, by striking "WITH A DISABILITY"; and
by striking "with a disability" after "individual" both places it appears.

SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
SEC. 515. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING REGULATORY AUTHORITY.
The authority to issue regulations granted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Transportation under this Act, includes
the authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions contained in section

SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act shall become effective on January 1, 2009.

FED_Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Published 1991 (Original signed into law by President George H.W. Bush)

The U.S. Department of Justice wrote the section of the Codes of Federal Regulation most often quoted regarding service animals. You can read the full text of their interpretation of the ADA at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html

The sections specifically addressing service animals are:

Sec.36.104 Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the term --

Service animal means any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items.
http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#Anchor-36104

AND

1991 title III ADA regulation published July 26, 1991
Used until March 14, 2011
Sec.36.302 Modifications in policies, practices, or procedures.

(a) General. A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services,facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.

(b) Specialties -- (1) General. A public accommodation may refer an individual with a disability to another public accommodation, if that individual is seeking, or requires, treatment or services outside of the referring public accommodation's area of specialization, and if, in the normal course of its operations, the referring public accommodation would make a similar referral for an individual without a disability who seeks or requires the same treatment or services.

(2) Illustration -- medical specialties. A health care provider may refer an individual with a disability to another provider, if that individual is seeking, or requires, treatment or services outside of the referring provider's area of specialization, and if the referring provider would make a similar referral for an individual without a disability who seeks or requires the same treatment or services. A physician who specializes in treating only a particular condition cannot refuse to treat an individual with a disability for that condition, but is not required to treat the individual for a different condition.

(c) Service animals -- (1) General. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.

(2) Care or supervision of service animals. Nothing in this part requires a public accommodation to supervise or care for a service animal.

http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#Anchor-99575

FED_Service Dogs & Public Accommodations_09/15/10

Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities (as amended by the final rule published on September 15, 2010)
Authority:
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 12186(b).

(c) Service animals.

(1) General. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.

(2) Exceptions. A public accommodation may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if:
(i) The animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it; or
(ii) The animal is not housebroken.

(3) If an animal is properly excluded. If a public accommodation properly excludes a service animal under § 36.302(c)(2), it shall give the individual with a disability the opportunity to obtain goods, services, and accommodations without having the service animal on the premises.

(4) Animal under handler´s control. A service animal shall be under the control of its handler. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal´s safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler´s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).

(5) Care or supervision. A public accommodation is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.

(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).

(7) Access to areas of a public accommodation. Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a place of public accommodation where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.

(8) Surcharges. A public accommodation shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. If a public accommodation normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.

(9) Miniature horses.
(i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.
(ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider –
(A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;
(B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;
(C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and
(D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.
(iii) Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.

To read the text in full go to http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_withbold.htm

FED_U.S.DOJ_ Business BRIEF: Service Animals

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

From the U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section

Americans with Disabilities Act

ADA Business BRIEF: Service Animals

Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities such as guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, or performing other special tasks. Service animals are working animals, not pets.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), businesses and organizations that serve the public must allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals into all areas of the facility where customers are normally allowed to go. This federal law applies to all businesses open to the public, including restaurants, hotels, taxis and shuttles, grocery and department stores, hospitals and medical offices, theaters, health clubs, parks, and zoos.

(PICTURE)
Caption: Businesses that serve the public must allow people with disabilities to enter with their service animal.

Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or ask about the person's disability.

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be charged extra fees, isolated from other patrons, or treated less favorably than other patrons. However, if a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the animal is out of control and the animal's owner does not take effective action to control it (for example, a dog that barks repeatedly during a movie) or (2) the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.

In these cases, the business should give the person with the disability the option to obtain goods and services without having the animal on the premises.

Businesses that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.

A business is not required to provide care or food for a service animal or provide a special location for it to relieve itself.

Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals.

Violators of the ADA can be required to pay money damages and penalties.

(PICTURE)
Service animals are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities.

If you have additional questions concerning the ADA and service animals, please call the Department's ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY) or visit the ADA Business Connection at ada.gov.

Duplication is encouraged. April 2002

-----------------------------------------------------------

Links for copies are available onsite.

FED_U.S.DOJ_2010 Revised Requirements

July 6, 2011

SERVICE ANIMALS

The Department of Justice published revised final regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) on September 15, 2010, in the Federal Register. These requirements, or rules, clarify and refine issues that have arisen over the past 20 years and contain new, and updated, requirements, including the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards).

