15
   

How far do you go to accommodate disabilities?

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 06:43 pm
@Mame,
Ha! Definitely possible. Smile

Have you ever watched "It's Me or The Dog"? Some of those dog owners are absolutely horrible.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 06:43 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
I bet it sleeps with her

The story says that it sleeps on her.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 06:44 pm
@joefromchicago,
Judgment for PLaintiff, with an injunction to abide the event
(since Defendant has raised no Constitutional concerns).
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 06:45 pm
@joefromchicago,
I can't tell what her chief gripe is. One of them seems to be that she isn't allowed to have physical contact with the dog.

The service elevator thing weakens her case, in my opinion, but at the same time I can imagine being annoyed if I wasn't allowed to use the same amenities that others do because of a disability.

Would a seeing-eye dog be allowed to take the regular elevators and use the regular entrance? Why or why not?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 06:49 pm

Note that Joe 's Avatar has significantly improved.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 06:49 pm
I'm mixed on all this but smell a mouse if not a rat. Panic disorder has other treatments than dogs, no? I haven't googled, and I've only had a single panic attack that almost incapacitated me (driving on narrow "road" with no guardrails, no room for two cars on a curve, and a plunge of, oh, a hundred feet or more if I went off that. Later learned that others had.) My last business partner, one of the bravest women I've ever met for other reasons, was afraid of bridges and did appropriate breathing as she drove them. So, my bias is that this is being worked as an issue. Or worked by the psychiatrist or more likely the psychologist in the first place. But of course I don't know.

I see Soz' point re give an inch and then things like ramps wouldn't be required any more.

Ramps are often ugly. I've a good friend who teaches/taught classes to presumptive landarchs/archs re designing with all this in mind.

I once did an at the time I thought nifty design for the landscape for an aids house in LA, back in the mid eighties - I don't know what year, but early. I spent a long time getting the hc ramp to work, as it was just off of the limit of allowed grade. Gave up and did another design that made the ramp much longer and likely more annoying to anyone. I never saw which they built, but got a plaque, etc. Now I look back and think there might have been an exception for the first design, it was only a matter of decimal points, if it went before some committee. I suppose I could have cheated on noting the grades.

So what's next? Pooch gets ill, and dies. She flips.. I question this woman's care, or I question her motives.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 07:18 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
Would a seeing-eye dog be allowed to take the regular elevators and use the regular entrance? Why or why not?

Now, now, you don't really expect me to answer your hypothetical when you haven't answered mine. That wouldn't be fair, would it?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 07:34 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
If she'd been with a less accommodating council, she could have been told to get out.


Not in Canada. Here she could demand accommodation to just before the point that the building would have to declare bankruptcy. No pet buildings aren't holding up well in courts here either. She'd have them coming and going.

The reason I asked about the AKC CGC certification is that in a number of U.S. states, completion of the program means that the dog is no longer considered a dog and can live in no-pet buildings in those states.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 09:34 pm
Here's a summary of the March 15, 2011 changes in the ADA law that applies to service animals:

Title 2

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/factsheets/title2_factsheet.html

Quote:
Service Animals. The rule defines "service animal" as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The rule states that other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify as service animals. Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely for emotional support, are not service animals. The final rule also clarifies that individuals with mental disabilities who use service animals that are trained to perform a specific task are protected by the ADA. The rule permits the use of trained miniature horses as alternatives to dogs, subject to certain limitations. To allow flexibility in situations where using a horse would not be appropriate, the final rule does not include miniature horses in the definition of "service animal."


Title 3

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/factsheets/title3_factsheet.html

Quote:
Service Animals. The rule defines "service animal" as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The rule states that other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify as service animals. Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely for emotional support, are not service animals. The final rule also clarifies that individuals with mental disabilities who use service animals that are trained to perform a specific task are protected by the ADA. The rule permits the use of trained miniature horses as alternatives to dogs, subject to certain limitations. To allow flexibility in situations where using a horse would not be appropriate, the final rule does not include miniature horses in the definition of "service animal."
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 09:39 pm
@ehBeth,
According to the CHMC in Alberta...

Pets and Smoking

May a landlord refuse to rent to a tenant who has pets or smokes?

Yes, a landlord may refuse to rent to a tenant who has pets or smokes. If smoking and pets are allowed in the tenancy agreement then they are permitted in the rental unit.

