Questions & Answers about Service Animals and the Law: Which Animals do the ADA & State Law Recognize? Sally Conway, U.S. Dept. of Justice; and Aaron McCullough, Disability Law Resource Project Thursday, April 29, 2004 Sponsored by the Disability Law Resource Project (DLRP) at ILRU RACHEL: Good afternoon everybody and welcome to our special Web cast today on service animals. Many of you were able to join us or listen to the archives of the Web cast we did on April 14th, which was about service animals and the law, and really dealt with which animals do the ADA and state law recognize. Today's Web cast is a follow-up to that one which was extremely well attended, and we had so many questions we wanted to make sure to get to answer all those questions and so today's Web cast will give us the opportunity to do that. My name is Rachel Kosoy. I'm with the Disability Law Resource Project, your sponsor for today's event. I'm going to be moderating the Web cast so I will be asking the questions to our presenters. I just want to say a little thing more about questions. As many of you know, during Web casts we normally receive questions from you guys and, you know, try to answer all of them during the Web cast. Today please do submit questions if you have them. I want to give a little disclaimer up front and let you know that we might not have time to answer all of them during the Web cast; but I promise that if we don't get to it during the Web cast, then we will send you a personal e-mail response to your question. And you should get those tomorrow or Monday at the latest. So please do send them in, but just know that if we don't get to them, you will get a personal response later. The last thing about questions is that we are going to have an additional Web cast on service animals that will deal specifically with housing and with transportation. So if you have questions about service animals and housing or transportation, go ahead and send them and we will hold them and we will pose them during the May 12th Web cast. So on Wednesday, May 12th, you'll want to make sure to join us again and hear more about service animals. Okay, in order to submit a question, if you look at the bottom of your RealOne Player, there should be something there that you can click to submit a question. If you don't see that or if you prefer, you can always just send an e-mail to webcast@ilru.org. And your last resource is you can give us a call if you're having any technical difficulties, and our phone number is (713)520-0232. And you can hit 0 and ask for help. Okay, I think I've got our housekeeping out of the way. We have two presenters today who have come back to work with us further on service animals and I would like to reintroduce you to Sally Conway and Aaron McCullough. Sally is with the U. S. Department of Justice and to anyone who tuned in to our previous Web cast you will know she is a wealth of information. We even said she was entertaining, and I think she was last time. And Aaron McCullough is with our office here, the Disability Law Resource Project. He's a legal specialist with us and he's done extensive work with state laws. So he will be able to add a lot of information about the state laws. I invite you to read both of their bios that give you more information. Their bios are on our Web site on the page that you visited to join us today. So let me now move us into the Web cast. As many of you see on the Web site, there is a document which has a list of the questions that we're going to go through together. There are a number of categories. We're going to go through these categories almost in exactly the order they're listed here. The first category we're going to start with is the most basic. We're going to talk about the definition of a service animal. And Sally, I'd like to ask if you can begin by reviewing that definition for us. SALLY: Sure, I would be happy to and thank you for inviting me back again. The definition of a service animal -- and again just to reiterate what Rachel had said earlier, today and when I'm speaking, I am very specifically speaking of service animals in the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act definition and coverage under HUD and fair housing and under the Air Carrier Access Act are very different. So, again, today we're speaking solely in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The definition of a service animal for folks who were with us on the 14th, bear with me. I am going to read this because it's really important that people understand and know what the definition says. It very simply is this: Service animal means any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including but not limited to guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection for rescue work, pulling a wheelchair or fetching dropped items. So very simply that is the definition that we work with in terms of coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rachel, would you want me to say any more about that? RACHEL: I guess if there are just a few of the terms that are important to highlight those for us. SALLY: Sure. There are -- basically there are three words or three terms in this definition that are really critical and that would be an animal is individually trained to do work, and that's really important. The issue with service animals is that the animal has to be trained to do that task. It is not necessarily an innate ability or an innate trait of that dog or animal or that specific species of dog or animal. So the mere fact that an animal may be able to hear somebody knocking at the door is not in and of itself training, but the training will be that that animal hears a sound and is trained specifically how to respond to that sound. It may be to open a door. It may be to go and notify its owner who may be deaf. So, again, that training is very, very key again in terms of the ADA. The second is train to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of that individual. And, again, that is a term of art, trained to do work or perform tasks. Its mere presence isn't having been trained to work or perform a task. It has to be able to do something that assists that person specifically because they have a disability. And then the final term of art obviously is trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. So the key three things are, number one, the person using the animal is a person with a disability. And I'm not going to go into the ADA's definition of a person with a disability because you guys all know that. So that's criteria one. The second is that it has been trained and the third is it has been trained to perform work or tasks on behalf of that individual with a disability. And those three things all go into individual determinations if it's contested as to if this is a service animal or not. RACHEL: Okay, great. That was really helpful. We do have an additional question about the definition. If you can talk about minimal protection and what's really meant by, quote providing minimal protection. SALLY: I wish I had the perfect answer to that question, Rachel. RACHEL: We were counting on you, Sally. SALLY: Well, it's really difficult because -- well, certainly the phrase in there is providing minimal protection or rescue work. Rescue work is not necessarily, you know, going into a building that has been blown up. Rescue work in these terms very simply means if, for instance, if I use a service animal and if I fall out of my chair or if I lean over and I can't get up, that's rescue work in terms of this definition. To assist someone who has fallen or has gotten themselves into a predicament. Minimal protection -- there is actually two parts to it. One is if I do fall out of my chair, minimal protection may be nudging me into a safer environment. If I try to be -- extend my abilities and try to pop a curve and if I fall out of my chair, if I flip over and I'm in the way of traffic, minimal protection certainly in that case -- although I would argue that it's more than minimal, but for an animal to move me out of harm's way and get me maybe over more