Dillard’s ejected disabled Army Staff Sergeant J. Alex Gozalez and his service dog Mason for violating the store’s no animals policy. The store manager did not believe that Gonzalez is disabled because he is neither blind nor deaf. Gonzalez uses Mason—who wore a vest reading: “SERVICE DOG – DO NOT PET”—to help keep his balance.
When Gonzalez explained that he is disabled and was training Mason to help him, the manager responded that dogs were not allowed in the store and that Gonzalez would be escorted out, Gonzalez said.
The manager was “very firm, and I felt embarrassed and ashamed,” Gonzalez said. “I felt like I was disrespected.”
Dillard’s officials say Gonzalez never identified himself as disabled and only indicated that he was training the dog.
“On a daily basis Dillard’s welcomes customers with service dogs into many of its stores across the country,” Johnson said.
“If a person wishes to seek to train a dog in a Dillard’s department store, the respective store manager needs to be contacted so that the best time can be established for both parties.”
After leaving the store, Gonzalez contacted Hurst police. Officers talked with Gonzalez and the manager and determined that the dispute was a civil matter. Police say there was a report of the dog causing a disturbance in the store, which gives the business owner a right to ask the animal to leave.
However, if a business owner is suspected of discriminating against a disabled person with a service animal, the business owner can be ticketed for misdemeanor discrimination, police said.
A Dillard’s District Manager called Gonzalez the next day to profusely apologize for his store’s insensitive disregard for the Americans With Disabilities Act. Gonzalez was unmoved, and claims that he will never shop at Dillard’s again: “I felt embarrassed, low. I’m over here accepting my disability in public, and you are going to mock and harass me?”
Store boots disabled vet and his service dog [Star-Tribune]
(Photo: D.J. Peters/Star-Tribune)
More From Consumerist
-
Veteran Claims Anti-War Landlord Discriminated Against Him In Refusing Him An Apartment
-
Guy Figures If He Boots His Own Car, Thieves Won’t Be So Tempted To Steal It
-
Restaurant Says ‘No Pets,’ Tries To Make Iraq Vet And Her Service Dog Leave
-
Flying The Friendly Skies Friday: The Happiest of Birthdays; Upgrades For Everybody
-
Help Us, Obi Wan Kenobi: EA Signs Deal With Disney To Publish New Star Wars Games
@Buran:
Let me say I certainly did not intend to infer that businesses should be able to exclude the disabled. What I did intend to say was that the ADA places some pretty heavy burdens on private business owners, and its protections should be tightly controlled to ensure that someone who slaps a “Service Animal” vest on their dog can’t wrongly infringe upon the private business owners right to exclude animals. The only way that right should/can be infringed upon is under a legitimate ADA situation. I certainly believe the ADA serves a valuable purpose in the community, and should be strictly, but carefully, enforced.
I also still believe that the issue here is the fact the dog was not a “Service Animal” yet, it was in training, and under Texas law, given the circumstances, he had no right to impose the dog on the store. As TrollKiller pointed out, there is no certification required, but it does say “Trained”, not “in training” or “being trained”. It implies that the dog IS properly trained already. I agree with Trollkiller’s interpretation of the “individual training” clause, however I think that in the interest of society, such clause should be interpreted to mean professionally trained, not trained by you and a DVD. I just feel such a lax reading could lead to problems. I’m curious as to what the courts have said about that provision. Perhaps I’ll look it up this afternoon and see if I can find a court interpretation of it.
@Buran: “You can’t exclude disabled people from your business…”
But that’s not what happened here. The issue wasn’t “you can’t be here because you’re disabled” but apparently “your dog is misbehaving in our store, please leave.” Yes, service animals are permitted by law, but this was not a service animal. This was someone’s pet that he was training, by himself, to help him. The guy even admitted that his dog is “rambunctious” at times, not a trait that is usually associated with a trained service dog.
It seems like accounts of what happened differ: according to Dillard’s, the veteran did not identify himself as disabled, only insisting that he was training the dog (and Dillard’s has a policy in place for helping train service dogs that he was not following), I don’t think the manager’s actions were unreasonable. Even if he explained that he was disabled, that doesn’t automatically grant you a free license to take your non-certified service-dog-in-training everywhere you go. It’s clear that in Texas the service dog-in-training needs to be accompanied by an official service agency trainer.
My dog is laying under my desk at my feet.
My business allows PETS to visit the workplace.
