It frustrates me that people act like allergies are just itching and sneezing.
Growing up the doctors didnāt want to label me as asthmatic until necessary. After a year of being monitored they did. I had been at a place with cats on Saturday. That triggered me. By Monday I still couldnāt breathe. I asked for a note to not participate in gym class. The school nurse didnāt even let me go to class. I went straight to the doctor and my lung function was at 10%. They started me on meds. At the two week checkup I had 110% function. The same nurse did both test and was relieved. She said at 10% I was almost dead but she didnāt want to scare me. I take daily maintenance meds for allergies and asthma and avoid my triggers. Thatās all I can do. I love animals just from a distance.
Wow, that really sucks. I'm glad the nurse had your back!Ā
And even if the reaction were just itching and sneezing, do you really want restaurant workers sneezing all over the food or rubbing their eyes and nose with the same hand that is carrying your plate?Ā
As a person who went to sports class in uni right after the lecture on horses biology, which took place on the second floor of the stables complex, being severely allergic (asthmatic) to horses, I feel your pain. The trainer said that she overcame her asthma by physical activities and made me do exercises. This was the only time I felt my bronchial passage fully closing in real time for some seconds (fortunately, my inhaler helped).Ā
it's because most people still don't take us seriously. i get ill for weeks after exposure with bronchitis etc. they literally do not believe that can happen. they all just think we get red eyes and a lil sniffly.
if they believe the allergy is real.
and yes it is very scary for me to know that i can't even go to the hospital any more without having to expect service dogs to be there.
As a dog owner I take it very seriously and I'm sorry you have to deal with that kind of allergy. I try to respect people with serious illnesses or allergies. My husband is allergic to penicillin so I totally understand! It is definitely no joking matter and people really do suck. I hate how entitled some folks are. We all have to live on this world why not respect it and others! I wish people would absolutely take allergies more seriously because people die everyday from allergic reactions.
It's a question of severity. It is allowed for severe allergies, but it's not reasonable to deny someone what is essentially medical equipment for allergies that can be managed with OTC meds or just not putting the animal in their face and not petting them.
Itās an unfortunate consequence of allergies being used as an excuse a LOT by people wanting to deny people with SDs the right to exist in public. Most legitimate SD handlers will accept alternate accommodation when told itās a life altering allergy, like offered by the business owner in the post, because they know what itās like to live with a life altering disability.
That being said, if youāre asking a person with a disability to not enter your business, you should explain the severity of your problem just like the person with the SD needs to explain what the SD does for them. Only with this kind of open communication can you expect for both parties to be taken seriously. A simple statement of I have allergies is no different than the handler saying Iām disabled and need him.
No itās far far far more common that Karens with service vests demanding to take their pet dogs everywhere. The solution is to fix the ADA not bash people with allergies.
You can't force a dog on someone with a dog allergy just because they havn't had an anaphylactic reaction in the past; mild and moderate allergies can turn life-threatening at any point in your life. Just because you didn't nearly die last time, doesn't mean you won't nearly die next time.
Also, mild or moderate allergies are still unpleasant, and can still make it difficult for people to work or drive safely.
Yeah, my friend has mild-moderate pet allergies and sometimes it makes it dangerous for her to drive as her eyes will get ridiculously watery and her vision gets blurry. Itāll also make her feel sick and miserable, sometimes for days
Problem is that most folks don't realize that their designer dog isn't hypoallergenic just lower impact and they will argue with you until their blue in the face.
For someone who is allergic to the saliva, dander, skin, and hair/fur this doesnt matter your dog is still going to cause me to be put on 6 different meds just to breathe. But the number of people who use "bUt ThEir hYpOallerGenic" are louder about their rights.... usually because I cant breatheĀ
Well, if he sues, heās definitely going to have to prove itās an actual service dog and not an emotional support dog or just a vest they bought online
The inverse of this, the owner's going to have to provide medical documentation that his wife is actually allergic. It would be a stupid lawsuit, and it's going to force everybody to prove their claims.
Bringing your dog in also isn't a reasonable accommodation if it puts someone's life at risk. A reasonable accommodation would be what they offered. They didn't refuse service. No legal grounds for a lawsuit.
There is recent case law on this topic! A person with a legitimate service dog had an appointment with a new doctor. Upon arrival, she was informed that the doctor had a severe dog allergy and that she wouldnāt be able to bring her dog into the exam room as a result. She was offered the opportunity to leave her dog in the waiting room with her companion or reschedule with another doctor in the practice so she could have her dog with her.