toward a curb. Minimal protection may also mean providing physical protection for an individual with a disability. The reality is that I certainly know, as someone with a disability and a lot of folks know someone with a disability, there may be a sense that I'm an easy mark for being robbed or mugged or whatever. Minimal protection can also include that, include something that isn't necessarily, you know, pulling a Coke can out of the refrigerator for me, but that is actually providing me protection against violence. RACHEL: Okay, great. That's really helpful, actually. I hope that is a pretty thorough answer and I hope that for people listening that does answer your question. SALLY: I can't give you an answer of what minimal means. I just can't. I have not a clue. RACHEL: To be determined. SALLY: Yes, it is. RACHEL: And then I just want to say to people who are tuning in, we also did have a question that asked Sally to define short interaction in guidance of time. We are not sure what that question refers to. And so I'd like to invite the person who sent that question to please e-mail us with clarification and I will make sure that that question makes it in to today's Web cast. Okay, let's take -- let's kind of build on that foundation there of the definition of a service animal and use that to consider groups of animals here. We have -- I guess they are called comfort -- a number of different types of animals -- comfort, support, companion and therapy. And I guess just to start us off, can you talk about what do these terms mean, what kinds of animals are they referring to? SALLY: Well, I will try. I think part of the problem is that we have so many different labels and descriptions for animals that may in fact be service animals and somebody else using that same term for a different animal that may not be a service animal. Generally speaking, if we're talking about therapy, comfort, emotional support animals -- and I think those typically are used interchangeably. Those are not going to be service animals under the ADA because they haven't been trained to -- remember that three-part -- that definition, they haven't been trained to do work or perform a task for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Typically, comfort, emotional support animals by their very presence certainly performs a valuable service, but it's an innate ability. It's their mere presence. It doesn't reach the level of having been trained to do work or perform tasks. So if I am -- if I am using those terms sort of -- I hope that I'm using them correctly. They would not be covered. And, again, we would look at not necessarily what the animal is called because different people call different animals different things, we look at what service it performs on behalf of that individual with a disability. I mean, and I know that there are issues of companion animals and I'm not really sure what a companion animal is. Again, the bottom line is what does that animal do for that individual with a disability? If the presence of the animal -- the mere presence performs -- you know, it meets the need of that individual with a disability, I think it's absolutely critical and it's wonderful, but as we talk about the definition as of today, that is not a service animal under the ADA. RACHEL: As people can see, there is a question under this section of questions that says -- that there can be a distinction between psychiatric service dogs and emotional support companion dogs, and I think there actually was some interest, too, about what might a dog or another animal do for somebody who has a psychiatric disability that would -- that would be seen as making that animal a service animal under the definition of the ADA? SALLY: I think that there are -- I think that there are some very clearly defined tasks -- and again, not innate ability -- for instance, if someone with -- and I hope we don't necessarily just call them psychiatric animals. You know, they are service animals if they perform a task, but for instance, someone who has really a significant panic disorder, I have read of animals that have been specifically trained, first of all, not only to identify that there may be the onset of a panic attack, but also immediately take action and try to remove that person. He'll tug on that person or start nosing them away from whatever the situation is that is about to cause them that episode. To me, that makes perfect sense, and that's something that I in my limited brain power can completely understand. To me, that is a task that is being performed. It is very specific to that individual with the disability and it's not likely that somebody without a disability would benefit from that. Does that make sense to you? RACHEL: Yes, it does. So in that case, you know, that animal could be a service animal because they detect something and in addition to that they also move the person from the situation that is dangerous for that person. SALLY: Right. RACHEL: And the training could be in both of those tasks or perhaps just the second part of it in many cases because they actually are trained to do something specific for that person. SALLY: Yeah. RACHEL: And I know that part of that question was -- I see that people have been asking about Web sites where they can get more information about animals that provide some of these services, and I think -- Sally, was there a specific one you wanted to tell us about because I know that I remember that Ed had mentioned some Web sites we can repeat. SALLY: Yes, I think it's his organization and I think that I had mentioned at the last telecast that I had read something fairly recently about training assist dogs for folks with psychiatric -- OPERATOR: Excuse me, this call will now end as this call has exceeded the amount of time allowed with no host present. (please stay tuned, we will resume momentarily) RACHEL: Okay, this is Rachel, and I'd like to apologize for the interruption there. We had a little technical assistance problem with our teleconference provider. I'm back on the line and Aaron McCullough is back on the line and it sounds like there is Sally right now. SALLY: Rachel? RACHEL: We're all back on the Web cast now. AARON: Great save, Sally. I'll have to take responsibility for the technical glitch, so if anybody is upset, just feel free to e-mail your consternation my way. RACHEL: Wow, thanks, Aaron. AARON: I deserve it. I deserve the heat. We'll let Sally and you resume and I'll just get back on mute. RACHEL: Let's jump right back in. I'm not sure exactly where we cut off. I believe that we were giving out two Web sites, so let me just repeat those two Web sites and then we can jump back to the questions. The first one was for the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners, and that one was www.iaadp.org. And the second one is www.adionline.org. Again, www.adionline.org. And those are places where you can find out additional information about the type of animals that we've been discussing. So back to this broad category of animals that have been referred to as comfort, support, companion or therapy animals, and not all those terms are used to describe the same animal. So kind of going a little more specific with it, does a person who has a note from a therapist or a physician that an animal provides them comfort -- then would that animal meet the definition under the ADA of a service animal? And so, again, in this case there is no special training, but the animal is providing comfort. SALLY: Well, if I'm thinking of comfort, you know, in the way that I think the vast majority of us would think comfort, then, no, it is not a service animal. RACHEL: Yes, and I believe you said that. I wanted to make sure that -- we can review that and make sure this person has their question specifically answered. SALLY: So that's absolutely fine. Don't worry about repeating something. I don't take any offense. RACHEL: Okay, I believe there is another question here that says what can -- can you discuss the relationship between a diagnosis of comfort, stress symptom relief and coverage under the law which I believe