So I am a pretty open minded guy about doggies and their owners.
Properly trained service dogs for the blind and deaf tend to be fairly well behaved dogs.
Regardless of how well trained, it is the responsibility of the dog owner to keep his/her dog under control. Any violation of such control is going to get the owner and the dog sent to the dog pound.
Retail stores have a right and obligation to protect their customers from dogs that don’t behave or cause a problem. Secondly, way too many people are using “service animals”. Sorry, I am open minded about dogs visiting a business, but don’t lie and call a dog a “service dog” just because you think you can get away with it.
@Beerad: Argh. Hey Consumerist, why’d you take away the posting feature where you could see how your comments will appear as you type them? Now it’s harder to proofread and edit out my stupid grammatical errors. Booooo.
@Beerad:
Same here
I had also heard quite a few service dogs chosen don’t make the cut. My problem with this guy is he is forcing his will onto the dog when he has no significant training to do so.
In one of my classes we watched a medical procedure (facelift) being done start to finish. I can go online and research face lifts. In no way does that make me trained to perform that surgery on myself or others. Yet, this guy reads some stuff online, watches a dvd, and all of a sudden he is able to train a service animal? If that is the case, there needs to be more protection for animals from people like him. The next step will be someone claiming to know how to do veterinary services and perform them on their dog in order to save money because they watched a dvd.
Maybe this dog wasn’t meant to be a service dog–what then? Is he going to abandon the dog or continue to force it to do what he wants. How does he discipline the dog?
I feel bad for this dog.
@trollkiller: I must not be understanding something, I thought if you were in violation of a federal statute it was a federal offense.
I am a Health Admin major and I’ve only taken the Law of Healthcare, so everything is a federal offense.
Any lawyers feel free to correct me.
@sibertater: It may very well be a federal offense just not a criminal offense.
Civil infractions like a traffic ticket or ADA infraction is in essence the state (Govt) suing you.
Basically, and I am sure there are a few exceptions, if you can’t go to jail then it is civil.
@gingerCE: Pretty far reach between a medical procedure and training a dog.
I am sure the dog is fine, looks healthy in the photo.
@GitEmSteveDave: I was wondering why the dog was wearing boots too. Talk about a letdown.
I honestly think this is another case of a disabled person abusing their status. I understand that it is illegal to discriminate disabled people and I have compassion for them, but he never told Dillard’s he was disabled and he seems really too disturbed by the incident. Was he really being “mocked and harassed”, or were the store owners just kicking out a loud dog?
@Rectilinear Propagation: Too bad the words “I’m upset” have never appeared on this page, otherwise your smart ass quip would have some valor to it. Just be quiet if you don’t know what you’re talking about. I said we conform to them enough, never did I complain about the shelves in general. So, in light of this new evidence, I have no choice but to believe that you are, in fact, stupid. Case closed.
Eyebrows has it wrong. There are a LOT of owner-trainers of service dogs out there. Every owner-trainer has to start with a young dog because of the socialization required (which is why he was training the dog in public).
Dog training is not rocket science. I was training my own dog out of a book at 8 years old. What it does take is commitment, focus, and a willingness to change your own behavior, and HARD WORK. Disabled people have been training dogs to assist them for centuries. How dare claim some able-bodied person who knows nothing about disability knows better than I what I need?
Anybody can call themselves a professional dog trainer if they can get somebody to pay them for advice. Same thing for service dog trainers. Many dog trainers just want to train service dogs, without knowing anything about disability. I hear it all the time. “I want to train dogs… and service dogs!”
Most of those have no actual understanding of how disability affects their client’s lives and how the dog will actually work for the client. They can overlook very important gaps in the dog’s education as a consequence. I invite you to read this.
[www.northstardogs.com]
Many EXPERIENCED service dog users who have had program dogs choose to train their own dog because they know exactly what they want in a dog and how to work a dog in public.
The reality is, it is the disabled partner who transforms the dog to a service dog. The dog must work for the partner, and the partner must be ready to retrain the dog to a balance that fits their needs and temperament.
My dog who I temperament tested carefully at 8 months old out of a shelter turned out to be a great hearing ear dog AND a medical alert dog.
I’ve even trusted him to guide me when I couldn’t see. But then, I picked him for brains and that certain vibe that said we could work together well. He learned sign quickly,and he started working for me in less than a month, although that first month or two I was simply focused on giving him more than 200 hours of socialization and letting him be a puppy and explore the world at his own pace.
