Decoding the Basics on Service and Emotional Support Animals
Service animals and emotional support animals have become more common in today's world and make for intriguing news headlines, but few truly understand the laws surrounding these animals. What is legally mandated? The answer turns on where the individual and the animal are located.
May 08, 2019 at 10:40 AM
4 minute read
Tiny dogs riding in shopping carts. Peacocks boarding airplanes. Service animals and emotional support animals have become more common in today's world and make for intriguing news headlines, but few truly understand the laws surrounding these animals. What is legally mandated? The answer turns on where the individual and the animal are located.
There are three federal laws that could be applicable: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fair Housing Act (FHA) or the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). The confusion surrounding these animals has resulted in inadvertent liability and substantial litigation that could be mitigated with a better understanding of the law.
|Animals in Places of Public Accommodation
Two individuals walk into a coffee shop. One is blind and has a dog on a leash wearing an official looking “service animal” vest, and the other has a small dog on a leash and has no visibly obvious disability. Which has a lawful service animal under the ADA? Potentially both.
A service animal can be any dog or miniature horse trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability. It can be any breed or size. Pet-related rules do not apply to service animals because they are not considered pets.
The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability and can include assisting visually impaired persons, alerting individuals with hearing impairments, providing nonviolent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items (i.e., medicine, telephone), providing physical support and assistance to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping individuals with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors.
Under the ADA, there is no special certification or registration requirement for a service animal, and places of public accommodation cannot require proof that the animal has been certified, trained or licensed.
Business owners' line of inquiry is rather limited. They neither ask about the nature or extent of a person's disability nor ask for a demonstration of how the service animal is trained. If the customer's disability is not obvious, allowed questions are very limited: Is the animal required because of a disability? What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?
However, if the service animal is not housebroken, is out of control, or is a threat to the health or safety of others, a business owner may ask for it to be removed from the premises. The determination of a threat to others should be rooted in the particular animal's behavior, not on other factors such as breed or size. Business owners asking for an animal's removal should explain that the animal's owner is welcome without the animal.
|Animals in the Housing Sphere
The FHA governs the law on assistance (emotional support) animals. A common misconception is that one can take an emotional support rabbit or hamster into a shopping plaza. While the ADA governs the law on service animals, the FHA applies to almost all types of dwellings, residential common areas and certain programs receiving federal funding.
Emotional support animals under the FHA can be any species, breed or size and do not need to be trained to perform a specific task. While a shopping plaza would be a place of public accommodation under the ADA, it would not be subject to the FHA and would not need to allow emotional support animals on the premises.
|Animals on Airplanes
Under the ACAA, a service animal is one that is individually trained to assist a person with a disability or is necessary for a passenger's emotional well-being. Airlines are never required to accept unusual service animals such as snakes, reptiles, ferrets, rodents and spiders. Airlines may exclude service animals that are too large or heavy to be accommodated, pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, cause a significant disruption of cabin service or are prohibited from entering a foreign country. Passengers wanting to travel with an emotional support animal must provide proper documentation from a licensed mental health professional to the airline.
When in doubt as to whether a purported service or emotional support animal is lawfully present, business owners, landlords, airlines and employers should consult legal counsel.
Deedee Bitran is an associate at Shutts & Bowen in Fort Lauderdale.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWill Ohtani's 50/50 Ball Be Split 50/50? Fla. Court to Decide Owner of $4.5M Disputed Catch
How the Legislature Can Fix the Middle-Income Affordable Housing Exemption in Fla.'s Live Local Act
8 minute readReflections During Hispanic Heritage Month: Bedtime Stories and Little Pink Shoes
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250