you've done. John: Rachel, this is John. The server has cut off and I need just a minute to get it going again. (please stand by, we are having technical difficulties and we will resume shortly) RACHEL: We're back. Okay, guys, we're back again; but I have to tell you that that was not Aaron's fault. AARON: Gremlins. RACHEL: Unfortunately we have the reality of the Internet here. Anyway, let's get right back to things. SALLY: Yes, where were we? RACHEL: Okay, well, actually we were kind of nearing the end of this section about animals that provide comfort and are called support animals, therapy animals, et cetera. I do think that, Sally, you have answered this next question, but I'll pose it in case you feel like there is anything you want to add to it and that is what is the relationship between the mental diagnosis, comfort, stress symptom relief and coverage under the law? SALLY: Well, I mean, I think it all goes back to the diagnosis and the manifestations of that illness, condition, whatever you choose to call it, that's very important because you have to -- it has to rise to the level of being a person with a disability under the ADA. If you don't meet that first prong, the rest is irrelevant because it's only an individual with a disability that has protection under the ADA where the issue of is it a comfort animal versus a service animal even comes into play. So the diagnosis is very important. The other issue is that most animals -- well, most traditional service assistance animals just by their very nature do provide comfort. I mean, that's what they do. I mean, that's just what they are -- who they are. So the mere fact that an animal also happens to provide comfort doesn't automatically exclude it from coverage under the law. What it does do is whatever task or work it has been trained to do individually -- I mean, that has to be there, and that has to be directly related to whatever the diagnosis or the disability is. I would not be able to have any standing to file a complaint or a lawsuit if I wanted to go into my neighborhood restaurant -- I clearly have a disability. I meet the definition under the law, but if I wanted to go in and say, well, this is a hearing dog for me. Well, that isn't going to cut it because that has no relationship to my disability. So the question is what relationship is there between the mental diagnosis, comfort, stress symptom relief and coverage. Generally speaking, whatever task or work that animal performs has to be directly related to the nature of the disability. RACHEL: And they have to be trained specifically to do that task? SALLY: Yes. So I think sometimes we get so over broad in our statements, and I am as guilty as the next person, but if an animal only is a comfort animal, meaning that its very nature, its very being has a beneficial affect on somebody with a disability, that does not qualify as a service animal; but if also an offshoot of that service animal is the very nature in addition to the task that it has been performed – if and again there isn't anything that says you can't have a service animal but that also meets the legal definition of service animal but that also performs comfort for an individual with a disability; but it can't be solely based on comfort. It has to be based on the person, number one, has a disability in terms of the ADA legally. Number two, the animal has been trained to perform a task or do work, and third, that that task or work has to be directly related to whatever the disability is in order to claim coverage. RACHEL: Okay, great. All right, I'm assuming that the answer to the next question is not based on everything you've said, but let me throw it out there. Is there any case law about any emotional support animals being equivalent to service animals? SALLY: You know, I don't -- I think you're going to find a lot of it when you have your next Web cast on May 12th. Under HUD, you may also find a fair amount of it in employment and reasonable accommodation in that context. RACHEL: Okay. Okay. I can see that clearly. SALLY: I'm not aware of any -- at least that I'm aware of under the ADA relating to either public accommodations or state, county or local governments without it being in the context of employment. RACHEL: Okay. Great. Ok the last question in this section comes from somebody who I think is with a public accommodation or possibly with a state or local government entity, but clearly somebody who is in the position of deciding whether or not a certain animal can enter. So they want to know, if they can't ask where or how the animal was trained, and they have somebody who has mental illness and says this is a service animal or a companion or emotional support animal, what can they ask? How should they handle the situation to try to determine whether or not this animal is covered by the ADA? SALLY: Well, the way I read this question, too, may also not just specifically relate to somebody with a mental illness, but it's probably someone where a disability isn't apparent. If somebody tells you this is a comfort animal, then in terms of the ADA, that animal is not covered. If somebody tells you this is a service animal for my disability or this is a service animal. Let's stop there, that this is a service animal, the question certainly can be asked legally is, is that animal -- is that a service animal that you need because of a disability? But if it's sort of a broad brush that says this is an emotional support animal, it's a therapy animal, it's a companion animal, it's a comfort animal, then I would say that the chances are probably pretty high that that animal legally in terms of the ADA is not going to qualify as a service animal. So I mean the onus of responsibility theoretically anyway under the ADA, and it's there because it's not a covered animal. But certainly from a practical standpoint if somebody represents that it's a service animal, and let's say that they don't say it's a therapy animal or a comfort animal or any other name, but if they say it's a service animal, it just sort of makes some sense to assume that, yes, it is a service animal and to allow that animal in because not to do so, which is absolutely the prerogative of any covered entity, whether it's a Title III entity, you know, the infamous restaurant or if it's a state or a county or a local government, they have the ultimate decision to make of whether or not they will admit that individual with the animal. And that's legal, but what people do need to think of is if somebody files a complaint or somebody files a private lawsuit which remember individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act always have a private right of action, then the first question that's going to be asked is how did you make that decision? And essentially it becomes defending your decision, and -- and you may be completely right. RACHEL: So what would you recommend to somebody who is -- a restaurant owner, say, who faces a situation, somebody comes to them and says this is a service animal. It's not obvious, you know, how that would be. What would you recommend that the restaurant owner do? SALLY: Well, you know, certainly I can't recommend anything as you know, but it would make some sense if the animal is not acting up -- I mean one of my first questions to that entity -- and if there are any restaurant owners out there, don't take this personally because I use restaurants as an example all the time because people can understand it. It's not something that's really esoteric. That -- one of the questions that I would ask is, look, if I came to your business to come in and I clearly have a disability and if I had an animal with me, and I said it's a service animal, what would your response be in that situation? And I think that probably is a good guiding principle, or if someone comes in who clearly is blind, which everybody is so familiar with guide dogs, and my question would be how would you -- what would your policy be in that case? And then sort of go from there. If it's an issue of we don't allow any animals in, then that's a different issue, but if the issue