Overview

This publication provides guidance on the term “service animal” and the service animal provisions in the Department’s new regulations.

Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA.

A service animal is a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability.

Generally, title II and title III entities must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where members of the public are allowed to go.

How “Service Animal” Is Defined

Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

This definition does not affect or limit the broader definition of “assistance animal” under the Fair Housing Act or the broader definition of “service animal” under the Air Carrier Access Act.

Some State and local laws also define service animal more broadly than the ADA does. Information about such laws can be obtained from the State attorney general’s office.

Where Service Animals Are Allowed

Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go. For example, in a hospital it would be inappropriate to exclude a service animal from areas such as patient rooms, clinics, cafeterias, or examination rooms. However, it may be appropriate to exclude a service animal from operating rooms or burn units where the animal’s presence may compromise a sterile environment.

Service Animals Must Be Under Control

Under the ADA, service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using these devices. In that case, the individual must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal, or other effective controls.

Inquiries, Exclusions, Charges, and Other Specific Rules Related to Service Animals

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (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 cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.

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 or (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.

Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.

If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.

Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal.

Miniature Horses

In addition to the provisions about service dogs, the Department’s revised ADA regulations have a new, separate provision about miniature horses that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. (Miniature horses generally range in height from 24 inches to 34 inches measured to the shoulders and generally weigh between 70 and 100 pounds.) Entities covered by the ADA must modify their policies to permit miniature horses where reasonable. The regulations set out four assessment factors to assist entities in determining whether miniature horses can be accommodated in their facility. The assessment factors are (1) whether the miniature horse is housebroken; (2) whether the miniature horse is under the owner’s control; (3) whether the facility can accommodate the miniature horse’s type, size, and weight; and (4) whether the miniature horse’s presence will not compromise legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation of the facility.

ADA Website

www.ADA.gov

To receive e-mail notifications when new ADA information is available,

visit the ADA Website’s home page and click the link near the top of the middle column.

ADA Information Line

800-514-0301 (Voice) and 800-514-0383 (TTY)

24 hours a day to order publications by mail.

M-W, F 9:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., Th 12:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)

to speak with an ADA Specialist. All calls are confidential.

For persons with disabilities, this publication is available in alternate formats.

Duplication of this document is encouraged. July 2011

.pdf file http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.pdf

FED_U.S.DOJ_Commonly Asked Questions About Service Animals In Places Of Business

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

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section

1. Q: What are the laws that apply to my business?

A: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.

2. Q: What is a service animal?

A: The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.

Service animals perform some of the functions and tasks that the individual with a disability cannot perform for him or herself. Guide dogs are one type of service animal, used by some individuals who are blind. This is the type of service animal with which most people are familiar. But there are service animals that assist persons with other kinds of disabilities in their day-to-day activities. Some examples include:

_ Alerting persons with hearing impairments to sounds.

_ Pulling wheelchairs or carrying and picking up things for persons with mobility impairments.

_ Assisting persons with mobility impairments with balance.

A service animal is not a pet.

3. Q: How can I tell if an animal is really a service animal and not just a pet?

A: Some, but not all, service animals wear special collars and harnesses. Some, but not all, are licensed or certified and have identification papers. If you are not certain that an animal is a service animal, you may ask the person who has the animal if it is a service animal required because of a disability. However, an individual who is going to a restaurant or theater is not likely to be carrying documentation of his or her medical condition or disability. Therefore, such documentation generally may not be required as a condition for providing service to an individual accompanied by a service animal. Although a number of states have programs to certify service animals, you may not insist on proof of state certification before permitting the service animal to accompany the person with a disability.

4. Q: What must I do when an individual with a service animal comes to my business?

A: The service animal must be permitted to accompany the individual with a disability to all areas of the facility where customers are normally allowed to go. An individual with a service animal may not be segregated from other customers.

5. Q: I have always had a clearly posted "no pets" policy at my establishment. Do I still have to allow service animals in?

A: Yes. A service animal is not a pet. The ADA requires you to modify your "no pets" policy to allow the use of a service animal by a person with a disability. This does not mean you must abandon your "no pets" policy altogether but simply that you must make an exception to your general rule for service animals.

6. Q: My county health department has told me that only a guide dog has to be admitted. If I follow those regulations, am I violating the ADA?

A: Yes, if you refuse to admit any other type of service animal on the basis of local health department regulations or other state or local laws. The ADA provides greater protection for individuals with disabilities and so it takes priority over the local or state laws or regulations.