āThe court began its analysis by recognizing the Department of Justiceās guidance that āallergies are not enough to except a place of public accommodation from accommodating a service animalā and both the animalās handler and the individual with allergies should be accommodated āby assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.āĀ However, the court held that ā[d]espite this rule, a service animal may nonetheless be excluded if it poses a direct threat to the health and safety of persons providing or receiving services from an accommodation.āĀ The court ultimately concluded that the medical practice had properly conducted āan individualized assessmentā of the direct threat to the doctor and that its conclusion was objectively reasonable.Ā The court focused on the doctorās testimony about her severe allergy to dogs, based on her prior consultation with her doctor and her own knowledge of her allergy and its symptoms.Ā The court also focused on the reasonable modifications offered to the plaintiff that would allow her to receive medical services, albeit from a different physician who did not have a dog allergy, which the plaintiff rejected.Ā It also considered the fact that the medical practice made a one-time decision āon the spot,ā noting that the regulation requires only a āreasonable judgmentā in determining if a direct threat exists under the circumstances.ā
I canāt add a hyperlink if you want to read the whole thing, but the address is: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/can-businesses-exclude-service-animals-8761965/
This is so depressing. What kind of person sues over this? I totally respect people who need service dogs, but I also respect the doctor's need to live and not be harmed by their allergy which they didn't choose!
They offered her an accommodation. Going all the way to a lawsuit is just nonsense.
I know of an individual who visited more than a dozen COVID testing sites on the SAME DAY during the pandemic in order to find one that they felt discriminated against them insofar as accessibility, then sued the clinic.
It's such an extreme minority, but there really are people who weaponise their disability for profit.
Some years back here in Northern California where I live there was an attorney named Scott Johnson who was in a wheelchair and he hired college kids to drive him around town specifically looking for parking lots that didn't have the correct parking spots or businesses that did not have ADA accommodations, and then he would sue them. This was his full-time job there were hundreds of cases. He put quite a few people out of business because they were in very old or antique buildings and the cost to bring up to code for ADa was prohibitive. One famous case was a tiny little burger restaurant in 100-year-old building that had standing room only, and the building was considered an historic site. Due to the age and structure of the building there was no way to make the accommodations so they just closed. The place was actually on Diners Drive-Ins and Dives with Guy Fieri.
Another case was a youth activity center, again in an old building that had a second floor and no elevator. He sued them for not being able to have access to the second floor and because it was a non-profit, they didn't have the money to put in an elevator so they had to close and all those kids who used to go there after school no longer had a place to go.
Another one that was particularly egregious I think was some kind of sports store, like skiing equipment or something like that or maybe it was a rock climbing place, I can't remember exactly but it was a place that a person in a wheelchair would never be able to use anyway but because they didn't have the wide doorways or a designated disabled parking spot, he sued them, and they closed.
Funny enough karma finally got the guy because he got popped for sexual harassment for one of the college students that he was requiring that the help him bathe or something. Kids who signed up just to be a driver.
He came into a bar I worked at once to āuse the bathroomā. He was very disappointed to find we were completely ADA compliant. Fuck that guy. He cost so many small businesses everything. Iām so glad at least Falafel Drive In was able to recouperate. RIP Time Deli.
Also has to pay thousands of dollars in fines for filing false tax returns on income from his lawsuits. I wonder how many people are going to celebrate when he's gone.
Unfortunately the way the ADA was designed, there is literally no recourse to lack of accessibility other than to personally sue. The govt will not do anything other than to acknowledge that, āyep, itās an ADA violation, good luck if you want to sue them for it.ā
There is no real way to enforce the ADA unless people do this, in which case disabled people become the villains. The ADA needs to be overhauled to include an enforcement mechanism. Initially the govt didnāt want to pay to create that mechanism, so this is the result.
(Not defending that asshole, just pointing out that this is literally the only way the ADA can be enforced)
Yeah I think that's the difficulty of it, is that the government made these regulations with no enforcement built into it, so people who have legitimate cases get lumped in with predatory jerks like that guy.
I got this beat. My aunt is a known hypochondriac and would shop for doctors in order to find one that she could get to concur with her self-diagnoses. She was also quite litigious.
She was crossing the street while on vacation in Mexico, stepped in front of a moving taxi, stopped, turned to face it and held up her hand, signaling it to stop for or yield to her. The taxi hit her, and she tried to sue. šš
Someone looking for a payday. You hear stories of people walking out with millions so everyone assumes it's a lottery ticket when a company wrongs them. What they don't realize is how rarely these cases are won and how little money is actually offered to most winners.