is we do allow service animals in, but I just, you know, have real questions about this, then they need to make an informed decision based on what they do with other animals and if there isn't any kind of, you know, acting up or behavior issue, then does it not then make sense to just say okay. And that would be -- if I was looking at something or if somebody was calling me and I would say well how do you deal with it in other circumstances that may be much cleaner cut and that people have become -- I think people have become much more used to -- especially with guide dogs -- because it's been a very visible part of the fabric of America for a long time. And sort of couching it in those terms and how do you deal with that situation, should -- sometimes it helps people clarify what it is that they're doing and why they're doing it and what the real issue might be. RACHEL: Okay. And I think actually we're going to continue to discuss this topic as we go into questions about training as well as state laws and certification. So actually I think what I'd like to do now is for people who are following the document online, we're going to jump to the category of questions under -- the list of questions under the heading training and then we will backtrack and make sure we cover the other ones. Ok, let me think how to start this part out -- you know what, I changed my mind. We're going back. Everything feels interconnected so let's just go ahead and follow the document as it is. I apologize for everybody flipping and scrolling up and down there. Let's just go right on to the next section which is enforcement and implementation and let's talk about -- I'm going to paraphrase some of the questions here and start with what should an individual with a disability who has a service animal in a moment, during a situation when they have approached a business, a hotel is an example, and they are told, oh, no, we don't allow animals or, you know, some sort of basically denial, and sometimes even law enforcement is not informed about the ADA and service animals, and so people who really legally should be admitted with their service animals are denied that. How should people -- you know, what things are important for somebody with a disability and a service animal that that point, what's important for them to know to do. SALLY: It's really hard because it gets so tiring, doesn't it? Well, I mean, one thing is that it's important to remember that local police have no authority to enforce the ADA. I mean, that's a very important thing to know, and I do agree that there are a great many law enforcement folks out there that don't understand what the ADA says. And I know that there are still a lot of places where they think the only animal that can be -- the only animal that can be admitted is a guide dog. So, I mean, I guess the question is a very difficult question and I think it's going to be absolutely an individualized answer. Certainly, and I know just by looking at complaints, the number of folks that just automatically carry I.D.'s for the dog, ADA information everywhere they go is phenomenally high; and they try to use that to get somebody basically to see the light as it's happening. The reality is, is that I think it does work sometimes. I think that once somebody sees it, I think it does work; but there are also as many times that it doesn't. So then the question becomes, all right, if they're saying, no, you can't enter, what are your options? Your options are trying to barge in, which probably isn't a really good idea, but you know, I mean that certainly is an option. The other is just to turn around and leave. The other is to say, okay, how about we call the local police? RACHEL: You know, there also is -- I mean most people who are tuning in know that our organization is one of ten organizations around the country that provide education about the ADA and that we all share a single toll free number and people can call that. Now it's only available during business hours, but that's a good chunk of hours and people can call that 800-number and they can -- you know, they could tell the hotel owner or the restaurant owner to call the 800-number and ask somebody at the ADA education center, you know, what does the law say about this situation? And you should be able to get somebody on the phone real quickly who can explain the law. SALLY: I was going to say that, believe it or not. RACHEL: Smart minds think alike. SALLY: Whatever resources -- and you guys, depending on where you live you may have some local resources that you can use. And sometimes what happens is if somebody isn't going to listen to you, they're not going to listen to you in the moment. They are not going to listen to you. So, then you have to make a decision at that point, but if they're not going to let you in, they're not going to let you in. I mean, that's the unfortunate part of the whole thing and especially if you're trying to get into a hotel and it's 11:30 at night and it's pouring down rain, the last thing you want is to have to go somewhere else and also if you're a person that has mobility impairment in addition to that, you're going to have other issues in terms of what options are available to you. I mean, your world of availability gets smaller and smaller exponentially. There is never anything wrong with asking to speak directly to the manager. I know, and I have heard on a number of occasions that very often of the line worker -- for instance, the hostess or the host or the food server at the restaurant is the one having the problem and it has been resolved when the manager is called. As foolish as it seems, when you're there at the time, try to talk to whoever is the highest ranking person in the place at the time. Because -- RACHEL: Along those lines, somebody did ask what can you do that proves or demonstrates that that an animal is a service animal and that might be another piece of this as well. SALLY: You mean to sort of ease the fears and the comfort -- to show what the dog does? RACHEL: Right. SALLY: What the animal does. Sure. I mean, and if you also carry additional information, even though you're not required -- I mean, the ADA basically says what are prohibited inquiries. It doesn't mean that you as the person with the disability using the service animal can't demonstrate further, and you may want to do that and you may need to do that depending on where you are at the time. But there you don't have to go through that. That's not -- I just want to make it clear that that is not a requirement in order for you to file a complaint later on. RACHEL: Okay, did I cut you off or? SALLY: No. No. RACHEL: All right, there is another question here -- or a number that are connected. Actually, let me go to this one, can you talk about if there is a proper chain of command for getting an entity to change its policies sort of where do you go to complain first, who should you address, et cetera? I think you've touched on, but if there's anything else you want to add to that. SALLY: Actually, I would, believe it or not. I think if you're talking about -- if you had an experience where you were discriminated against, where you were denied access, I think there is two different things. One is what do you do at the time? And in my mind, if you have the stomach for it and if you're willing to do it, go as high in that organization at that time. You may end up only speaking, for instance, to an assistant manager, or if you're in a hotel, if it's at night, there only may be a front desk manager; but then after the fact, if you are trying to get an entity to change its policies once the initial event has occurred, then I think that there are a number of things you can do. One is very often local entities are either franchises or part of a larger corporation. See if you can find out who that -- who the parent company is and go to them. Secondly, an awful lot of state, county and local governments have their own antidiscrimination laws and you certainly -- people always have the right, if you have a state law that protects you, then you -- it just makes sense, go