Some people are for arranged marriages, and they do work out. Other prefer to make their own choices. When it comes to a dog I’m keeping for 10 years or more, I want to choose.
My dog had to live with me and learn my needs and get the basics before he could “train himself” to be my hearing dog. My needs were so great that I could not find an organization willing to guarantee they could train what I needed the most. Phone alerts? Pffft. I needed a dog who could save me from being hit by ambulances or idiotic drivers making blind right turns into crosswalks without even braking. I am THAT deaf. He did, because I trained him to do that.
I’ve heard of program-trained guide dogs that took their blind owners right into traffic. Beautiful manners. The dog was never actually proofed for guiding ability with a blind dog trainer before being partnered. That’s a professional organization run by 100% sighted, nondisabled people. Oh the stories I could tell about the OTHER side of the fence.
In the interest of society, service dogs should be excused from working in public if they display aggression or poor handling. And that’s in the ADA.
It matters not if somebody was paid to train the dog; what really matters is whether the handler-dog team is trained and capable of working together in public.
Eyebrows has it wrong. There are a LOT of owner-trainers of service dogs out there. Every owner-trainer has to start with a young dog because of the socialization required (which is why he was training the dog in public).
Dog training is not rocket science. I was training my own dog out of a book at 8 years old. What it does take is commitment, focus, and a willingness to change your own behavior, and HARD WORK. Disabled people have been training dogs to assist them for centuries. How dare claim some able-bodied person who knows nothing about disability knows better than I what I need?
Anybody can call themselves a professional dog trainer if they can get somebody to pay them for advice. Same thing for service dog trainers. Many dog trainers just want to train service dogs, without knowing anything about disability. I hear it all the time. “I want to train dogs… and service dogs!”
Most of those have no actual understanding of how disability affects their client’s lives and how the dog will actually work for the client. They can overlook very important gaps in the dog’s education as a consequence. I invite you to read this.
[www.northstardogs.com]
Many EXPERIENCED service dog users who have had program dogs choose to train their own dog because they know exactly what they want in a dog and how to work a dog in public.
The reality is, it is the disabled partner who transforms the dog to a service dog. The dog must work for the partner, and the partner must be ready to retrain the dog to a balance that fits their needs and temperament.
My dog who I temperament tested carefully at 8 months old out of a shelter turned out to be a great hearing ear dog AND a medical alert dog.
I’ve even trusted him to guide me when I couldn’t see. But then, I picked him for brains and that certain vibe that said we could work together well. He learned sign quickly,and he started working for me in less than a month, although that first month or two I was simply focused on giving him more than 200 hours of socialization and letting him be a puppy and explore the world at his own pace.
Some people are for arranged marriages, and they do work out. Other prefer to make their own choices. When it comes to a dog I’m keeping for 10 years or more, I want to choose.
My dog had to live with me and learn my needs and get the basics before he could “train himself” to be my hearing dog. My needs were so great that I could not find an organization willing to guarantee they could train what I needed the most. Phone alerts? Pffft. I needed a dog who could save me from being hit by ambulances or idiotic drivers making blind right turns into crosswalks without even braking. I am THAT deaf. He did, because I trained him to do that.
I’ve heard of program-trained guide dogs that took their blind owners right into traffic. Beautiful manners. The dog was never actually proofed for guiding ability with a blind dog trainer before being partnered. That’s a professional organization run by 100% sighted, nondisabled people. Oh the stories I could tell about the OTHER side of the fence.
In the interest of society, service dogs should be excused from working in public if they display aggression or poor handling. And that’s in the ADA.
It matters not if somebody was paid to train the dog; what really matters is whether the handler-dog team is trained and capable of working together in public.
That said, I think Mr. Gonzalez has a long way to go.
@Buran Wow I never knew there was that kind of hate and disgust in the gamer community about deaf people. I have severe hearing loss in one ear and moderate loss in the other from my time in the Air Force. I actually use the subtitles a lot, I can hear most of the effects but my main area of hearing loss is in the conversational level. People get so bent out of shape if they have to speak louder when I ask. I have even been accused of lying about my disabilities, I have a very small hearing aid and long hair so it is easy to miss.
A few months ago I was doing research for the hotel I work for, as we were having a number of people show up with “comfort” animals and claiming they were protected by the ADA and we were required to allow them to stay (it’s a pet-free hotel). Doesn’t it say in the ADA that service animals are expected to exhibit a certain level of behavior and that if they are disruptive or misbehaved that they can be asked to leave, or if they cause damages the owner can be charged for those damages?