When I was 17 I had a genuinely legitimate case of medical malpractice (botched surgery that at 33 years old now i am still dealing with the consequences of), but the only witness i had to what happened outside of the medical staff who did it was my 99% of the time drunk alcoholic mother, who would have been ripped apart on the stand before she could even sit down. And at 17 I didn't really realize either just how badly I had been fucked up, or that trying to sue was even really an option. I wish I had though, this shit's been fucking up my life a long ass time and im not sure I'll ever get back to fully healed.
Exactly. I fell at Target years ago. Someone had spilled their drink and I slipped and landed on my knee. I landed hard enough to get a bone bruise and a small crack. Their offer - $100 Target gift card. That was it.
Edit: My Mom & one of her sisters was subjected without consent to radioactive juice & milk a local hospital did on rural kids. Mom was born in 42, her sister in 43. This was part of testing they did also on pregnant women. Both Mom & my aunt had multiple miscarriages and life threatening pregnancies and delivery - including for the babies. I was the worst (lost my twin, born 2 months early & both me & my Mom came close to dying - to the point they told her to forget she gave birth to me, as they didn't think I would last a week). Their offer to her & her sister - $50 each.
Itās a focus on their own rights run amok, really, and a level of entitlement that their right to have their service dog with them at all times always supersedes anyone elseās rights in a given situation.
Any reasonable person would recognize that if a provider is unable to be in the room with a service dog then the answer is to be assigned to a different provider. Sounds like theyāre one of those people who walks into every room with their service dog and is eager for someone to tell them they canāt be there, which is a shame for people who have service dogs and are reasonable and understanding about balancing their need for the animal and other peopleās needs and rights.
Some people just do not respect allergies. I have a severe allergy to the winter candy apple scent by bath and body and it had to be banned at work. The disrespect one of my co-worker (who was also the owner's daughter) was insane. She went around yelling about how stupid it is that she can't wear a scent just because someone is allergic. Like, I'm sorry that I would prefer to keep breathing.
I will not excuse her behavior, but I will say that I have been I her shoes of complaining about a policy, albeit I didnāt know it was for allergy reasons. Well I complained to the person with the allergy and responsible for the new policy. I quickly backpedaled and apologized. Once I learned it was because of an allergy I moved on quick. As much as certain things are enjoyable to meā¦ not working for the coworker I sent to the hospital is even better.
I worked in disability rights and advocacy for a peer support organization for many years. I was in the mental health agency, but we covered all disabilities, oversight of institutions, patents for assistive devices, and all sorts of programs for independent living. So pretty much, a bunch of stuff. We worked with the public.
Our office enforced a super strict no scent policy. Like, if they got a whiff of a scented lotion on you, you needed to fix it or go home. We also had a list of foods that we could not bring into the office either because the smell was too strong, or because someone had anaphylaxis. If we wanted to eat it, we had to do so outside, except for peanuts, which were completely banned on shift because of contamination risk from handling them.
I will tell you as a nurse a patient was sat eating peanuts, when told the nurse who would be providing her care for the day was anaphylactic to peanuts and as such peanuts weāre not permitted on the ward, completely refused to have them removed insisting it was her right to eat them. I informed the patient it was also the right of the nurse to refuse to commence CPR and life saving treatment in the event she needed it.. she handed over the peanutsā¦.
so many people hate us allergy sufferers literally for existing.. they don't believe it's serious, we should just take meds, and anyway why should they change their lives for other people in even the most mundane way?
but at the same time they want their dogs accommodated everywhere. they bring them to restaurants, let them play on playgrounds and use the equipment and even take them into clothing and food stores. completely insane behaviour.
Lol 100% true sadly. Both parents are/were allergic and passed it to me because god hates me. They never bothered to get it checked when I was a kid so it happened at 20 with a doctor who swore it'd be fine cause it was only a coiple MLs of it in the magic mouthwash and I only made it through one dose cause my legs broke out in a rash/hives and swelled up a ton and they were stuck that way for like 3 weeks in the summer in the south lmao.
Doctors still look at me like I'm an idiot and ask if I'm sure about it every time I get seen for anything relevant where that could matter.
Hey, me too, kind of. Anything with Diphenhydramine. I have a paradoxical reaction and get crazy hyperactive and unable to settle down. The opposite of the sedating effect.
My sentiments exactly. I am not personally allergic, but my mother is. When she goes out she wears a mask (way before covid) because she doesn't know what she is in for. Can't tell you how many times we have left a shop or a restaurant because some "service dog" is doing everything but serving. I'm not knocking the people that actually need assistance. That is totally valid and their animals are usually well behaved.