ahead and file there. And sometimes because it's local -- you know, some times there is something about the culture and local people knowing that it may resolve. Better Business Bureaus can also be helpful and, you know -- RACHEL: Well, actually two things: State and local government departments should have an ADA coordinator. Now, whether they do or whether people know who that person is is another story, but they should have somebody who would know the answer to this question. So you can ask for that person. You know, ask the state to contact that person. SALLY: And especially if there is an issue with a Title II entity. RACHEL: Right, and Title II is state or local government. SALLY: State, county and local governments, and that entity, you know, as long as they have 50 or more employees, they have to have an ADA coordinator or some such person. And their requirement -- their responsibility is to try to resolve grievances against that Title II entity. If it's against a private entity, if it's a against a hotel or a restaurant, a private hospital, whatever, your local ADA coordinator is very unlikely to be able to have any effect because they have no authority over them. But if it's a larger company that there may be a parent company, very often they have an ADA person in Holiday Inn's or the gap or Ground Round those places, very often they have somebody who has been assigned to deal with that. So going up the chain of command is always a very good idea and I think you should go up as high as you can get. RACHEL: Okay, I'm just watching the clock here. So I just want to try to move us along a little more. Just to tie up this section, I guess the additional questions or comments that came in here, if I can just address them briefly for folks, you know, one there has a question in here about should you or shouldn't you call the police. You know, another listener did let us know their tips that they have somebody who has a dog and has had the experience that Chinese restaurants threatened to call the police and when he agrees, somehow bringing up the police ends up being helpful for him. Then again like Sally just said, the local police are not the ones who would enforce the ADA. So there is -- that's just kind of some more information to inform people on that decision. There is also the question here about what do people who use service animals do to help educate the public. I think we could talk on this one all day, and what I'd like to leave people with is it obviously is a good idea. It obviously is much needed. I would encourage you to contact your regional DBTAC or the ADA center. Our phone numbers are 800-949-4232. That is part of our mission and we can work with you to do that. We have lots of material to give you as well. There also are your local centers for independent living and if anybody is trying to find yours, then you can call our office here and we can hook you up with your center. You can use that 800-number if you're in our region. If you are outside of -- if you are outside of our region, so if you're outside of Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana or Oklahoma, call our 713 number. It's (713) 520-0232. Or just send us an E-mail like you guys have been doing and we can go ahead and hook you up with your center and that's part of what they do as well is that kind of education. Okay, Sally, can I move us into the next section? SALLY: Yes, you may. And Aaron can jump in whenever he would like to. AARON: I've just been hiding. RACHEL: Ok. Alright. Let's talk about some specific situations. Can you comment on whether people can be denied use of their service animals in rehab programs? SALLY: Well, I know that they are talking specifically about the Stephanie Dohman case, which I don't know that we were involved. I believe that the facts -- and Aaron jump in and correct me if I'm wrong -- but I'm going to give a very quick thumbnail sketch of what I think, I believe that there was an individual who is blind that uses a service animal, and I think was enrolling in a class through -- I think it was Iowa department of rehabilitation, and they denied -- they said she couldn't -- or he -- she obviously, Stephanie, she wouldn't bring her service animal in. Now, I had spoken to one of our -- actually our special counsel here, and his recollection was that the issue was that Stephanie Dohman was participating in some kind of mobility or orientation class and they said that she couldn't attend because only people that use white canes could. That was the only assistance that they could use. Now, my facts may be incorrect, but let's assume that -- I mean, the issue of rehab programs for people with disabilities is remarkably broad. The general answer to that question is no, people can't be -- cannot be denied the use of their service animals in rehab programs for people with disabilities unless they can show that it's a fundamental alteration of the service. So being the queen of very bad analogies, let me go back to this: If someone is blind and is basically taking enrolling in, say, an orientation class or a mobility class, and for some reason is wanting to learn how to become independently mobile using a cane. To have a service animal participate in that class may, in fact, be a fundamental alteration because the key is -- and, again, I'm not sure that I have my facts correct, but let's assume this is a pretend situation. If the intent is for someone to learn how to navigate solely using a cane, the presence of that service animal in mobility is absolutely going to fundamentally alter the nature of that course. It's contradictory to that course; but it doesn't allow them to say you can't have your service animal with you because that person arguably has to get to that course. I'm assuming they're going to have lunch breaks. They're going to have other kinds of things. So it can't just necessarily be a broad exclusion that says if it's a fundamental alteration and you're going to be here all day, you can't show up at all with your animal. They may be able to exclude the animal from certain – from that classroom participation if it fundamentally alters, but they can't just say you can't have that animal with you in other parts of the building. AARON: The unfortunate thing is -- however this wasn't -- although this rehabilitation center has shown a preference for cane training versus using a guide dog, this is a computer class. SALLY: Okay. Then -- AARON: At least that's how the facts have been represented to me and so they were denied access because the overall philosophy of the center was to encourage cane usage versus using the services of a guide dog, and she was denied on that basis despite the fact that the class was not mobility related. SALLY: Ok so it was strictly a philosophical issue. AARON: and again the cost of representatives and all the journalistic treatment. SALLY: As you can tell, I didn't read the journalist particular treatments. RACHEL: Okay, let me -- I think that there is a lot out there about this case specifically, so I think if someone is particularly interested in that case, let us know, but I think that when it comes to rehab programs and admittance or exclusion of service animals, that Sally, you've been real good in kind of helping us see where -- which animals are covered and allowed to come in or not come in and that on our earlier Web cast we did go into a number of specifics in analyzing them. SALLY: So the short answer is, no, they can't be denied use of a service animal unless they can show that fundamental alteration. So that's the key. RACHEL: Okay. I'm going to rush us a little because – (inaudible) AARON: You dove a good point that might wrap up this whole section. RACHEL: Okay. AARON: If I may. This person is asking specifically are there any exceptions to any public access areas and they provide for examples zoos and churches and another question was grocery stores. And another one -- I guess the state law list that will come up would be a wild life center, say exotic animal paradise or something along those lines. Are there any exceptions to requiring