7. Q: Can I charge a maintenance or cleaning fee for customers who bring service animals into my business?

A: No. Neither a deposit nor a surcharge may be imposed on an individual with a disability as a condition to allowing a service animal to accompany the individual with a disability, even if deposits are routinely required for pets. However, a public accommodation may charge its customers with disabilities if a service animal causes damage so long as it is the regular practice of the entity to charge non-disabled customers for the same types of damages. For example, a hotel can charge a guest with a disability for the cost of repairing or cleaning furniture damaged by a service animal if it is the hotel's policy to charge when non-disabled guests cause such damage.

8. Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.

9. Q: Am I responsible for the animal while the person with a disability is in my business?

A: No. The care or supervision of a service animal is solely the responsibility of his or her owner. You are not required to provide care or food or a special location for the animal.

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. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other animals. Each situation must be considered individually.

Although a public accommodation may exclude any service animal that is out of control, it should give the individual with a disability who uses the service animal the option of continuing to enjoy its goods and services without having the service animal on the premises.

11. Q: Can I exclude an animal that doesn't really seem dangerous but is disruptive to my business?

A: There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not required to accommodate a service animal--that is, when doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business. Generally, this is not likely to occur in restaurants, hotels, retail stores, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities. But when it does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be excluded.

If you have further questions about service animals or other requirements of the ADA, you may call the U.S. Department of Justice's toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0383 (TDD).

July 1996 Reproduction of this document is encouraged.

Florida 413.08 Rights of an individual with a disability; use of a service animal; discrimination in public employment or housing accommodations; penalties.--

The 2007 Florida Statutes

413.08 Rights of an individual with a disability; use of a service animal; discrimination in public employment or housing accommodations; penalties.--

(1) As used in this section and s. 413.081, the term:

(a) "Housing accommodation" means any real property or portion thereof which is used or occupied, or intended, arranged, or designed to be used or occupied, as the home, residence, or sleeping place of one or more persons, but does not include any single-family residence, the occupants of which rent, lease, or furnish for compensation not more than one room therein.

(b) "Individual with a disability" means a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, blind, visually impaired, or otherwise physically disabled. As used in this paragraph, the term:

1. "Hard of hearing" means an individual who has suffered a permanent hearing impairment that is severe enough to necessitate the use of amplification devices to discriminate speech sounds in verbal communication.

2. "Physically disabled" means any person who has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

(c) "Public accommodation" means a common carrier, airplane, motor vehicle, railroad train, motor bus, streetcar, boat, or other public conveyance or mode of transportation; hotel; lodging place; place of public accommodation, amusement, or resort; and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons.

(d) "Service animal" means an animal that is trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The tasks may include, but are not limited to, guiding a person who is visually impaired or blind, alerting a person who is deaf or hard of hearing, pulling a wheelchair, assisting with mobility or balance, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, retrieving objects, or performing other special tasks. A service animal is not a pet.

(2) An individual with a disability is entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges in all public accommodations. This section does not require any person, firm, business, or corporation, or any agent thereof, to modify or provide any vehicle, premises, facility, or service to a higher degree of accommodation than is required for a person not so disabled.

(3) An individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied by a service animal in all areas of a public accommodation that the public or customers are normally permitted to occupy.

(a) Documentation that the service animal is trained is not a precondition for providing service to an individual accompanied by a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if an animal is a service animal or what tasks the animal has been trained to perform in order to determine the difference between a service animal and a pet.

(b) A public accommodation may not impose a deposit or surcharge on an individual with a disability as a precondition to permitting a service animal to accompany the individual with a disability, even if a deposit is routinely required for pets.

(c) An individual with a disability is liable for damage caused by a service animal if it is the regular policy and practice of the public accommodation to charge nondisabled persons for damages caused by their pets.

(d) The care or supervision of a service animal is the responsibility of the individual owner. A public accommodation is not required to provide care or food or a special location for the service animal or assistance with removing animal excrement.

(e) A public accommodation may exclude or remove any animal from the premises, including a service animal, if the animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Allergies and fear of animals are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to an individual with a service animal. If a service animal is excluded or removed for being a direct threat to others, the public accommodation must provide the individual with a disability the option of continuing access to the public accommodation without having the service animal on the premises.