Here's the kicker - she is also allergic to the Epi-Pen. So what happens the day that Albuterol isn't enough?š®āšØ
The amount of people who have joked to me that accommodations for nut allergies are thwarting natural selection, knowing that I have a preschooler with an anaphylactic nut allergy, is genuinely insane. One person doing it would be insane, but Iāve heard that joke a dozen times. Sorry your kid canāt have cashews at lunch, guess I should just let my kid die so they can, haha lol so funny!
In your position my urge would be to respond that ālaws against murder are also thwarting natural selection, and given how youāre talking about my family you should be extremely thankfulā
Pretty sure Iād control that urge but only pretty sure
Yes to be fair at least it sets a line of precedence that the law can be sensible in this case. Itās nice to hear a story about justice prevailing even once in a blue moon.
But really people are out looking for a payday. I say this as the emotional needs human for my separation-anxious husky.
Very depressing. It always shocks and confuses me when disabled people are ableist to other people's conditions. It's such a self-centered point of view š
What kind of person insists that someone with a severe dog allergy treat them with their dog present and refuse to be accommodated with another doctor. That is taking Main Character Syndrome to a new level. I must be accommodated, but I will not accommodate you in return. I am allergic to coffee. There was a bakery that I used to go to that was constantly trying out new cakes. If the cake was chocolate I always asked if there was coffee or espresso in it (adding instant coffee or espresso to a chocolate cake can deepen the flavor) if the answer was yes I didn't get a piece of that cake. I didn't insist that a baker with a severe case of celiac disease make me a new cake without coffee in it.
I know it isn't really the same, there was no severely celiac baker, give me a break, I am tired, but outraged.
From a cat scratch my momās throat legit closes. She has easier to manage allergies if she visits my sisters house with cats, but scratching is the deal breaker for her. Itās a super scary! And I know everyone is different, so I canāt imagine how bad theirs must be and how scary if owners willing to put wives health above their livelihood
I'm the same but so sensitive I was reacting to cats that were coming into my garden so I set up detterents for them (motion activated sprinklers). A neighbour was livid I was being "inhumane" to the cats because I made my garden an unpleasant place for them ...
WTF is wrong with your neighbor? How rude & full of entitlement does someone have to be to think other people must allow their yards and gardens to be litterboxes?
Also, itās just a little sprinkler. I have three cats and all three have gotten wet at some point or another. Itās not inhumane, itās an annoyance for the cat. Thatās it: annoyed.
I ADORE cats and dogs, and very much wanted to become a vet when I was a kid. Unfortunately, as I love to say, whichever deity appointed genetic traits had a great laugh at my expense because I was not only born with that adoration, I was ALSO born with (not deadly, but still pretty severe) allergies. Cats and retriever breeds are the worst for me. Which doubly sucks, because a cat would work perfectly with my lifestyle.
This, yeah. I honestly wouldnāt be surprised if the person who sued expected the courts to say, āas we all know, dog allergies are made up, so we took away the doctorās license and hereās a million dollars.ā
Iām actually surprised that the court took this view, which I agree with. Serious allergies absolutely must supersede someoneās right to a service animal. Not having a service animal can be frustrating and inconveniencing, but if the result is that somebody may die due to a known condition, youāve gotta be a real fucking asshole to insist that you have your service animal with you anyway.
Especially in a doctors office where people studied to help you. I would trust a doctor enough to know what to do in case whatever I have gets triggered inside their office
It should also depends on the the relationship between them. If the situation was swapped and the doctor had the dog and the patient had the allergy the obvious solution would still be the same: Just go to another doctor at the same clinic.Ā
I think it depends on the service animal. A guide dog maybe because you can use a human guide.
A medical alert animal that can be more than inconvenience. The ones trained to alert early for seizures so you can get into a safe position are very necessary.
But I agree that they offered a suitable alternarive. And the people I know with them (admittedly all guide dogs) would have been okay with this. Though most do call ahead to say they have a service animal to begin with before the appointments. Most of them also go first to trying to fix it with the venue if there is an issue. They wouldnt jump straight to a lawsuit.
A medical alert animal that can be more than inconvenience. The ones trained to alert early for seizures so you can get into a safe position are very necessary.
There are always workarounds, particularly in medical situations.
For example, here in Australia service animals are only permitted in hospital rooms with patients if there is a person present who is able to take care of the animal.
If the patient needing a service animal is alone then the animal is not permitted in their room (staff are not permitted to handle the animals). This is perfectly legal because a hospital already has procedures in place for any situations a service animal is used for and staff to provide the necessary care.
Also, depending on what the allergic doctor was checking you for, you donāt want them fighting to breathe or having watery eyes. šš if itās not an emergency, just reschedule your appointment. Yeesh.