access to those areas? SALLY: Yes, there may be. First of all, churches -- unfortunately, churches as we know are not covered by Title III. And so they are not a Title II entity. So churches are off the table. They are exempt. I probably should have put that more artfully than I did. Churches are not covered, but absolutely there are some areas where it has been established objectively that fundamental alterations or direct threats do exist with the presence of service animals. Let me first address grocery stores. I think it's really going to be a stretch to find that a grocery -- an area in a grocery store, unless the questioner was more specific, Aaron -- RACHEL: The questioner wanted to know in a grocery store if they could have their service dog ride in a grocery cart. SALLY: Oh. RACHEL: You know, or is it ok for the grocery store to say, no, we're worried about food contamination, you can't have your animal in the cart. SALLY: Well, you know, the question that I would have -- and I'm not an expert on food contamination issues. That is a whole field, but my first answer would be they let little kids ride in those carts with leaky diapers, -- so I guess you need to look at the rationale and you need to look at other practices. So I think that -- I see that question right now. I don't know -- I don't know the answer to that one. I think that one could go either way because it also becomes an issue of, if it's a service animal, the service animal stays with you and has to be under your control. So I mean, again, not knowing the facts, I think that one could go either way, but the issue of just being able to say food contamination, I really don't know what that means because you're talking about in a grocery cart. I don't know that they're asking to go behind the deli counter. So I read that question and I was hoping we would miss it because I'm not sure of the answer; but I mean, I think sometimes you need to look at -- both sides have clear responsibilities. There is no question the ADA would be too lopsided without it. So I think you need to look at both sides and my first question would be how does that relate to food contamination if children are allowed to ride in that cart, and in the summertime kids -- I know around here -- kids are in that cart with just diapers on. So, again, I think you would need to look at the rationale. If somehow it is shown that that is a factual, legitimate concern, then, yes, they can say no. I don't know about the issue itself. RACHEL: So I think that for some of these real specific situations, people might need to call us so we can -- you know, so we can hear all the details and help you process through it. SALLY: and a lot of them are very difficult. I would like to touch really quickly though on the issue of zoos. There have been a number of cases, and I couldn't tell you which ones they are, I don't know if it was San Diego or there are a few areas in zoos where I know that we have been in touch with a number of experts that there are some limited areas in zoos that the presence of a service animal, specifically a dog, truly is a direct threat to the health and safety of those animals in the zoo. There are circumstances where it can get them -- whether it's scents or a visual, I don't know what it is -- but that really gets them so riled that they can turn on each other. But again, looking at what is a direct threat or what is a fundamental alteration, it is very narrowly read and if there is an area, for instance, in a large zoo that it's clear and it's established that objectively it's not -- that service animal can be excluded, it doesn't mean that that extends everywhere else and I think that's the very important thing. RACHEL: That is important information. Okay, my job is to move us along, so I'm just going to jump to the next question which is about Disney World. And this is really, you know, it sounds like there are -- there is a guide that says which attractions allow service animals and which don't. SALLY: Yes. RACHEL: Is that policy legal? SALLY: It depends, and it's the famous answer, but I will tell you it depends on what the basis is for exclusion. Again, if it's based on stereotypes or something like that, obviously you can't do that, but if it's based on some legitimate safety issue and very often it may be based on an ability to restrain passengers, and I mean restrain in a good sense. For instance, a lot of rides require -- and it has held up legally in a vast majority of them, that riders be of a certain height and riders be a certain weight to participate on certain rides, and if those are the issues, then it may very well be a legal exclusion. If, however, duh, we don't think it's going to be safe, it has to be - - the decision to exclude has to be carefully thought out. It has to be individually thought out, and it has to be based on current objective information. I mean, that's -- frankly, that is the bottom line and the reality is, is sometimes folks with disabilities can legally be excluded from doing things that other people don't have that same limitation, but it has to be based on legitimate, current objective information and on the probability that something would happen as opposed to what if. And it all depends what the basis is for exclusion. And as a person with a disability, if you don't -- if it doesn't pass the gut check with you, there is nothing that stops you from asking Disney or whoever the attraction owner is, you know, what did you base that decision on? And just tell me why. RACHEL: Okay. So those policies may or may not be lawful, you know, depending on the basis of the decision. So it's hard for Sally to give an answer about Disney World has the stamp of approval or not. We really would need that additional information. SALLY: Right, if they just had a blanket prohibition on all attractions, I would have some real issues with that because there are some that are so tame that -- I mean, you can't imagine what the issue would be, but if it's on specific attractions, you know, if they had a bungee jumping thing, I would think it's very legal for them to exclude service animals. So it depends on what it is. RACHEL: Okay. All right, let's move into prisons. SALLY: Let's not. RACHEL: Pardon my expression there. Sally, actually why don't you -- I know that you reviewed these questions before and so why don't you just comment on these prison questions collectively and give us some information about them. SALLY: Sure. The prison issue is a very difficult issue. I think it's still unclear and I think we at this point don't have one specific policy. The reason is that there are so -- the word prison, unless you're an expert, because then you'll tell me if you use certain terms you'll know what you're talking about, but prisons could mean anything from a two-hour holding cell to 25 to life on lifers. This is something that has to be looked at so much on a case-by-case basis. Prison like anything else -- it also reflects in terms of folks who use mobility devices, the issue of threat is -- rears its head in these kinds of environments like nowhere else. Service animals could in fact be a threat. You know, my wheelchair arm, which comes out very easily could in fact be a weapon. So I think it's really an evolving issue. The general principle though always is you go back to the definition. You go back to specific requirements of you can't exclude, you can't segregate, you can't do X. Y. and Z. You look at those in the context of that correctional system and then you figure out what can we and can we not do. Because remember there is always the issue of very legal defenses of direct threat to others, security concerns that you see in prison that you don't see anywhere else. The key is to look at what the prison's policy is. Look at the level of security within that prison. You know, they range from very, very tight tight security to very low, low security prisons where people may go out and have a job and then come back. So I think you can't answer that question, but I think you still need to look at the tenets of the ADA and that is that people