If a no pets and no smoking clause is written into a lease and the landlord discovers that the tenant has a pet and/or smokes in the rental unit, is this grounds for the landlord to evict the tenant?

The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) outlines the reasons a landlord may terminate a tenancy. Pets/smoking are not included in the list. However, no pet/no smoking policies can be enforced if spelled out in a lease and agreed upon in writing by both parties. If a tenant breaches the rental agreement by having a pet or smoking in the rental premises, the landlord could apply to the courts or the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service to end the tenancy.

~~~~ and in BC...

Pets and Smoking

May a landlord refuse to rent to a tenant who has pets or smokes?

A landlord may refuse to rent to a tenant who has pets or smokes. If smoking and pets are allowed in the tenancy agreement, or the agreement does not address these issues, then they are permitted in the rental unit.

If a no pets and no smoking clause is written into a lease and the landlord discovers that the tenant has a pet and/or smokes in the rental unit, is this grounds for the landlord to evict the tenant?

Terms stating "no smoking and no pets" in the tenancy agreement signed by the tenant are legally binding as long as they specify the type of pets that are restricted, for example “no pets such as dogs or cats”.

If a landlord discovers that the tenant is in violation of the rental agreement either by acquiring a pet, or by smoking, a written warning (called a breach letter) must be issued. The letter must state that the tenant must comply with the rental agreement, or the tenant will face eviction if they either do not get rid of the pet within a reasonable period of time, or if they do not stop smoking in the rental unit.

The termination process cannot begin until the landlord has issued the breach letter.
~~~~~

I don't know if she rents or owns in that building, but owners of condos are regulated by their Condo By-Laws, and these differ from condo to condo... and any tenants of those condos have to abide by the same by-laws.

I would think that if reasonable action is taken by the condo council on a request like this, courts would throw out a spurious lawsuit (such as Ms. Stevens').
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 09:41 pm
Something fishy is going on here; what happens if this dog dies? Seems to me there should be a trial or test to see how she reacts when the dog is put into the cage - outside of the building - then inside, with a psychiatrist in tow.
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 09:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The same thing that happens when a person's seeing eye dog dies. A trained and compatible replacement is found.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 10:37 pm
@Butrflynet,
I'm not so sure this dog will be easily replaced, if it can react to emotional distress by the owner.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 10:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
This is one of many places that trains such dogs:

http://www.servicedogsupply.com/default.asp?SID=xEGDGNAE9QBJM9MTT492ZB&S=E3&Document=Service+Dog+Types&NID=6764173

Quote:
Psychiatric Service Dog: Assistant dog that works with a handler that has a mental disability. Some types of tasks could be to attend a handler who may need a dog to be able to go out in public (agoraphobic), or a handler who suffers from panic attacks, anxiety attack, PTS (post traumatic stress) or other mental disorders. These dogs are trained NEVER to leave their handler's side
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2011 11:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm not so sure this dog will be easily replaced, if it can react to emotional distress by the owner.
U r displaying your IGNORANCE of biology
and of English grammar, here imposter.

All dogs r mammals.
Mammals can be only male or female; mammals cannot be of neuter gender.
Except for the fact that some insects r of neuter gender,
only such lifeless objects as rocks or water r neuter gender.
U have shown that u r ignorant of that; well, now u know.

In English, males have the pronoun of: "he"
whereas females have the pronoun of: "she"
and rocks have the pronoun of "it".
Get the idea?? Its not hard.

I assume that u r not of neuter gender,
but that is your personal business, and I want nothing to do with it.





David
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2011 06:28 am
@joefromchicago,
My hypothetical actually has something to do with this situation. But I'll play along.

joefromchicago wrote:
But let's suppose that one of the building's residents is deathly afraid of dogs -- so afraid, in fact, that any proximity to a dog causes him to go into a panic attack. And he specifically chose to live in the building because of its no-pets policy. Now, Ms. Stevens wants to walk her dog on a leash in the building's common areas because if she's not near her dog, she gets panic attacks. So who gets accommodated?


That'd be tricky for sure. Good thing there is a vanishingly small chance of that happening -- two specific rare disabilities that happen to land in the exact same condo. There are ways to do it, though. I've had experience with offsetting disabilities when it comes to blind and deaf people (one is visual-based, one is auditory-based, and what makes things easier for one often makes things harder for another).

