Friday, January 27, 2012

News: Enforcing the ADA Report Service Animal Issues Featured

Settlement Under Title II of ADA
 "Title II, subtitle A, of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all services, programs, and activities provided to the public by State and local governments, except public transportation services."

  • An individual with a disability complained that he was asked by a police officer to leave a California municipal park because he was accompanied by his service animal. The police department adopted, implemented, and publicly posted a service animal policy, conducted training on service animal issues for its employees, and provided information to residents on how to file ADA complaints.
Settlements Under Title III of ADA 
" Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in "places of public accommodation" (businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and "commercial facilities" (other businesses)."
  • An individual who uses a wheelchair complained that he, his wife and daughter, and friends were denied service at a South Carolina restaurant because he uses a service animal. The restaurant adopted and implemented a service animal policy, gave a copy of the policy to each employee, posted a notice welcoming service animals, and agreed to investigate and take steps to rectify any future complaints. They also compensated the complainant $500 and paid a $500 civil penalty. 
  • An individual who has myasthenia gravis complained that the outpatient center of a Maryland hospital refused to provide her scheduled medical services because she uses a service animal. The hospital agreed to adopt and implement a policy permitting service animals in its facilities and, in instances when a service animal cannot be in the room during a procedure (such as an MRI), the hospital will provide, at no cost to the patient, a bonded pet sitting service if the patient is unable to bring a companion to look after the service animal. The hospital also agreed to train staff on ADA requirements and compensate the complainant $5,000.
  • An individual who uses a service animal complained that a hotel in California refused to rent a room to her because of her service animal. The hotel agreed to adopt a service animal policy, post a disability nondiscrimination notice and a notice welcoming service animals in its reception area, in employee work areas, and on its website, train staff who have contact with guests and visitors on these policies, and pay the complainant $5,000.
  • An individual with a disability complained that a Tennessee hotel charged her a $10 pet fee because she uses a service animal. Although ownership of the hotel had changed since the complaint was filed, the new owner agreed to adopt a service animal policy, post the policy and a disability nondiscrimination notice in employee work areas, maintain records documenting new employees' receipt and acknowledgment of the policy, conduct staff training on the policy for all employees who have contact with guests, and post a sign welcoming service animals in the reception area.
  • An individual with a disability complained that a Florida resort attempted to charge him a pet fee because of his service animal. The resort adopted a policy welcoming service animals, modified its website and reservation materials to state that there is no charge for service animals, and posted signage regarding the new policy. 
  • An individual with a disability complained that she was denied access to a Texas medical practice because she uses a service animal. The practice agreed to adopt, implement, and post a policy welcoming service animals and train its staff on the policy. 
Mediated Cases
  • A couple complained that a California restaurant refused to serve them because one of them uses a service animal. The restaurant adopted a policy to serve customers who use service animals, developed employee training on the ADA's requirements for service animals, posted a sign indicating that service animals are welcome, and donated $3,200 to an advocacy organization.
  • In California, an individual with epilepsy complained that a Mexican restaurant refused her access because she uses a service animal. The restaurant agreed to serve customers with service animals at both of its locations, trained its staff on the ADA's requirements for service animals, posted signs welcoming service animals at the entrance of both restaurants, and gave the complainant two complimentary lunches.
Read Entire Report

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Taylor & Francis Online :: “Not just a dog”: an attachment perspective on relationships with assistance dogs - Attachment & Human Development - Volume 13, Issue 5

Taylor & Francis Online :: “Not just a dog”: an attachment perspective on relationships with assistance dogs - Attachment & Human Development - Volume 13, Issue 5
 We explored individuals' relationships with an assistance dog from an attachment-theory perspective. We used both inductive and deductive thematic methods to analyze semi-structured interviews with 25 participants who had lost an assistance dog to retirement or death. Analyses revealed attachment processes of safe haven, secure base, and separation anxiety. Although attachment dynamics were an important feature of these relationships, caregiving was equally important. When confronted with the loss of their dog, almost all participants experienced intense grief. Most grief responses were consistent with the loss of a caregiving relationship. Findings suggest that grief is a natural response to the loss of a beloved companion who fulfilled fundamental needs for attachment and caregiving.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

News: St. Mercy Medical Center settles violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), St. Edward Mercy Medical Center (Mercy), in Fort Smith, Arkansas has agreed to make changes to its policies and procedures to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504).
The settlement resulted from a complaint filed with OCR by a person with a lumbar and spinal disability who requires a service animal to assist him in a number of daily functions, including carrying and picking up items and helping to stabilize his walking. While the complainant sought emergency medical treatment for his father, Mercy refused to allow the service animal to accompany the complainant into the hospital. The complainant was told his service animal was not a “seeing eye dog” and the animal would need to be removed from the hospital because he could not show vaccination records or tags verifying the health of the animal. After an investigation, OCR found that Mercy’s policies and procedures regarding access to service animals inappropriately excluded service animals already being used by qualified individuals with disabilities other than vision impairment. Read More