with disabilities have to be included that you don't segregate, you don't limit, you don't deny unless there is a compelling reason which allows you to do that. And I think that's probably the best -- the same rules apply in the same legal defenses apply and you have to look at it in those terms and I hope that's not too evasive, but it's really difficult because there is a difference between, you know, getting -- if you drive without your license and you mouth off to the officer, and they take you downtown and they put you in a jail cell, you know, for two hours or one hour until somebody can bring your license and then you can get out of there, and I meant driving without having your license with you. That whole scenario is very different than if you're going to be incarcerated for a month. And it's real hard to answer that question. RACHEL: Okay. SALLY: So you still need to look at it in the globe of prisons are covered. We know that. The courts have said that prisons are covered under Title II of the ADA. So you still go through the exact same analysis that you would in any other situation. RACHEL: Okay. Alright. I think that's a very fair answer. SALLY: Okay. RACHEL: Frustrating I'm sure for some people I'm sure. SALLY: I know. RACHEL: If people do have specific scenarios, again, call us and we can help you apply the law. We can review it with you. SALLY: Yeah, and the key, again, is the same principles apply. I mean, it's no different. The difference is, is that it's much easier and probably much more real in terms of direct threat and security issues when you're talking about prisons than you are when you're talking about, you know, a restaurant. So. But again, you still use the over arching principle of people with disabilities should not be separated from their service animal, and then you go to that next step, and you see what you can do with that. RACHEL: Okay, great. kay, we're going to move on to the section here about allergies. And for anybody who didn't hear the last Web cast, these might seem sort of out of left field, but we did have a nice long discussion about allergies and these are a few of the left over questions. And so I guess the discussion last time was largely about what happens if you have a person with a disability who uses an animal, and then you have another person with a disability who has allergies and what happens when they collide? So these are just a few -- I guess we have two left over questions and a tip as well someone sent in. So the first question is, are people with severe allergies considered disabled? SALLY: The answer is if the manifestations of that allergy -- I mean, severe allergies doesn't mean a blessed thing. You know, I've seen some people with these horrendous horrendous allergies that they can't breathe, they can't do anything. You know, and then I see somebody else that has some sniffles right now who says I have such severe allergies -- the key is you go back to the definition of disability. Are the manifestations of that impairment, do they substantially impair one or more activities of daily living? So if somebody has real severe allergies in terms of they can't breathe, they miss tons of work because they can't breathe, they can't walk for any distance, then the chances are that, yes, they're going to be covered. If somebody like me just had, you know, drips and coughs and it's very seasonal, that's probably not going to rise to the level of allergies. There is a big difference between a little discomfort and something that is really a health issue. RACHEL: Okay, and just to let people know, too, on the archive page for this Web cast I will post the definition of disability under the ADA because we have referred to it a number of times. So I will put that up there so you can refer to it. Okay, just moving into the next section. Have you heard anything, do you think there is a possibility that animals could be outlawed on airplanes? SALLY: Well, I would certainly hope not. I think that there is a difference to someone who is allergic to peanuts -- from what I know if someone has a real reaction, a real allergy to peanuts, it's life threatening. That is a difference -- I mean that's a whole different thing than if someone may have some minor allergies, but there are people that are deathly allergic to dog dander. I don't know what airlines will do, but I think that would be a great question to repose on May 12th. RACHEL: All right, good idea good idea. kay, and people can see here on the document that a tip did come in. I'm guessing it's true, even though it does make you giggle when you first look at it. This came in from some people who train service dogs, and their tip is that when it comes to keeping the dog clean and well groomed, that they feed them on what is the BARF, no kidding, diet. No kidding. Now, that looks like barf, what it stands for is biologically appropriate raw food. If people are interested in more details about that, let us know and we connect you with the folks who sent in that tip. Okay, I'm going to move us into training because we are really like near the end here because we did get cut off, we can run a couple of minutes over, so let's just see if we can get through some of this. Okay, in training, how do you determine who's qualified to provide training and if you can talk a little bit about the difference between owner-trained and professionally trained? SALLY: Well, in terms of the ADA that is not addressed. There is no -- there isn't a requirement that says it must be trained by X, Y. or Z. Owner-trained very clearly is just that, that it's an animal trained by its owner typically meaning the person with the disability who has need for that animal's service. RACHEL: Okay, can you address -- there is a question, some people say that once once a dog has been trained to provide one service, even if the dog is still being trained, at that point would the ADA recognize that animal as a service animal or would they need to go farther in their training? SALLY: Well, I think that the better way to -- for that question is, is an animal who has been individually trained to perform one task or one specific kind of work for that person with a disability, is that a service animal? And I would argue that, yes, it is. I mean, there may be somebody that -- that an animal learns one specific task. I think also animals are always in one way or another in training. I think there is continual reinforcement as somebody's disability may change, there may be a need to learn new skills, but again, you go back to -- I would rather get away from is it an animal in training and just get that out of the equation and look at is this a service animal that meets the definition of the ADA and I think that's how we need to look at it. If it's one thing that maybe -- picks up its own leash or its own harness, I don't know. And again you're going to have to look at it, what is that -- what has it been trained to do and in terms of those three things, the animal that has been specifically trained, what work or task and is it directly proportional in relation to the disability of its owner? And those are the things you have to look at. RACHEL: Okay, great. SALLY: But to start making that a dog -- service animal in training - - I really would rather not look at it that way. RACHEL: Okay. I hear you. Does the ADA comment at all on different types of dogs or breeds being service dogs? SALLY: It does not. There is no limitation specified in the definition. RACHEL: Okay. SALLY: Guide dog, signal dog or other animals. RACHEL: Right. And it looks like this other question about whether or not service -- owners of service animals carry I.D.'s when it comes to the ADA that's not required, but obviously some may and some may not. But that does really take us into questions with state law about certification. You know, looking at the selection of questions under state law, it does look like a number of states have or are considering laws that require people who use service animals to have certification for the animal. And this obviously can be an issue because there are a number