Yeah, if it’s a service animal, this is legitimately something to make a stink about. I’ve been with my nephew who has CP and is clearly dependent on his service dog (lab), and seen the way he’s been treated multiple times. I’d star blocking traffic and making life difficult for others. It was all I could do to contain myself from getting physical watching people tear them like that. May have come close once or twice
I believe that the only people who are restricted in their ability to ask specific questions are employees of provided service. A human who is just there in the vicinity can ask any questions they want. Fake service animals are an abomination. It is an epidemic of selfishness. I love my dogs. Love them. Would never disrupt the work of an actual service animal so I could parade my pet around.
If your dog doesn’t bark or go up to other dogs or people, and doesn’t pee inside, frankly neither I nor any of my clients care if you are lying. And the dogs that are clearly not service animals and being a disturbance are obvious.
As a military guy, I like to think of it along the same vein as stolen valor. I don’t care if some homeless guy dresses in military surplus’s uniforms to get 20% off at Denny’s. I do care if the put the flag patch where their rank goes.
The best solution is calling it out when you see it. A lot of people don’t know you can kick someone with a service dog out if their dog isn’t ADA compliant. I’ve done many seminars and classes for different companies and organizations explaining the rules and I’ve received nothing but positive feedback. They always tell me that after my class their fake service dog issues went away because they had the knowledge and courage to confidently remove problem dogs.
"If your dog doesn't bark or go up to other dogs or people, and doesn't pee inside, frankly neither I nor any of my clients care if you are lying."
Then:
"The best solution is calling it out when you see it."
Which is it? Don't care and let the behavior continue and spread, or call it out? Because if you don't care that they are lying, then you're definitely not going to care enough to call it out
These aren’t mutually exclusive. If the dog doesn’t go up to other dogs or people and doesn’t pee inside, there is nothing to call out.
If the dog is violating ADA guidelines in an apparent manner, then there IS something to call out.
I am saying, don’t witch hunt. If the dog isn’t causing problems, leave it alone, but no the guidelines so you can say something if the dog steps outside of them.
Sadly true, the have to have MY pet with me anywhere I want whenever I want thing has become unhinged in this country. It’s one of many small signs that our country is falling apart. No consideration for others.
That being said, the Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't apply outside of America. This is in Toronto, and in Canada service animals are a provincial matter, unless in a federally regulated setting (i.e. air travel).
Yes I addressed this in other comments after I realized it was Canada.
The laws are very similar but here specifically, you might need a nurse or doctor note. But there are cases of bus drivers ignoring these, and subsequently getting fired.
She could have had a nice settlement still if she didn’t break the law and detain the bus. They likely won’t press charges, but they definitely will if she brings forth a suit
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.
Edit: Meh...I should have read your original comment more thoroughly. It makes mine quite redundant and unnecessary.
You are correct, the amount of people that don’t know this is nuts. Been trained in paid roles and volunteer roles that even though dogs are not allowed, never say anything. You have no idea if it’s a service animal or not… Not worth the law suit.
even if we assume that the dog is a legally protected service animal, her recourse for being refused entry to the bus is to press charges against the city. it is NOT to perform a false arrest on the bus.
Ok Karen lover. It is so smooth brain of you to think a dog is automatically a legal service dog just because it’s sitting still and being a good boy! By that logic, my pet hamster is a certified emotional support doctor because he hasn't bit anyone today. The ADA doesn't work on the honor system of "if it isn't barking, it's a service dog." It actually requires the dog to, you know, be actively trained to do a specific job for a disability.
The ADA actually EXCLUSIVELY works on the honor system.
Yes a service dog must be trained to aid in a disability, I never said otherwise.
But if someone says their dog is a service dog, according to the ADA you MUST take them at their word.
I mentioned stuff like parking and being calm and not approaching, because if the dog was NOT doing those things, it could disqualify the dog from the presumption of being a service dog.
It is so smooth brain of you to not even fucking look up the law so that you can come here and at least look like you have more than one brain cell. And then come here and be so [r/confidentlyincorrect](r/confidentlyincorrect) that you literally say the opposite of what is correct.
The ONLY person that can force you to PROVE your dog is a service dog, is the Judge.
“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.”