@outsdr: Yes look here [www.ada.gov]
My problem with stories like this is that DILALRDS didnt kick him out… it isnt like there is a corporate policy that only blind people can have helper animals in the store. This is some jack-ass manager who made this ridiculous decision. Also for what its worth, his being an Iraq vetran is irrelevent. Handicapped is handicapped… there are no levels to handicapped entitlement.
A appreciate his service, but I dont like it when stories are dramatized by catch phrases and things of that nature.
Remember the days when the only 100+ comment wank to be had at Consumerist was Starbucks wank and check-your-receipt wank? My, we have moved into an age of abundance.
As one trained, qualified and certified to use a service dog, I am dismayed to see the comments and judgements made here regarding this pathetic situation inflicted upon a disabled Veteran who served his, and your, country (including those that reside in the state of Texas) for 18 years. People really need to get some FACTS regarding ADA regulations of service animals. Please allow me to provide you with some links where those of you who are actually interested in learning more about service animals may peruse the laws and guidelines for yourself, hopefully alleviating some of the “misinformation” expressed here.
From your own Governor on behalf of Texas:
[www.governor.state.tx.us]
From the Department of Justice:
[www.usdoj.gov]
From the ADA (American Disability Act):
[ada.gov]
[ada.gov] (several videos for those interested)
Regarding the use of service animals by Veterans (take note that you will be seeing more and more of this for brain trauma, PTSD, lost limbs, etc:
[www.reuters.com]
I, too, was denied access with my service dog at a restaurant in the town of Shamrock, Texas, just last Monday, December 17, 2007. My husband and I were driving to our home state after welcoming my son home to Fort Bliss (El Paso), after he had spent 13-1/2 months deployed with the US Army in Iraq. I was denied service and treated rudely by an employee, the owner of the restaurant refused to serve us also, and I was told I had to leave by the Shamrock Chief of Police when I called for help (as instructed to do on your Texas Governor’s website for service animal regulations).
I carry pamphlets of all the ADA laws, and the “Police Chief,” in his ignorance would not even look at them. He should have advised the owner of my right to access, or cited her with a denial of access which results in a $300.00 -$1,000.00 fine in the state of Texas. Instead, I was told by an “officer of the law” that they had the right to refuse service to anyone. WRONG! READ THE LAWS!
Service dogs perform many functions for people that might not be noticed by those that are not aware. They will alert to their diabetic owner’s change in blood sugar, preventing a diabetic coma. They can forewarn their owner of a seizure or convulsion coming on, get them to a safe place, and even push the button on a special phone for 911, or get help in other ways. They can retrieve medication and water bottles when needed, telephones to call for help and other emergency items. They can be trained to brace for their owners in walking, getting up from a sitting position in a chair or after a fall. They can pick up things dropped, pull a wheelchair, open a door, turn on a light switch, guide a young autistic person so they may actually attend school, as well as bring them out of their shell. The list goes on and on-they are amazing partners who provide a service, recognized by the medical community, for their owner, allowing for more independence and safety.
Ironically, 10 minutes before I was denied service at the Mitchell Family Restaurant in Shamrock, I fell off of a step down curb type of area, that was neglected being painted yellow in front of the Shamrock art deco landmark. Because my auto-immune diseases have affected my joints to where they are weak and constantly in pain, as well as caused muscle ataxia and peripheral neuropathy, I had to use my service animal to brace in front of me so that I could gradually push myself up. This is only one of the functions she performs for me.
Couldn’t everyone just get along and help one another? That’s what my service dog does for me. PLEASE read the laws before you speculate, criticize, jump to conclusions or condemn anyone who has the need of a service dog to become more mobile and independent. I have read or heard of numerous situations of legitimate service dog teams being denied access, and more-downright discrimination as I experienced in Shamrock. We can’t punish 90% of service dog teams because of 10% who may not be legit. The owners are liable for any damage done by their service animal, and if the animal does not behave in a manner expected of a service animal, then yes, they may be asked if they would like take out service.
Should you come across a service dog team, feel free to ask, “Is that a service dog?” From there, you may by law inquire as to what functions the animal performs for the person, however you would be breaking the law by asking what disability or medical condition a person has. We want to talk about our service animals and educate people as to their benefits and the laws surrounding them. We just don’t want to be shamed, treated rudely, denied service, told to leave, discriminated against, and treated like we are doing something wrong. Would anyone?