However, that has very little to do with this actual situation. In this situation, there isn't someone with an offsetting disability in the same building. There is one person who may or may not have a disability. She may be in the blind person with a seeing eye dog category, or not.

Which leads to: Would a seeing-eye dog be allowed to take the regular elevators and use the regular entrance? Why or why not?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2011 08:12 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
That'd be tricky for sure. Good thing there is a vanishingly small chance of that happening -- two specific rare disabilities that happen to land in the exact same condo. There are ways to do it, though. I've had experience with offsetting disabilities when it comes to blind and deaf people (one is visual-based, one is auditory-based, and what makes things easier for one often makes things harder for another).

Well, that was ... unsatisfactory.

sozobe wrote:
However, that has very little to do with this actual situation.

No, you're wrong. We have a person who wants to ride the regular elevator with her dog, because forcing her to ride in the service elevator makes her feel like a second-class resident. But to accommodate her feelings, do we force the resident who is panic-stricken at the sight of a dog to ride in the service elevator instead? In short, at what point do demands for this sort of "equality" become too burdensome for the rest of the residents?

sozobe wrote:
Which leads to: Would a seeing-eye dog be allowed to take the regular elevators and use the regular entrance? Why or why not?

I have no idea, given that I don't know anything about the layout of the building. If it would be difficult for a blind person, even with the aid of a dog, to get to the service elevator, then I think she should be allowed to ride the regular elevator. If not, I don't see why the service elevator shouldn't be an option.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2011 08:30 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
sozobe wrote:
However, that has very little to do with this actual situation.

No, you're wrong. We have a person who wants to ride the regular elevator with her dog, because forcing her to ride in the service elevator makes her feel like a second-class resident. But to accommodate her feelings, do we force the resident who is panic-stricken at the sight of a dog to ride in the service elevator instead?


This person does not exist in this situation, however.

joefromchicago wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Which leads to: Would a seeing-eye dog be allowed to take the regular elevators and use the regular entrance? Why or why not?

I have no idea, given that I don't know anything about the layout of the building. If it would be difficult for a blind person, even with the aid of a dog, to get to the service elevator, then I think she should be allowed to ride the regular elevator. If not, I don't see why the service elevator shouldn't be an option.


I think you are on very shaky footing there, legally. I'm fairly certain (from things posted here and my own experience) that legally, a seeing eye dog is not considered an animal -- they are basically the same as a cane or a hearing aid. They are assistive devices. So the owner should be allowed the same access (front door, regular elevator) as other people.

My bias here, and yes I have a bias, is that I spent a lot of time advocating for accommodations for people with disabilities. (And have been an advocate for myself as well.) Over and over again, accommodations that caused people to wail and gnash their teeth and often needed to be nudged along with threats of legal action (or they wouldn't make the accommodations) ended up being -- no big deal. Profoundly not a big deal. I was usually nice about it and never actually brought in the big guns, just let things drop about what the law is, just in case they weren't aware of course. Once everything was settled I frequently got apologies and variations thereof. More hires of disabled workers because the accommodations were already in place and they were such good workers with those accommodations, such a great attitude. Etc.

I definitely think there is a limit -- accommodations can only go so far.

Since there is no person in this situation who is deathly afraid of dogs, I don't think there is any reason for a person with a seeing-eye dog to not be able to use the entrances and elevators that other people use.

This is not a person with a seeing-eye dog, and if she is not in fact disabled, that makes a difference.

That has to do with whether she's actually disabled, though, not with whether the fellow-residents should have to deal with a dog in their elevator on occasion.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2011 09:28 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
This person does not exist in this situation, however.

As far as we know.

joefromchicago wrote:
I think you are on very shaky footing there, legally. I'm fairly certain (from things posted here and my own experience) that legally, a seeing eye dog is not considered an animal -- they are basically the same as a cane or a hearing aid. They are assistive devices. So the owner should be allowed the same access (front door, regular elevator) as other people.

Barring any competing interests.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2011 09:35 am
@sozobe,
You're winning me over here. If an officially licensed and trained service animal is the same legally as a cane, then what would you do if a resident is irrationally fearful of canes? Would you force a resident with a cane to use a service elevator to accomodate the resident who fears canes? Why wouldn't the fearful resident just give the cane wielding resident a wide berth and ride the next elevator? It does seem like if I object to being around the lady's dog, I could avoid her fairly easily even if on very rare occasions I had to wait for the elevator.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2019 at 03:45:24