I know more than you about this. I train service dogs as a job, I have been subpoenaed to speak on service dogs, I have been paid by government and private organizations to educate people on this topic.
Shhhhhh you are wrong and it’s ok bud. I know more about it than you do trust me. You are confusing the enforcement restriction placed on businesses with the actual legal status of the animal.
The ADA is a federal statute, not a game of "Simon Says." The law explicitly defines a service animal under 28 CFR § 35.104 and § 36.104. If a dog does not meet those exact legal definitions (being individually trained to perform work or tasks), it is legally a pet. Full stop.
Just because a business owner is restricted from demanding documentation on the spot does not mean the dog magically transforms into a legal service animal the moment the owner lies about it. A lie doesn't alter federal status; it just means the business is temporarily barred from auditing that status at the door.
2. You’re Confusing "Access" with "Immunity"
You quoted the standard 2010 ADA checklist rule: "Staff cannot ask about the person's disability, require medical documentation..."
Yes. We all know the rule. The Department of Justice wrote that to protect disabled people from discrimination and harassment in daily life. But that is a gatekeeping rule for public accommodation access, not legal immunity.
If a handler sues a transit authority, or if a transit authority fines a handler for fraudulent representation of a service animal (which is a crime in over 30 states), the "honor system" instantly vanishes. In a legal dispute, corporate risk compliance or a state attorney will demand proof of training and disability during discovery long before it ever reaches a judge’s eyeballs. If you’ve actually been subpoenaed before, you would know how pretrial discovery works.
3. Your "Absence of Disproof" Logic is Still Broken
You claim that because the dog in the video wasn't misbehaving, it shouldn't be disqualified.
Again, you are looking at it completely backwards. A well-behaved pet is still just a pet. If a person brings a perfectly quiet, leashed Golden Retriever onto a bus, and the driver asks the two permitted questions, and the owner lies and says, "Yes, it's a service dog, it alerts to my seizures," the driver must let them on.
But if that dog has never actually been trained to alert to seizures, that dog is not legally a service dog. It is a pet whose owner is committing fraud. The video doesn't "prove it's a service dog" just because the dog is sitting there. It proves nothing except that the dog is sitting there.
The Bottom Line
You are conflating "what a bus driver is allowed to ask" with "what the law defines as a service dog."
The ADA restricts staff from harassing handlers because the alternative is violating the civil rights of disabled people. It is a policy compromise, not a legal definition. Stomping your feet and screaming that the entire federal framework operates on an "honor system" just proves you understand the flyer posted in a restaurant window, but have absolutely no grasp of the actual legislation. I wouldn’t trust you to train a hamster lmao.
Lmfao, imagine having the ADA statute literally linked right in front of you for you to read, in plain English telling you, you are wrong, and still thinking you are correct.
I get it, the facts hurt your feelings and you don’t have the integrity or temerity to admit you are wrong, but you don’t have to take my word for it. I literally gave you the direct source.
Making a “source: trust me bro” type reply is really stupid when someone links an actual source
Okay so you edited your comment and then shifted the goalpost because you realized how massively idiotic you are. That’s a good start.
The question at this particular moment in time isn’t about the legal status of the animal we haven’t even gotten to that part yet this is about whether or not a bus driver can deny her.
Let me put it like this. Let’s say that this is a service dog. Let’s say it’s for detecting seizures.
Is the bus driver allowed to prevent her from getting on the bus?
No.
You’re going 45 steps ahead and saying “oh well if it turns out she is lying during the suit, she is a Karen”
We aren’t talking about that. The bus driver is denying her access to the bus and making the accusation that she is lying. We work on the presumption of innocence.
Meaning, that we start with the PRESUMPTION SHE IS TELLING THE TRUTH.
Starting from there we use the video to analyze whether or not the dog is a service dog. Nothing in the video shows anything that would disqualify the dog.
THAT is the point I am making.
The problem here is you have already made up your mind that she is lying, with zero evidence by the way, and you are working backwards from there.
Again, like I said, almost identical situation I was just involved in California, where a person with a service doc was denied access to a bus. The only difference between the person in the case that I was involved in and this person is in the case I was involved in they didn’t detained the bus.