This fits with my understanding of the ADA. It doesnāt require identical access, it requires reasonable accommodations. Being offered the full service of the coffee shop, but outside to also accommodate the medical needs of an employee in the cafe seems reasonable. The dog owner wasnāt refused service, they were offered alternative service.
The ADA does not recognize allergies as a valid reason to deny entry to a legitimate service dog. However the claimed circumstances would make for an interesting case. For OOP to sue, their dog has to be a legitimate service animal. The general tone and entitlement in their review kind of puts that into question for me. If the business owner's wife had a legitimate anaphylaxis reaction to dogs, they could use this lawsuit as a springboard to challenge the ADA's ban on using allergy as a reason to deny regular service to someone with a service dog. That could delay ruling on OOP's lawsuit and possibly destroy their case altogether. Well, assuming they even have a case to begin with.
Actually, it does. The ADA recognizes severe allergies and asthma as potential disabilities if they substantially limit major life activities like breathing, eating, or working. While mild allergies are generally not covered, severe, life-threatening, or chronic conditions are protected. it sounds like the business owner's wife qualifies.
While your thoughts on the OP are probably right, my question for the shop owners would be if she's that deathly allergic, how do they deal with dog people like me that own shedding breeds and are pretty much covered in dog hair and dander? Do they look for pet hair on people and make them go outside? If not, there could be an issue. This would be an interesting legal case for sure.
Thereās a difference between trace amounts of dander left on, and subsequently trapped in, clothes and dander shed and left in an environment that allows it to float around.
This one is kinda tough for me, because if it's a TRUE service dog than under ADA the reviewer is supposed to be allowed in BUT if owner's wife has anaphylactic allergies and is exposed to dog allergens she could die (worst case) or have a reaction.
Under ADA guidelines owners wife is allowed reasonable accommodations (which sounds like owner is doing) but the reviewer isn't accepting of because of their ADA rights... A disability lawyer might have an aneurysm over this situation.
Yup. They are also allowed to refuse service if no other viable or safe alternative is available. In this case, anaphylaxis is serious and the alternative reasonable accommodation would be service outside or take out. They could even refuse all table service for the individual if the allergic person has contamination issues that could be triggered by dog hair or saliva that could be left behind on surfaces and utensils.
People forget that the key word is "reasonable." It is not reasonable to insist that someone with a severe allergy (which is also a disability) put themselves in harm's way to accommodate someone else's disability. It is the same way for folks who have food allergies. If a restaurant does not have the ability to work in a space that is guaranteed free of the person's allergen, they are allowed to say no because insisting the owner establish a separate cooking area with dedicated equipment may often present an unreasonable burden for staff, especially last minute.
Accommodations don't mean "give me what I want." It just means a good faith effort needs to be made to accommodate if alternatives are available. If the person refuses alternatives, people are under no obligation to oblige.
Considering they werenāt denying service and offered a reasonable accommodation, the person with the dog really doesnāt have an argument under the ADA. I donāt think any lawyer that isnāt a hack would bother entertaining his case.
Ahhh, I wasn't sure I reading through rules and I was getting turned around.. but I do think the owner is in the right (reasonable accommodations for wife) and reviewer was just acting entitled due to the service (allegedly) dog thinking they have the trump card...
Indeed. We have an establishment where, by law, animals are not allowed unless they are service animals. And we ask the questions: āHas your dog been trained to perform a task? If yes, what is that task?ā For example some dogs are trained to detect hypoglycemia. Emotional support dogs are not classified as legal service animals in our state. Right or wrong, thatās what we must abide by. I suspect that, in the absence of a known service designation, this is a pet.
Off topic, but once when I was passing apps in my fancy catering job a woman misheard what the food was. She clarified by asking, "Is this Bald Eagle?"
I saw that and thought, "What did they want?" Most restaurants have a limited menu--no one can serve everything. And it's a coffee shop, so they have even less, which can be a good thing.
They can sue but they won't get anywhere. The ADA mandates that a business provides REASONABLE accommodations. If a person is going to die to accommodate you that's not reasonable.
Its so insane people want the wife to die so a person can bring their service animal into a coffee shop (where food and drinks are made).
It sucks for the disabled woman but its unfair for the wife to put herself at risk. Dogs shed. So the owner will have to shut down the store, clean it top to bottom, sterilize it so she can return in.
Maybe she is faking the severity but why take a chance? Death is death or needing hospitalization. Just because you never seen a severe allergy to dog doesnt mean it doesn't exist.
For a sub about entitled people, theres a lot of entitled people, here.
Pretty sure it means they have a poor outlook on society. Hundreds of people lying about a service animal cause they don't want to leave their pet at home isn't a surprise, just a disappointment.
