Walmart and Disability...

Walmart hired its disabled employees KNOWING that they were limited in significant ways.

Now they want to rid themselves of these employees by changing the job requirements and doing away with the accommodations with which they had been provided.

This is a blatant violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Until Walmart publicly rescinds and repudiates their new policy, I am calling for a complete boycott of Walmart.

Service Animals And Your Personal Feelings....

There is a video going around showing a woman throwing a temper tantrum - and I mean a REAL temper tantrum - because a veteran with a service dog entered a restaurant. As has become so common these days, she was going to vent until someone caved in to her demands to either have the animal removed or to have the vet segregated from the rest of the customers, which doesn't appear to have happened. So I figured this would be a good time to put out the following as a public service:

"[...] 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," ADA Service Animals.

It's the law.

She can be glad she's not in Michigan. Her actions toward a person being attended to by a service dog are punishable by law:

"MCL 750.50a Service animal; prohibited conduct by individual; violation as misdemeanor; rebuttable presumption that conduct initiated or continued maliciously; conviction or sentence under other applicable law; definitions.
Sec. 50a.
(1) An individual shall not do either of the following:
(a) Willfully and maliciously assault, beat, harass, injure, or attempt to assault, beat, harass, or injure a service animal that he or she knows or has reason to believe is a service animal used by a person with a disability.
(b) Willfully and maliciously impede or interfere with, or attempt to impede or interfere with, duties performed by a service animal that he or she knows or has reason to believe is a service animal used by a person with a disability.
(2) An individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.
(3) In a prosecution for a violation of subsection (1), evidence that the defendant initiated or continued conduct directed toward a service animal described in subsection (1) after being requested to avoid or discontinue that conduct or similar conduct by a person with a disability being served or assisted by the service animal shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the conduct was initiated or continued maliciously.
(4) A conviction and imposition of a sentence under this section does not prevent a conviction and imposition of a sentence under any other applicable provision of law.
(5) As used in this section:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in any conduct directed toward a service animal described in subsection (1) that is likely to impede or interfere with the service animal's performance of its duties or that places the person with a disability being served or assisted by the service animal in danger of injury.
(b) "Injure" means to cause any physical injury to a service animal described in subsection (1).
(c) "Maliciously" means any of the following:
(i) With intent to assault, beat, harass, or injure a service animal described in subsection (1).
(ii) With intent to impede or interfere with duties performed by a service animal described in subsection (1).
***(iii) With intent to disturb, endanger, or cause emotional distress to a person with a disability being served or assisted by a service animal described in subsection (1).
(iv) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to harass or injure a service animal described in subsection (1).
(v) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to impede or interfere with duties performed by a service animal described in subsection (1).
(vi) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to disturb, endanger, or cause emotional distress to a person with a disability being served or assisted by a service animal described in subsection (1).**** (asterisks added)
(d) "Person with a disability" means a person who has a disability as defined in section 12102 of the Americans with disabilities act of 1990, 42 USC 12102, and 28 CFR 36.104.
(e) As used in subdivision (d), "person with a disability" includes a veteran who has been diagnosed with 1 or more of the following:
(i) Post-traumatic stress disorder.
(ii) Traumatic brain injury.
(iii) Other service-related disabilities.
(f) "Service animal" means all of the following:
(i) That term as defined in 28 CFR 36.104.
(ii) A miniature horse that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks as described in 28 CFR 36.104 for the benefit of a person with a disability.
(g) "Veteran" means any of the following:
(i) A person who performed military service in the armed forces for a period of more than 90 days and separated from the armed forces in a manner other than a dishonorable discharge.
(ii) A person discharged or released from military service because of a service-related disability.
(iii) A member of a reserve branch of the armed forces at the time he or she was ordered to military service during a period of war, or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge is authorized, and was released from military service in a manner other than a dishonorable discharge."

Potter Park Zoo in Violation of ADA and Michigan State Civil Rights/Disability laws...

We are going to war. 

We took our son to Potter Park Zoo in Lansing, MI, this afternoon (07/21/13) for his birthday. When we got to the entrance, they would not permit us to enter the zoo with our son's autism assistance dog without first requiring proof of certification as an assistance dog, as well as proof of all immunizations being up to date. Then, after verifying all of that, we would have had to be accompanied by a guide who would tell us where we could and could not go in the park. The only other option offered was to leave our son's assistance dog in our vehicle - and it was a warm day today. We were given a copy of the park's policy only after we were making our way back to the parking lot.

Now, we like Potter Park Zoo. It is a wonderful facility. 

It also happens to be PUBLICLY OWNED/FUNDED facility - meaning that they must be in full compliance with both federal and state civil rights/disability laws. The ADA specifically states that their policy is illegal, as demonstrated in the revised ADA requirements for service animals:

"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…

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  nless: (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…

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."

(Source: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm)

I tried to explain what both Michigan disability laws and the ADA have to say about this, but they insisted that the park's policy was the primary consideration - regardless of the requirements of the law.

I am at war. I want to make clear that I do not hold the admissions or security employees responsible for what happened. However, I will have some things to say to the zoo's policy makers. To that end I will be contacting media, legislators, and anyone else I can think of until Potter Park Zoo brings its policies in line with the ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. The security guard with whom I spoke, who is also the father of a special needs child, told me that the park has done this many times over the years.  We have taken our son's assistance dog to Boulder Ridge Wildlife Park in Grand Ledge, MI, and to John Ball Zoo in Grand Rapids, MI, without any trouble whatsoever, so this is a first for us.

To say that our son was disappointed would be an understatement. He doesn't usually voice his feelings in his own words; he did so tonight.

***     UPDATE     ***

Autism Assistance Dog Turned Away From Zoo

We are thanking the Lord for the outcome with Potter Park Zoo. The zoo is reviewing and will be re-writing their service animal policy to bring it in line with ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. It has essentially been acknowledged that the chances of a certified, disciplined, controlled, inoculated service animal outside the enclosure of zoo animals passing on disease to those animals is essentially non-existent. And when you stop to think that zoo animals are in constant, close contact with rodents, birds, and other carriers of harmful organisms that actually go in to the enclosures, the argument really didn't hold up.

We received a call from the director of the zoo just before the broadcast apologizing for the zoo's refusal to allow Bryce into the park and for the policies that violate the ADA, specifically those that require patrons to provide documentation of a service animal's certification and health record. They have assured us that we will be contacted when their policies have been re-written, and they have invited us back to the park.

Finally, we would like to thank Joe LaFurgey of WOOD TV for the role he and his camera man played in this. Thank you for your time, effort, and the quality of your report. You have helped open the doors of this zoo to patrons who would otherwise be denied entrance.