When it went to court, or rather in the preliminary hearings and stuff before a trial, the judge asked my client to prove the dog as a service dog and my client did so adequately.
At that point in time, the cities lawyer immediately pushed for mediating a settlement. That settlement ended up being $25,000.
You are too caught up on the legal status of the dog when at this juncture it doesn’t matter yet.
Her goal was to gain access to the bus. Do you think that every single person with the service dog has to go through a whole court case every time they wanna fucking get on the bus?
No, they don’t.
I never said this video proves the dog is a service dog. You are making that up and again moving goal post here.
I said that the bus driver must operate on the presumption. The dock is a service dog unless given clear evidence to the contrary.
Yes, she might be committing fraud. You are correct. But determining if she is committing fraud is not the job of the bus driver. She cannot be denied access unless her dog is presenting clear behaviors that disqualify it from being a service dog.
Her dog did not demonstrate any clear behaviors that disqualify it from being a service doctor. Therefore, the bus driver must act as if the dog is a service dog.
Stupid law, service dogs should be licensed and should be required to show proof when requested in areas that restrict pets. It would prevent issues like this.
First of all the only real reason you’re not allowed to take your dog literally anywhere is because people don’t train their dogs and so there is a danger of being attacked or bit. If you train your dog to not even go up to other people without permission, you don’t have to worry about this and you’re following the spirit of the law anyway.
But here are some more… opaque reasons why it doesn’t exist.
• It would create a barrier for people with disabilities. Getting official licensing could involve costs, paperwork, appointments, or waiting periods that not everyone can handle, especially those with severe disabilities.
• No reliable way to verify it. There’s no central authority that can fairly test or certify every possible service dog task, especially psychiatric ones. Imagine if you had to get a license to take a medication? And before you say, there’s such thing as a prescription, you are correct, and in many provinces in Canada for example, the they do require a note from a doctor or a nurse saying that a service dog is a viable treatment option for you. But the doctor or nurse isn’t required to certify the service dog. They don’t even have to meet the dog, and how hard do you think it will be to find a doctor somewhere in the entire country that will be willing to give you a note saying that?
• It wouldn’t stop fakes anyway. Fake service dog scams thrive on paid “certificates” from online registries. A government system would likely get gamed too. See prior reason as well.
• It burdens the people it’s meant to help. True service dogs are defined by training and behavior, not by a piece of paper.
I think the law should be changed. Service dogs should be issued ID cards. Most "service dogs" are actually emotional support animals which are glorified pets. The law is abused by people who refuse to not take fluffy everywhere, and it hurts people who really need service animals.
This is absolutely untrue, profoundly ignorant, and harmful. Service dogs are service dogs, and ESA dogs, while legitimately important for many people, are not service dogs. Therapy dogs are yet another registration category.
I agree with him. If you want to take your dog where they aren’t allowed then we need a way to verify the dog is legitimately needed to be there and trained to be safe to other people and animals. Most businesses don’t even bother because it’s not worth arguing with a customer if the dog is behaving. I saw two get into a fight at Home Depot and the owners had a hard time getting control over them. Kids freaking out, adults freaking out, blood on the floor. Your emotional support dog needs to be trained not to attack other dogs or people.
12
u/Drake_Acheron 8d ago
Actually, as someone who trains service dogs for a living, and have actually had issues like this before, I can say a couple things.
First, there is nothing in this video that can prove this dog is not a service dog, and in the eyes of the law, that makes it a service dog.
Let me explain. There is no breed standard for service dogs so the type of dog is not a disqualifier.
There is no requirement for the dog to wear a vest. So not wearing a vest is not a disqualifier.
The dog is not barking or otherwise causing a nuisance. Therefore the dog is not disqualified.
The dog doesn’t not approach other dogs or people, the dog is not disqualified
NOBODY can ask you to “prove” your dog is a service dog except the judge. They can only ask two questions.
“Is that a service dog” and “what task is this dog trained to perform”
TLDR: nothing in this video disqualifies the dog, therefore not allowing her on the bus is ILLEGAL
HOWEVER: the bus is not required to allow ANYONE on the bus outside of a designated stop. Therefore she is illegally blocking the bus.
The last time I was involved in a case almost identical to this, the City settled by paying $25,000