That Dillard’s store manager is a dullard.
@DDKD: Instead, I was told by an “officer of the law” that they had the right to refuse service to anyone. WRONG! READ THE LAWS!
Yes the officer was an asshat for not looking at your piece of paper. But he is correct in Texas you can refuse service to anyone for any reason with minor exceptions that are hard to prove. You say he refused because of the dog, he will say he refused because he did not like your attitude, he wins. Example: “When I told her no dogs allowed she whips out this piece of paper and yells ‘it is a service dog you frikkin moron’, so I refused service and told her to leave.”
Secondly refusing a service animal is a misdemeanor. Police will not generally arrest on a misdemeanor unless they see it happen. You would need to go to the DA and press charges yourself.
Question: Was your dog properly harnessed or leashed in a manner that would show it is a service dog?
Before you answer you may want to read the Texas law on a disabled persons responsibilities and the section below it titled PENALTIES FOR IMPROPER USE OF ASSISTANCE ANIMALS. Both sections talk about harnessed or leashed service animals. Interesting note under the improper use statute is the reference to harnesses and leashes commonly used on service animals. This tells me the legislators had a particular type or types of restraints in mind when they wrote the law. If your dog was not properly marked, I would argue the manager had no way of telling.
If you are going to be in Texas I suggest you carry the Texas law regarding this issue. A local cop does not have jurisdiction to enforce the ADA. Before you do make sure you and your dog are qualified to be covered by the Texas law.
While we are at it, why is it so hard for disabled people to properly dress their service dogs? Are you ashamed of your disability and don’t want anyone to know but will use that same disability to get “special” treatment?
Before you blast me I have a disability that is covered by the ADA. I am given special consideration at work when it comes to this disability. I don’t need a service animal but I could probably come up with an excuse for one. I want a monkey.
Sorry if this seems harsh but you come off in that post like you have a chip on your shoulder and are spoiling for a fight. If you came off that way to the manager he may have just not wanted to deal with you.
Tell your son we thank him for his service. I have a son-in-law that is scheduled to go over in a couple of months. My step daughter is concerned but trying not to let it show.
I am the husband of “DDKD” and would like to respond to TROLLKILLER. I was present at the restaurant where this occurred. My wife, an educated professional, behaved in an entirely appropriate manner, never once raising her voice, not using any profanities, and had no attitude other than explaining the terms around the use of her certified service dog, and getting something to eat. Initially she explained to the employee who denied her access that her dog was a service animal, not a pet. She further clarified in a professional manner that the dog was certified and covered under ADA regulations and was legally allowed to accompany her into the restaurant. She was still denied, and another employee stated, “Unless that’s a seeing-eye dog, we don’t have to let you in.” UNTRUE.
As a disabled person yourself, I am amazed at the amount of ignorance you display. While the law does NOT require it, my wife’s dog IS fully harnessed (body harness), wears her certification in a see-through pocket clearly visible on the top of the harness, and behaves as a service dog is trained to behave. This almost two years old dog was trained for 1-1/2 years with an agency who specializes in training such animals. Additionally, recipients for service dogs are fully scrutinized, and must have medical documentation to ensure they are qualified and eligible. They also must train at the agency for a required number of hours with their service dog, and cover a multitude of tasks. Then, they must pass a test for certification, that entails and entire day of observation and testing, covering over 150 miles of driving to visit the prison where the dogs were obedience-trained, having lunch at a restaurant, and shopping at a mall – all as a service animal team. Finally, the animals are skill-tested in this public environment, to make sure their surrounding and tempting events will not distract them.
The cop in question obviously did not want an “outsider” disrupting his little town. He said for us to “Hurry up, everyone in this place sees what is going on.” He was not interested in helping us be able to eat lunch, let alone attain justice. Apparently, neither are you.
As a person with a disability, you should be ashamed of yourself! You come across as the disabled person’s equivalent of Uncle Tom of the days of overt racism. I suppose you believe that Martin Luther King just had a “chip” on his shoulder. When are you going to join the 21st century?
As for “coming up with an excuse” for a service animal, I suggest you think clearly about your need. If you qualify, you should get one. They offer remarkable assistance to people in need. I would argue against a monkey, however. You don’t need TWO monkeys in the house.
@DDKD: Hmm hubby looks like I touched a nerve. Go back and read my post.