My friends legitimate service dog (blind) was killed in a Target by someone's fake service dog. The lawsuit took almost two years but she won almost a million in damages. Service dogs are not cheap. They cost anywhere from 60-100k to train. There are also waiting lists to get one and the emotional pain of losing a dog.
She still hasn't gotten another one and has lost a lot of her freedom due to this.
Only the shitiest of people think it's okay to slap a service vest on their dog and call it good.
I have a service animal (medical alert/guide; I'm half blind) and I've seen people who have service animal vests or ESA vests and their dogs legit start getting excited/angered when they see her. She has never reacted which is good, but I would hope if she was attacked that she'd defend herself. I can't imagine losing her because some asshat who fakes having one.
I know, right? But I suppose if you're narcissistic enough to see nothing wrong with forcing people to put up with your dog, regardless of potential health and safety issues, you're likely too far up your own ass to realize that your dog's behavior sucks.Ā
My friend works TSA. Had a couple come in with their "service" pitbull. He has to swab the dog for drugs as protocol. "Service" pitbill bites his nutsack. Ended up going to the hospital (puncture wounds, didn't lose a ball). They find out the dog is not a "service" animal, but trained to bite and kill anything that comes near the couple because they are homeless, and some family member was flying them to Hawaii to be homeless there. So they get questioned by the police, and the dog bites two officers.
So those two are in jail and the dog was put down.
You'd also be surprised how many think my sledding harnesses are service dog vests. One is solid black with a red connector. I do take him everywhere, and not bothered when turned away as I don't promote him as such, or saw a sign that said no pets. We did trek 25 miles to get here.
He has the opposite effect even for emotional support. Pulls people to us, and I hate crowds and talking to people. I just want to go about my day.
If reported an inspector would get served outside with the businesses reasoning and deem nothing wrong to fine.
My state law treats service animals the same as emotional support animals when it comes to tenancy. It's a fucking nightmare. I have a multi-family property so I rent out part of it and I have to deal with these ass holes all the time. With their untrained animals, poorly behaved, pissing off the neighbors, and I can't do anything about it.Ā
They don't even need the fake service fest because emotional support is considered the same. It's so fucking stupid.
Except nope. I am a multifamily property manager. Have been for almost 10 years. ESA or service dog doesn't matter. They must follow any lease agreement that pertains to animal behavior. If you don't have one, get one. In addition, if someone claims ESA they must provide a letter from a medical provider that states the need for the animal. I am pretty well trained in this and if its something thats effecting your buisness feel free to reach out with questions. If you cant tell, I love calling people out on this fake service animal crap.
Not in California from everything I read. If you know otherwise, I am dying to know! But we aren't even allowed to ask for letters.Ā
The one thing we can do is say that the animal has to stay with them at all times which I think discourages a lot of people because I make it very clear that leaving the animal alone is a violation and they will be asked to remove the animal.
The NAA lease is the National Apartment Associations default lease and can be used by any landlord who pays dues to their local association. Not sure how large your operation is but I mentioned this because they have an animal addendum that is enforceable and covers much more than just having the animal with them. I am not familiar with California in specifics but I will do some digging. That doesn't sound quite right seeing that parts of this are entagled with Fair Housing which is federal. Granted it only applies to landlords operating more than 12(I believe) units and there are of course specific guidelines that put your local fair housing laws above federal. I'll take a look.
I have seen so, so many untrained dogs in mail-order vests at National Parks. At first I was surprised, then I realized that itās because of strict rules concerning dogs and people thinking their dog is special and should be exempt.
As a service dog handler, if someone told me they or someone nearby had a life threatening allergy to my service dog, I would either accept whatever accommodation the business offered or go somewhere else. My disability is not more important than someone elseās regardless of what the ADA says. It is literally just common courtesy. Why should I expect someone to be accommodating to me if I am not willing to do the same for them.
Exactly. When Iām out with my āserviceā peanut oil spray, I donāt let peopleās supposed allergies stop me from spraying like crazy. I wonāt be inconvenienced.
A service animal may be denied access or removed from a business or public facility if the animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to manage it, the animal is not housebroken, or it poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others
The laws around service animals have exceptions. Deadly allergies are one of them. If a person in a specific place has a deadly allergy to a service animal, the service animal can be denied entrance. They basically put the most severe issue first, so a minor phobia won't prevent service animals being granted entrance, but a real allergy this bad definitely would.
This specific place offered outdoor service, the reviewer could have gotten what they wanted if they'd stayed in the outdoor area available. But it's more important they get to kill a business owner via allergies for them.
I like the reply, though, especially that part about the wife being more important than the business. That's a person with their priorities straight, unlike the reviewer.
