Many SD and their handler have been denied access. I am one of them. Probably because I wasn’t disabled enough. The first time I contacted the op manager and they took action on the security guard. They fired him. The second time was fairly recently. I told them my rights, gave them an ada card which they refused to look at and said they know the law yet denied me access. They first said no dogs, then later changed their lies on social media saying they denied my SD because he is an ESA. They did want to seat us outside in the summer heat in which I refused. My SD is my medical equipment and I need to protect my equipment. Location of this establishment Ozen in Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
They just need a heart. I realy do not like dogs. But would never do anything against a person with a service dogs. ... They need them. Service dogs are cool.
How do people still not understand that guide dogs aren't pets, and are always allowed access? What rock do people live under that they don't get this?
Having a service dog, and being ask to leave, is a civil matter. Refusing to leave is also a criminal matter. That is trespassing. So calling the police could cause an arrest of the trespasser.
He doesn't have to leave. The police would have told them that. Can't trespass someone all because they have a service dog with them at a public access location. It is more than just a civil matter. Service dog discrimination is against federal and state laws. Meaning businesses owners/staff can not only be sued, but can charged, fines, jailed, and or even have their business shut down for breaking those laws.
Forcing someone out because they have a disability (and use a service dog) is violation of Federal law - it's discrimination by disability. The police can be helpful IF and only IF they understand the law and more times than not they are clueless - the best thing to do is to get the name of a manager and let them know (ALWAYS in a CALM collected way) they they are violation of both federal and state law. Then go home, write very specifically exactly what happened and contact - and file a DOJ (Department of Justice ) Complaint - or before you do that find out what district you are in - look up the US Attorney for your district (under the DOJ) and contact him or her to explain the violation of your civil rights.
@@carriehollyland3596There are some states which make it a crime for places of public accommodation to deny access to people with service dogs. The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, however, provides for no criminal penalties. You can sue to bring the place of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA into conformity with the ADA but private businesses cannot be sued for money damages unless the U.S. attorney general takes on the case. Even when the USAG takes on a case the AG must give the business an opportunity to come into conformity with the ADA. Title II (government entities) entities can be sued for money damages under the ADA. What many people don’t realize though is that if you’re suing for damages or defending criminal charges (like trespassing for not leaving after being told to leave) that you may have to demonstrate that, in your specific circumstances, that you fall under the protection of the ADA. Many assume that they’re covered under the ADA because of a diagnosis or because the SSA made a determination of disability. There’s a case where a woman was convicted of trespassing and was sentenced to 30 days in jail because she refused to leave a private business. She lost the appeal of her conviction. {The fact that a person has been diagnosed with an impairment is not determinative as to whether that person is disabled under the ADA. Therefore, the fact that Satterwhite testified that she suffered from arthritis and had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and diffused pain syndrome was not sufficient to establish that she fell within the ADA. Sutton, 527 U.S. at 483, 119 S.Ct. 2139. Furthermore, Satterwhite's description of her limitations- that she was having problems with her knees and joints and having problems "getting around" (R. 109)-was vague and did not provide any details as to exactly how her impairment substantially limited her mobility. It is not uncommon for an individual suffering from arthritis to experience problems "getting around." However, "moderate difficulty experienced while walking does not rise to the level of a disability." Talk, 165 F.3d at 1025. Satterwhite did not present any evidence showing that any of her conditions impaired her ability to walk or to move about to such an extent that she was either unable to walk or move about or was significantly restricted in her ability to walk or move about as compared with the average person. Although Satterwhite testified that her doctor had told her that she could no longer work or go to school and that she had been approved to receive Social Security disability benefits, she did not provide any other details regarding why her doctor had told her that she was no longer able to work or to go to school or why she was approved to receive Social Security disability benefits.[3] The fact that the Social Security Administration ("SSA") decided to grant disability benefits to Satterwhite also does not necessarily mean that she has a disability that comes within the ADA, i.e., a substantial limitation in her ability to walk or move about, for which a trained service animal would be needed. See Weigel v. Target Stores, 122 F.3d 461 (7th Cir.1997).[4] There was no evidence presented indicating that Satterwhite's doctor had told her that she could no longer work or go to school or that the basis for her receiving Social Security disability benefits was causally related to the fact that she was experiencing some problems "getting around." (R. 109.) Satterwhite did not specifically testify, or present any evidence to show, that her doctor had told her that she could not work or go to school because of her arthritis, fibromyalgia, or diffused pain syndrome, and she did *1088 not specifically testify, or present any evidence to show, that she was awarded Social Security disability benefits because of these specific conditions.[5] However, even assuming that the trial court and the jury could have reasonably inferred from Satterwhite's testimony that her doctor's statements concerning work and school and the determination by the SSA that she was entitled to disability benefits were based on the fact that she has arthritis and fibromyalgia and suffers chronic pain, neither the trial court nor the jury could have found that the doctor's statements and the SSA's findings were based on the fact that Satterwhite's ability to walk or move about was substantially impaired, at least without resorting to pure speculation. Under the standard of review that governs our resolution of this issue, this Court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Satterwhite and to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to create a reasonable inference that at the time of the incident she was suffering from a disability as defined by the ADA, and that she needed a service animal to assist her in coping with that disability. The evidence presented at trial indicates that Satterwhite does indeed suffer from several physical impairments that might very well render her disabled within the meaning of the ADA. However, it would have required pure speculation on the part of the trial court and the jury based on the limited evidence presented at trial to find that Satterwhite had a disability that substantially limited her mobility and required the assistance of a service animal. The evidence presented in this case does not create the reasonable inference that would be necessary for this Court to hold the trial court in error for refusing at least some of the requested instructions.[6] Given the state of the record-specifically that Satterwhite presented no evidence that tended to establish that she needed a service animal to assist her with a disability covered by the ADA at the time of the December 2002 incident at Hastings-we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing her proposed jury instructions regarding the ADA and in telling the jury that the ADA did not apply to the facts of this case.} _-Satterwhite v. City of Auburn,_ 945 So. 2d 1076 - Ala: Court of Criminal Appeals 2006