I gave an example of what a manager would/could tell a cop to justify his refusal of service, you seem to have taken it on yourself that the example was my take on your situation and an accusation. I never questioned the validity of your wife’s claim.
Texas law DOES require that your service animal be properly harnessed or leashed.
[tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us]
Sec.A121.005.RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.A (a) person with a disability who uses an assistance animal for assistance in travel is liable for any damages done to the premises or facilities by the animal.
(b)A person with a disability who uses an assistance animal for assistance in travel or auditory awareness shall keep the animal properly harnessed or leashed, and a person who is injured by
the animal because of the failure of a person with a disability to properly harness or leash the animal is entitled to maintain a cause of action for damages in a court of competent jurisdiction under the same law applicable to other causes brought for the redress of injuries caused by animals.
In this case Texas law trumps federal law. It does not matter what the ADA allows. Besides under the ADA your wife may not have an actionable complaint it appears under Texas law she may.
Section 308 Enforcement.
[www.dol.gov]
(B) Potential violation.–If the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that–
(i) any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or
practice of discrimination under this title; or
(ii) any person or group of persons has been discriminated against under this title and such discrimination raises an issue of general public importance, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court.
He shoots, he scores.
Like I said in my post that you obviously did not understand, cops will not usually arrest on misdemeanor charges unless they witness the crime.
In your case by the time the cop got there the crime was over and now you were being asked to leave on different grounds. You say it was a small town cop not wanting outsiders messing up his little world. You are most likely right. Take it up with the DA, you wife will need to file charges. (funny I said that in the earlier post too)
Are you attempting to compare your wife to Martin Luther King? Wow! Your wife was not discriminated against, your dog was. Let me know when a cripple is lynched just because he is a cripple. How dare you equate a DOG not being allowed in a restaurant to racism. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Yeah I think I was generous when I said that post made your wife look like she was spoiling for a fight. I see it runs in the family.
Please read my post again, this time try to comprehend it. Another suggestion is stop reading the ADA factoids or the Texas governor’s website and try reading the ,laws.
As for me the monkey would be a better choice, who wants toilet paper retrieved by a dog…. eww dog slobbers.
@trollkiller:
Trollkiller (interesting handle), hubby, here. Don’t worry, I read your post several times before responding. You made several errors in your response. First of all, Texas law does NOT trump ADA. For over 20 years, in addition to other regulatory requirements, assuring my employer’s compliance with ADA regulations was a significant portion of my responsibilities. I am quite familiar with the law and its intent. State law NEVER trumps federal law, unless it is of greater benefit to the affected individual. For example, federal law can state that a disabled worker may have 60-days unpaid leave of absence from work without fear of losing their job. State law can increase the leave period to 90-days, or even more, but cannot limit it to less than 60 days. Federal trumps state in all cases, unless the state law is more beneficial to the individual. According to Texas statutes:
(i)An assistance animal in training shall not be denied admittance to any public facility when accompanied by an approved trainer who is an agent of an organization generally recognized by agencies involved in the rehabilitation of persons who are disabled as reputable and competent to provide training for assistance animals, and/or their handlers.
Where this departs from federal ADA regulations is the statement that an animal in training must be so through an “agent of an organization generally recognized by agencies involved…” In my experience with competing forces between federal and state regulations, federal always wins in a jurisdictional dispute. Here, clearly the Texas statutes are less beneficial to the affected individual. Therefore, if it were brought to a jurisdictional contest, the feds would win. Except for this one piece, Texas law and ADA are identical. There is no trumping by either.
Also, I might point out that the law states that the service animal must be harnessed OR leashed-not both. The insertion of the word “OR” in the statute is primarily to accommodate those who need a harness with a handle (for instance seeing-eye dog, or those who need the dog for mobility purposes), and could not effectively utilize a leash. My wife is careful to ensure that establishments never have to question the validity of her dog’s status as a service animal. In her case, a harness, leash, and prominent display of the certification (not required by law) are used, although technically she would be legal to use only the leash.
I also notice on the Governor’s website regarding service animals, that Texas appears to make discrimination against service animals a “criminal,” not a “civil” offense. I question that, but if it is true, in this case, Texas law would prevail over the feds-it is more beneficial to the affected individual. It may actually be a misprint in the Governor’s website, however. If it is criminal, then your comment that the police could “arrest” the discriminating individual would be correct. If it is only a civil infraction, which is true everywhere else that I know of, then the police can only cite the individual or business denying access, which bears a fine, but is a misdemeanor.