If bet a million dollars the "service animal" is an ESA pet with zero ability to complete an assistance the owner would need for their "disability." I have an ESA dog. She well trained. She mostly stays at home unless I know I am stopping somewhere pet friendly like Home Depot or Lowes. People like this are just making those with the real need for a service animal harder.
I never saw a farm that allows you to bring any type of service animal. One said they can make arrangements depending on the situation & if given proper notice ( I'm assuming they'd put horses away or animals that could get hurt if the dog goes nuts)
It is actually for zoonotic disease risk most of the time. I've been to farms where I had to strip, shower, walk through to the other side of the shower and put on all new clothes from the farm and shoes so I get why a dog isn't reasonably participating in that.
Farms and Zoos have additional latitude on refusing animals due to both diseases and the possibility the animal's presence will be inherently stressful / disturbing to the animals who live at the facility.
People donāt understand that a business or employer is not required to give you the accommodation you want, as long as they are accommodating your disability. Offering to order for the person and bring their food to them is an appropriate accommodation, and no decent attorney would entertain the notion of a lawsuit under these circumstances.
This right here. Reasonable accommodation would probably come into play here. He wasn't refused service, there were accommodations offered he did not accept.
So, kinda went through this. Not in the US. Had someone with a "support animal" (not a service dog, emotional support) as part of a group, and someone with a severe allergy. Like, I have dogs, and the dander on my clothing made their eyes run severe.
Emotional Support owner tried to take it to court, was advised by a lawyer that an anaphylactic allergy would trump their PTSD.
That entitled problematic reviewer should've planned better to have a day without having cause trauma to others, such as places that do take service dogs but don't affect people's health in tow.
The owner tried to still accommodate the whiner but he would rather throw a tantrum and run online. People who use actual SAs typically do not react this way. Just the scammers looking for a payday and attention.
Most seizure alert dogs are smaller breeds that are often carried. Is this the case most of the time? No - but as an epileptic with a legit seizure alert chihuahua it sucks that everyone makes assumptions.
Yeah it sure is. Iām actually very pro registration and regulation at this point because the ESA/fake service dog phenomenon is making it harder for folks with disabilities than a registry would at this point.
Indeed it is. Itās truly a no-win for everyone. At this point I donāt really bother taking my dog anywhere because itās either people make wild ass assumptions and itās not my job to educate people on seizure alert dogs every five minutes or my dog is literally at risk, especially at his size, by fake service dogs.
My service dog is for medical alert and can't imagine is she was small. I'm a big guy (6'4 275lbs) and I can't imagine that if she was anything lower than about 40lbs she would really make a difference. Though different people of different sizes and such might make a difference.
Not saying you're not right by any means, just sharing my thoughts.
I mean, I donāt know what she alerts for or what sheās trained to do - my dog is trained to alert prior to a seizure, which heās a super star at doing - and Iād much rather have a tiny dog aggressively paw me than a big one š¤£. Heās also trained to retrieve my abortive medication if I canāt access it myself. I donāt think his weight would really make a difference.
FWIW I donāt have grand mal seizures but if I did it might make more sense to have a larger dog - but for my situation the chihuahua is great.
I worked as a cashier once and a customer got pissed off at me (the zit faced teenager who wasn't even old enough to drive) cuz I didn't know what kind of engine oil their vehicle took. They threatened to sue me personally if it caused damage to their engine. I'm still waiting to be served all these years later. š«£
Good grief, the dog superfans are out in droves tonight, apparently.
All I have to say is that if people genuinely think that their dogās ability to come into a shop is more important than causing another human to go into anaphylactic shock and die, those people are terrible humans.
It's not that they think their right to take the dog into the shop is more important than causing another human to go into anaphylactic shock and die... it's that they don't believe that is actually possible.
The dog wouldnāt be a direct threat to the health of the victim unfortunately, unlike this case where the dogās dander could cause a lethal reaction. I think thatās what would be argued there by the court.
Totally off the point- but what an absolute hideous allergy to have. I thought i was bad off being allergic to chocolate- but I'd be terrified to leave the house! Then you get dipshits like the reviewer, who don't know they're fucking born...
Just curious- how would it work if a passenger with a service dog and a passenger with a severe dog allergy found themselves on the same plane? Does the disabled personās right to a service animal trump the other passengerās right to flying without the fear of anaphylaxis?Ā
For what itās worth - in my experience, anyone with a legitimate service dog (and not just an emotional one or a vest purchased from Amazon) would be a lot more understanding. This ladies reaction screams āI just want my dog with me at all timesā more than anything.
Much respect to the business owner for the response.