(4) Any person, firm, or corporation, or the agent of any person, firm, or corporation, who denies or interferes with admittance to, or enjoyment of, a public accommodation or otherwise interferes with the rights of an individual with a disability or the trainer of a service animal while engaged in the training of such an animal pursuant to subsection (8), commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(5) It is the policy of this state that an individual with a disability be employed in the service of the state or political subdivisions of the state, in the public schools, and in all other employment supported in whole or in part by public funds, and an employer may not refuse employment to such a person on the basis of the disability alone, unless it is shown that the particular disability prevents the satisfactory performance of the work involved.

(6) An individual with a disability is entitled to rent, lease, or purchase, as other members of the general public, any housing accommodations offered for rent, lease, or other compensation in this state, subject to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons.

(a) This section does not require any person renting, leasing, or otherwise providing real property for compensation to modify her or his property in any way or provide a higher degree of care for an individual with a disability than for a person who is not disabled.

(b) An individual with a disability who has a service animal or who obtains a service animal is entitled to full and equal access to all housing accommodations provided for in this section, and such a person may not be required to pay extra compensation for the service animal. However, such a person is liable for any damage done to the premises or to another person on the premises by such an animal. A housing accommodation may request proof of compliance with vaccination requirements.

(7) An employer covered under subsection (5) who discriminates against an individual with a disability in employment, unless it is shown that the particular disability prevents the satisfactory performance of the work involved, or any person, firm, or corporation, or the agent of any person, firm, or corporation, providing housing accommodations as provided in subsection (6) who discriminates against an individual with a disability, commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(8) Any trainer of a service animal, while engaged in the training of such an animal, has the same rights and privileges with respect to access to public facilities and the same liability for damage as is provided for those persons described in subsection (3) accompanied by service animals.

Florida 413.081 Interference with or injury to a service animal; penalties; restitution.--

(1) A person who, with reckless disregard, interferes with, or permits a dog that he or she owns or is in the immediate control of to interfere with, the use of a service animal by obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise jeopardizing the safety of the service animal or its user commits a misdemeanor of the second degree for the first offense and a misdemeanor of the first degree for each subsequent offense, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) A person who, with reckless disregard, injures or kills, or permits a dog that he or she owns or is in the immediate control of to injure or kill, a service animal commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) A person who intentionally injures or kills, or permits a dog that he or she owns or is in the immediate control of to injure or kill, a service animal commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4)
(a) A person who is convicted of a violation of this section, in addition to any other penalty, must make full restitution for all damages that arise out of or are related to the offense, including incidental and consequential damages incurred by the service animal's user.

(b) Restitution includes the value of the service animal; replacement and training or retraining expenses for the service animal and the user; veterinary and other medical and boarding expenses for the service animal; medical expenses for the user; and lost wages or income incurred by the user during any period that the user is without the services of the service animal.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&S...

Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Air Travel

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Air Travel of People with Disabilities Under the Amended Air Carrier Access Act Regulation
May 13, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF AVIATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEEDINGS WASHINGTON, DC

http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/FAQ_5_13_09.pdf

President George H.W. Bush Signs ADA

From C-Span/ The White House

George H.W. Bush at the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the South Lawn, 1990

On July 26, 1990, on the South Lawn of the White House, President George Bush signed “the world’s first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities.” The Americans with Disabilities Act made the U.S. the international leader on this civil rights issue. In this speech, Bush says that despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964, people with disabilities were still victims of segregation and discrimination. He closes his remarks by invoking the Declaration of Independence when he says, “Today’s legislation brings us closer to that day when no Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

http://whitehouse.c-span.org/Video/ByPresident/George-H-W-Bush-Signs-ADA...

President George W. Bush Signs ADA Amendments Act

From the Carroll Center for the Blind:

President Bush Signs ADA Amendments Act
Posted on November 6, 2008

On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act into law. The bill was passed unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. Formerly titled the ADA restoration Act this law will restore the original intent of congress at the time the ADA became law back in 1990.

http://carroll.org/2008/11/06/president-bush-signs-ada-amendments-act

AAPD Applauds President Bush for Signing ADA Amendments Act into Law

WASHINGTON, Sept 25, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire
via COMTEX/ -- Landmark Disability Legislation Reverses
Supreme Court Decisions

The American Association of People with Disabilities
(AAPD), the largest cross-disability membership
organization in the U.S., commends the signing into law of
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 Thursday by President
George W. Bush.

http://www.disabilityrightsmt.org/janda/articles/UploadFile/1222370802_A...

Q&A on Assistance Dogs

Q. Can a school say that assistance dogs are not allowed in the classroom? Doesn't the ADA allow assistance dogs to go anywhere?