You asked “Are you attempting to compare your wife to Martin Luther King?”
No. I am not. I’m comparing you to Uncle Tom. Then you said,
“Wow! Your wife was not discriminated against, your dog was. Let me know when a cripple is lynched just because he is a cripple.”
What an inane comment!!! There is no separation between a disabled person and their service dog. They are certified as one team. If one is discriminated against, so, too, is the other.
You paint yourself as some sort of expert in this area. You arrogant a**hole!! Your comment about lynching a cripple is at best stupid. Discrimination in all its forms is abhorrent, and one who has an identified disability should be more sensitive to that fact. In your earlier post, you indicated that your employer has “accommodated” your disability. That’s a wonderful thing for you, and for your employer. Obviously you are willing to accept an accommodation for yourself, but deny it to others. What hypocrisy!!
By the way, DEAFDOGRTAINER is absolutely correct, when he states that self-training is often better training. Mr. Gonzalez did the right thing in putting the harness on his dog during his visit to Dillard’s. This alerts customers, employees and managers that the dog is a service animal. ADA recognizes dogs in training equally to those who are fully trained and certified. There is no requirement that the training be conducted by an agency or professional trainer (see earlier comment). He did nothing wrong, in fact he did everything right. He was inappropriately discriminated against based on the report of this incident. By the way, he has been training his dog with the assistance of DVD’s presumably provided by a recognized training organization, and may, in fact qualify as an “agent” of that agency as a result, making him fully compliant with Texas statutes, even if they would be countermanded by federal laws.
Then you said,
“How dare you equate a DOG not being allowed in a restaurant to racism. What the fuck is wrong with you?”
What the f*** is wrong with YOU? It wasn’t just the DOG that was not allowed in the restaurant. My wife and I were also refused service.
You, of all people, should be an advocate for the disabled. Discrimination is discrimination!! A disabled person who is denied service in a restaurant because of their service animal is the same as someone being denied service due to their race, or due to their religion, or their gender, or their sexual orientation. All discrimination should be fought and defeated, not embraced. Which side are you on?
@DDKD: First Texas law would trump ADA because 1) according to the Governor’s site refusal would be criminal. (I questioned that too but Texas is a funny place) 2) the way the law is written “will be” vs. “may be” guilty.
Under ADA the restaurant would have to have a pattern of discrimination. Under Texas law once is enough. Greater benefit goes to the Texas law.
The only place I used AND when referring to harnesses and leashes was the following. “Interesting note under the improper use statute is the reference to harnesses and leashes commonly used on service animals. This tells me the legislators had a particular type or types of restraints in mind when they wrote the law.”
Nowhere did I state or imply the animal needed to have both.
That tells me you did not fully comprehend the post again.
You will want to read all the posts before commenting. You will see I defended the Vet’s ability to train the animal in several posts, but the way I read Texas law, the DVDs would not qualify him or the dog.
Keeping the above in mind, the Dillard’s manager may have had the legal right to toss the guy because the dog was in TRAINING and not by a recognized organization. But once again if you go back over the posts you will see that I said the manager should not have tossed the Vet.
I am sick and tired of every person that thinks some wrong has been done to them tying themselves to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Every “oppressed” group is the new black.
If you would have put the dog in the car would you have been able to eat at that restaurant? I think yes, so therefore it was the DOG discriminated against, not your wife.
Your wife has something the blacks fighting for their rights did not have, she has the law to back her. There are no signs saying “Crippled Only”, there are no police turning a blind eye to a hanging. The comparison is apples and oranges. It is also appalling.
You want to think of me as an Uncle Tom, that is fine. Just because I don’t think deaf people should get a handicapped parking space or someone should not be able to bring their pet into an establishment because it is a “comfort” animal or that service animals need to be marked.
Just don’t ever compare a manager’s ignorance of the law and and the systematic segregation, discrimination and racism against blacks. Doing so cheapens the great effort and sacrifice that black and some whites endured and sometimes died for.
You want discrimination to be ended when it comes to service animals, then raise a ruckus every time someone abuses the right. You want the discrimination to end, press for every service animal to be properly marked when out in public. You want the discrimination to end, put a stop to drive by litigation.
And most importantly when you are denied service with your properly dressed dog, file a complaint to the proper authorities. Have you done that yet? What is the case number I would like to follow it.