Oxford Diner Owner Says Veteran, Service Dog Not Welcome In Restaurant

[talisman]

Yeah, I just did some more reading here: http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII...egulations.pdf

That answered my questions. The business owner cannot deny service due to the disability or the service animal. He can only ask 2 questions relating to it: (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. He cannot demand any additional information, documentation, certification, etc. He also cannot inquire as to the nature of the disability.

So this ends up much like the whole "employment at will" thing in Texas. You can fire anyone for any reason, other than those otherwise protected. So in this case, the restaurant can deny service to anyone other than those protected under the ADA (or any other discrimination type protective laws).

I certainly learned something new today!

In my "lay" opinion the business owner definitely violated the ADA and could be subjected to pretty substantial fines and civil liability.

BTW, nothing I read even requires that a service animal have the vest thingy or any particular harness. And hell, the fact that the business cannot question the validity of the dog being a service animal tells me that pretty much anyone could get over by claiming protection under the ADA. Of course, they would not have any civil or legal remedies should the business violate the ADA rules.

Can you elaborate?

[8mpg]

Yeah, I just did some more reading here: http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII...egulations.pdf

That answered my questions. The business owner cannot deny service due to the disability or the service animal. He can only ask 2 questions relating to it: (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. He cannot demand any additional information, documentation, certification, etc. He also cannot inquire as to the nature of the disability.

So this ends up much like the whole "employment at will" thing in Texas. You can fire anyone for any reason, other than those otherwise protected. So in this case, the restaurant can deny service to anyone other than those protected under the ADA (or any other discrimination type protective laws).

I certainly learned something new today!

In my "lay" opinion the business owner definitely violated the ADA and could be subjected to pretty substantial fines and civil liability.

BTW, nothing I read even requires that a service animal have the vest thingy or any particular harness. And hell, the fact that the business cannot question the validity of the dog being a service animal tells me that pretty much anyone could get over by claiming protection under the ADA. Of course, they would not have any civil or legal remedies should the business violate the ADA rules.

According to the 2nd article he threw the guy out for feeding the dog off the restaurant plate. ADA or not, that is means to throw someone out.

[Forever_frost]

According to the 2nd article he threw the guy out for feeding the dog off the restaurant plate. ADA or not, that is means to throw someone out.

Nope, not according to the ADA. "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."

[VaderTT]

Fuck dogs!








I do.

[Chili]

According to the 2nd article he threw the guy out for feeding the dog off the restaurant plate. ADA or not, that is means to throw someone out.

That happened the previous time the guy was in there, and he didn't throw him out then. On the second visit, had he told him he was not welcome because he had previously witnessed him feeding the dog off the plate, there would not be a conflict with the ADA. Or had he thrown him out when he witnessed it the first time.

The one loophole he may have had, had he asked the right questions allowed by the ADA, is that per the link that Frost provided the law specifies:

Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

So if when the restaurant owner asked what work or task the dog was trained to perform, the customer only said "to provide emotional support", he could have booted him.

[KBScobravert]

Can you elaborate?

[KBScobravert]

According to the 2nd article he threw the guy out for feeding the dog off the restaurant plate. ADA or not, that is means to throw someone out.

Nope, not according to the ADA. "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."

Now it will boil down to the legal definition of "housebroken".

I guess the owner felt that act was unsanitary and unruly or not housebroken. Because who lets their dogs eat of off their plates.

[Captain Crawfish]

The dog eating off the plates I'm sorry fug that. That would ruin a lot of business and 1 hair in my food I'm never coming back.

[8mpg]

That happened the previous time the guy was in there, and he didn't throw him out then. On the second visit, had he told him he was not welcome because he had previously witnessed him feeding the dog off the plate, there would not be a conflict with the ADA. Or had he thrown him out when he witnessed it the first time.

The one loophole he may have had, had he asked the right questions allowed by the ADA, is that per the link that Frost provided the law specifies:



So if when the restaurant owner asked what work or task the dog was trained to perform, the customer only said "to provide emotional support", he could have booted him.

Interesting point on the emotional support dogs..

[Groundpounder91]

Another Vet with a free dog for "Emotional Help" story. Embarrassing...........

[KBScobravert]

Another Vet with a free dog for "Emotional Help" story. Embarrassing...........

He served 2 Air Force tours in Iraq as (21 years in service) as a senior NCO. I bet he didn't have carpet in his wet-CHU and it was hard.

Can't think of too many jobs for a senior NCO that would take him even within 100yrds of the perimeter.

[ceyko]

He served 2 Air Force tours in Iraq as (21 years in service) as a senior NCO. I bet he didn't have carpet in his wet-CHU and it was hard.

Can't think of too many jobs for a senior NCO that would take him even within 100yrds of the perimeter.

Ya got a point there. Never know for sure, but I know AF people killed other branch morale just by only being there half the time. 2 tours is everyone else's 1 tour.

Edit: To clarify - where AF people were assigned to work with the other branches...etc...etc

[KBScobravert]

There are military moral dogs on base here, probably 10-15 at least along with all the other K9's. I have never seen a single handler bring their dog in the DFAC/Chowhall. Not sure if it is a standard that the government doesn't want them in there or not. Never really though about it until this thread.

[talisman]

There are military moral dogs on base here, probably 10-15 at least along with all the other K9's. I have never seen a single handler bring their dog in the DFAC/Chowhall. Not sure if it is a standard that the government doesn't want them in there or not. Never really though about it until this thread.

That's really cool.