Hacker News Reader

Comment by CydeWeys | Hacker News Reader

"They will yell at you and tell you that you can’t legally ask them if they are disabled."

This isn't true, by the way. Businesses aren't allowed to verify the legitimacy of a service animal because that's seen as discrimination, which is most of the problem in itself as it allows any random person to buy a $10 vest from Amazon and use it as a "bring animal everywhere free" card.

But there's nothing prohibiting random people like you or me from questioning the legitimacy of a service animal, and if someone gets super defensive about that question, odds are good that it is indeed a fake service animal.

View on HN

In what way is verifying the service animal is legitimate discrimination by any metric? Said person has already announced their disability by bringing the animal, the business is clearly willing to serve them, I don’t see a remote argument to the contrary.

> (6) Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person's disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person's wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).

28 CFR § 36.302(c)(6) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302

Seems to me that there should be a corresponding responsibility not to knowingly misrepresent an animal as a service animal. Seems like something that should be criminal, to me.

28 CFR § 36.302(f)(8) says,

> Investigation of fraud. A public accommodation may investigate the potential misuse of accessible seating where there is good cause to believe that such seating has been purchased fraudulently.

I don't know if there are any remedies available beyond civil tort and contract money damages, nor what the applicable criminal statute would be, if any. Seems like a complex area of law, but from reading bits of legal commentary dredged up with Google I get the impression that the government is deliberately erring on the side of reducing friction for the legitimately disabled and are well aware of the unintended consequence of increased fraud.

This happens in the concert scene. I was in a fan community where there was a spill of drama over someone feigned a disablement to get disabled seating tickets. They were outed and it was messy.

Love it when people say "Odds are..." based off anecdotal information and no data whatsoever.

I have a service animal, and honestly it's emotionally exhausting to have random people start yelling at you. Even when I drop everyone to go digging through my phone for documentation, half the time they kick us out anyway.

It's a weird experience when your well trained service animal is kicked out of a NYC McDonald's that has people openly shooting up in the bathroom. Like, which of these is the bigger public health issue.

For those with poorly trained animals, or people just pretending, we do need a better system though.

"and if someone gets super defensive about that question, odds are good that it is indeed a fake service animal."

Or maybe they don't want to defend their right to a service animal to every single person that asks and thinks their animal is fake? This strategy might unveil some fakers, but it is also incredibly derisive to those with these animals to be lumped into the same group as fakers.

Give the service animal a "license plate" that can be verified on a government website? I guess they could be copied or falsified fairly easily.

chip it.

Unless you're going to put chip readers in every place of public accommodation, this won't help much.

it wouldn't be hard or expensive for places that care about allowing service animals to get a chip reader.

Every place of public accommodation, i.e. all businesses, are required to allow service animals. "Caring" isn't optional.

many places don't care to exclude pets at all. they don't care. many places might decide its not worth caring about if its a real service animal or not. they don't care. the only places that care are the places that would want to actively exclude non service animals.

but theres no official body to certify them. first youd have to come up with what counts and what doesnt.

at the moment anyone can start up a certification business. its like being ordained.

Legislate everything is not the answer. Bus that's prob what's going to happen.

To clarify, I was speaking about the business. I have no problems confronting people about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com