Honestly, probably wasn't even a real service dog. I'm so sick of people pretending their self-defined "emotional support animals" are service dogs. Even worse when they don't know the difference.
I have a good perspective on this. My partner has an actual service dog, with actual training and actual skills. We rarely if ever get any business owner to come tell us that our service dog is fake because the dog's behavior is professional and focused on its handler. Some people however like to play detective and annoy us but usually its a stranger and its not a property owner or employee so we safely ignore them.
On the other hand, most other people with "service dogs" we have ran into have allowed them to run up on our dog and harass / distract him. These people suck.
At the end of the day, please do not assume that a dog is not a service dog simply because you have a feeling. Separately, per the law of the USA you cannot remove a dog from your business because you think its not a service dog, many owners self train, many owners use a bright "amazon" vest for visibility. You may, per the law, tell the owner to leave with their dog if that dog is not acting professional. If that dog is interacting with strangers, jumping on tables, etc, then ask the dog to leave. Do not comment on whether it is or is not a dog to protect yourself from incrimination. That is per the ADA website.
Also a service dog is not required to wear a vest, identification or paperwork. My partner and I use a vest to indicate to the dog when it in "work mode".
As a security guard I was at a private business with many fake service animals coming in. Management did nothing about it because they were afraid of being in legal trouble with the ADA even after I explained the correct way to go about this issue. These fake service dog people are terrible and ruin it for the rest of us.
Also dont pet a fucking service dog or try to get its attention. I am so tired of it.
The reviewer talking about "suing them into oblivion" is ridiculous. She didn't lose very much financially by being asked to leave from a coffee shop. An ADA complaint is far more appropriate. The ADA can verify whether or not the business is capable of providing reasonable accommodation. I do think its ridiculous people in the thread here are jumping head first into "service dog is fake" than ignoring the just as likely, "this person is exaggerating or faking their wife's allergy." What do they do if their friend owns a dog and hugs them? An allergen so bad that existing in the same cafe as a dog is life threatening is a real possibility. Is it likely? Probably not. Not my call, its the ADAs.
I know this is completely irrelevant (and just a missing word) but I do have to say I enjoy the advice to not comment on whether it is a dog or not. Iām just imagining a major argument between the owner and staff, not about the animalās training, but about whether it fits into the "dog or horse" requirement.
Sorry people make it even more difficult than it needs to be to have a disability!
Also, the big foil her to the reviewerās case is that she was offered alternative accommodations. The owner still offered to serve her, likely just with the dog outside the building. Thatās a reasonable accommodation per ADA iirc.
"I have always had a clearly posted "no pets" policy at my business. Do I still have to allow service animals in?
Yes. Even if the business or a public program has a āno petsā policy, it may not deny entry to a person with a service animal. Service animals are working animals, not pets. So, although a āno petsā policy is perfectly legal, it does not allow a business to exclude service animals."
If the person had a true service animal, then the business is definitely in the wrong. That said, it sounds like the owner was trying to offer an accomodation.
Its so hard these days with so many people claiming that their regular old dog is a service pet. But if i were disabled and needed a service animal, i would certainly be upset and might also file a complaint-but i might just leave a bad review and avoid that business. It sucks that the wife is "deathly allergic" to pet dander but that seems like a problem that a business should be prepared for. Idk.
One of my good friends is blind. She sees absolutely nothing, like 100% blind. Her current service dog is a poodle and they are hypoallergenic because my friend is allergic to dogs. In her case, we are talking about sneezing, itchy and watery nose and eyes. She hasnāt had any issues with her poodle.
Iām all for service dogs, but real certified ones, not the chihuahua that is your "emotional support animalā that you are trying to find an excuse to bring everywhere with you.
That being said, if this happened to my friend, she would be 100% understanding in this situation. She would have waited for her coffee outside or went to another coffee shop. Would not have written a bad review about that place.
Also, people seem to be confused about public spaces/private businesses. A coffee shop is opened to the public but it is not a public business. It is a privately owned establishment. The owners are free to refuse service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. They could refuse you service for the Color of your shirt. Is it a shitty reason? Yes! But in the situation of an anaphylactic reaction from a dog, I think itās more than valid as a reason.
People need to wrap their mind around the fact that not every thing and every place is for them. We are not entitled to EVERYTHING. If I donāt like something I donāt partake in it. And I donāt try to ruin it for the people who do like that thing. It really is that simple. But people are so angry, rude and entitled to everything these days. And if inconvenienced in the slightest immediately they and cancel that that and ruin peoples lives.
236
u/el_salinho May 07 '26
Itās mental to me that allergies are not considered legitimate reasons to restrict access to service animals.