A. Most schools fall under Title II which is a different set of laws than say stores, restaurants, theaters which are under Title III.

There is a major problem when people think Public Access Rights given to a disabled person to take a SD into entities covered by Title III also give them the right to automatically take a SD into entities covered by Title II.

One major confusion is taking a SD into a courtroom. Many people are surprised that without a Judge's permission a SD can not be taken into a Federal Courtroom since Federal buildings are not under Title III.

Same confusion can arise over the matter of taking a SD into a classroom. Title II does not give automatic entry to a SD to be taken into a school. Questions on a student being allowed to take a SD into a classroom or other areas that are not open to the Public during the normal course of business have to be addressed by other means and under procedures in place by other laws.

Assistance Dog Providers

Below will be listed some organizations that we have heard recommended by people that we know. BUT, experiences of course can always vary. It is the responsibility of each individual to do their own research to come up with a good match for themself.

GUIDE DOGS

Guide Dogs for the Blind (GDB)
CA Campus - 350 Los Ranchitos Road ~ San Rafael, CA 94903
OR Campus - 32901 S.E. Kelso Road ~ Boring, OR 97009
For info call 1-800-295-4050

From their website www.guidedogs.com
Through youth camps, puppy raising activities, and adoptions of our K9 Buddy dogs, we're helping children who are blind or visually impaired explore the Guide Dog lifestyle. For blind adults, we are a resource for them to get the proper referrals to orientation and mobility training prior to acceptance into our program so that when they arrive, they are prepared for success.

Unlike any other guide dog school, we offer unprecedented support for animal-human partnership, free of charge, for as long as an alumnus is able to use a Guide Dog. This support can often mean retraining and recreating as many as six or seven (or even more) Guide Dog partnerships over the life of the blind person; providing consistent quality veterinary support and literally decades of personalized in-home training through follow-up visits as needed.

SERVICE DOGS

Canine Partners For Life (CPL)
P.O. Box 170
Cochranville, PA 19330-0170
Phone: 610-869-4902 - Fax: 610-869-9785
Email:info@k94life.org

From their website www.k94life.org
Canine Partners For Life (CPL) trains and places assistance dogs with individuals with mobility impairments to help increase their independence and quality of life. CPL has several types of assistance dogs in its program including service dogs, seizure alert dogs, home companions and residential (community) companions.

Founded in 1989, Canine Partners For Life (CPL) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to training service dogs, home companion dogs, and seizure-alert dogs to assist individuals who have a wide range of physical and cognitive disabilities. Based in Cochranville, Pennsylvania, CPL places service dogs and seizure-alert dogs nationwide. Home companion dogs are generally placed within a 250-mile radius of the campus.

The cost to train and provide lifetime support for each dog averages about $24,000. However, CPL only asks for a modest donation from its recipients ($1,000 - $3,000 for a service dog, $600 for a home companion dog).

CPL is proud to be a 21-year voting member of Assistance Dogs International and one of only a few service dog organizations in the world to be accredited by ADI.

Alerting

Many times a pet dog will alert but the owner is not aware that the dog is trying to do so. I have had people tell me their dog would start acting like a brat or really bug them and it was getting annoying. It was only after someone who knew what was possibly going on brought this to their attention that they started tracking the dog's odd behavior with a seizure coming a short while later.

A dog may alert in many ways until it is trained in the proper manner. Some dogs may stand in front of the person and bark, some may paw at them, and some will nip. It is only after the owner realizes what is going on that they can then work with the dog to alert in the way they wish.

The act of alerting is not a trained task as dogs will do this on their own - it does not make a dog a Service Dog.

From the ADA:
"... assisting an individual during a seizure, ..."

Service Dogs for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

From Service Dog Central

Animal Behaviorist Kellie Snider speaks out: Kids with Autism and Assistance Dogs

Kids with Autism and Assistance Dogs
By Kellie Snider, BS, MS
Board Certified Associate Behavior Analyst
January 31, 2008

"I have become concerned about the recent trend to use dogs to “supervise” children with autism. Some people have stories about wonderful things that happened when children were paired with assistance dogs. This is great for them, but the experiences are not necessarily universal."

http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/518

Very Young Children and Dogs

"In the last few years there has been a trend to tether very young Autistic children to dogs to keep them from bolting or running away. In some other cases the dog is expected to act as a kind of babysitter and notify the parents when the child tries to leave the house. The service dog community at large disapproves of this practice for safety reasons, however it has not yet been tested in court whether these dogs would legally be considered service dogs or not."

http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/233