of animals that are already trained but not in a way that would -- you know, that would get them a specific certification. So we're talking about extra money here, but basically, Sally, would a law like this violate the ADA and if you can kind of comment on what happens when you have the ADA, a federal law and a state law, and the relationship there. SALLY: Well, what you look at is which law provides the greatest civil protections, civil rights protection for individuals. The ADA absolutely does not require certification for an animal, and the ADA, which would be a federal law -- and it provides access to the greatest number of people -- is going to take precedence. RACHEL: Okay. AARON: Now that being said though, all federal civil rights laws including the ADA -- they create a floor of minimal standards, and states are free to expand on that and to provide much broader and much stronger protections. And in reading -- in reading the -- I guess the code of all 50 states and DC, which I've done, you get a feeling for a significant amount of the states who require certification are trying to do so for very specific reasons which may or may not be lawful and I would love for you to jump in at any point, but I know we're short of time. SALLY: Actually I would be happy to jump in. AARON: I want to hit real quick, most of the state laws at least passed since the ADA are aimed at providing additional protections or filling in perceived gaps or in fact I think answering idiosyncratic questions that arrive among the constituency of state reps, a particular incident happened and it becomes a popular issue and a state bill is amended or passed. And then it becomes more apparent. I think one of the things you look at is there is narrower coverage in the states. There are states that only acknowledge service dogs. There are -- or assistance dogs as a broad class and there are some that only recognize -- I say flee states that recognize guide dogs and hearing assistance dogs, leaving out the broad class of service animals and the broad class of all other animals: So you're going to see exclusions like that, but at the same time you're going to tend to see some enhancements in the law. And I think a pretty exemplary law is our own Texas state law in terms of what those enhancements are. RACHEL: Aaron, actually, when you talk about the Texas law, can you make sure to answer -- there does seem to be some confusion. We've gotten a number of e-mails about Texas law. It does appear that some of the people sending in e-mails have missed information or have misinterpreted the Texas law. So, Aaron, it would be a great service for you to really explain it. AARON: Well, that's cool. I think I can do that. The meat of it is under Texas law I think they over reach in one place and that's where they require service animals be leashed or harnessed at all times when enjoying the protection of these laws. That may or may not be appropriate and of course if I'm correct, Sally, the ADA doesn't specify that. SALLY: Correct. AARON: Now, where they get into providing extra coverage I would say or extra protection for people with disabilities is, for example, at a matter of the human resource code, state employees can obtain an additional ten days paid leave to attend a training program to familiarize themselves with an assistance dog. Now, while that's not probably adequate let's say to do guide dog training, in a variety of the major guide dog center, this is on top of additional leave. So this is a bonus, and in addition to that -- or I guess a condition of that is that the assistance animal must be trained by an organization that's generally recognized as a reputable or competent organization by the types of folks who are involved in rehabilitation of people with disabilities. Now, that's a problem; but I don't think it's a problem in terms of the ADA in providing state employees this additional right. SALLY: No, it shouldn't be at all. It's an additional benefit that is above and beyond the basic -- what the ADA says is that service animals shall be allowed generally where the public goes without requiring proof of training, proof of disability and those kinds of -- that's a low floor. And you're exactly right. This is a whole different issue. This is an added benefit and it's very similar to -- in the old days where if you had tags or the placard or a decal that allowed you to park in an accessible spot, in the old days anyway, you used to get free parking, and the fact that they asked you your disability, you had to give a doctor's note and you had to do all of that stuff in order to get that placard. It allowed you an additional benefit. So you are exactly right, Aaron, that they can. They can do these kinds of things because it's an additional benefit that allows you a benefit that somebody else can't get. AARON: Now, another issue that they tackle at the state level in Texas and in a vast majority of the states is are trainers allowed in with dogs and what constitutes a trainer. And since they afford broad protections for what is a trainer with a dog in training, the qualification that the trainer be an approved trainer who is an agent of an organization, again, generally recognized as being involved with rehabilitation of people with disabilities does not appear to be over reaching because they are extending the protection to the people who are not covered under the ADA and people who are not in fact disabled. Am I correct? SALLY: Yes. AARON: And now an interesting approach in Texas is that several years ago they criminalized interference with a service animal in the way that the ADA civilly prohibits it. So several years ago they made it a crime to interfere with a service animal and one of the more recent legislative sessions they've -- I would say they have done a fair job of trying to explain that law and in fact provide additional protection. I have some concerns about the enforceability, but basically they break it up into these kind of categories and this is the most complex law. They break it into a Class A misdemeanor for interference, a state jail felony if an actor or an animal in control of an actor injures an assistance animal and a felony of a third degree felony if an actor or animal in control of that person actually kills an assistance animal. Now a third degree felony in the state of Texas is a mandatory two and a maximum ten years in prison. So my guess is this is in response to an event which sounds very horrible. So Texas has taken that approach. Hawaii has gone a little bit further. They are not as harsh I would say with the criminal -- with the criminal penalties, but they do provide for an order of restitution so that the animal actually be -- that the bad actor who kills the service animal or injures the service animal would pay restitution to have it medically treated, retrained or replaced. So, again, these are some things that kind of typify state laws and that's the criminalization of this conduct that's only a civil violation of the ADA. An interesting -- an addition to that is misrepresentation of yourself as a person with a disability and as a service animal as a service animal. And there are several states that deal with one side of that misrepresentation or the other or both, and most of them essentially make it a criminal penalty, but one only payable by a fine, some of them as high as a thousand dollars for again misrepresenting your pet as a service animal trying to enter a place of public accommodation or transportation, which I think may be an appropriate -- if you can get it enforced, may be an appropriate thing to do. SALLY: Well, I think certainly, too, and there was a question earlier of how do we best educate the public? I think the presence of some of these state laws are very important to let people know about, because people have this great concern about it's not really a service animal, blah, blah, blah, and if you can point to, look, there are legal sanctions against individuals who would foist an animal off as a service animal that isn't, that goes a long way to sort of helping the business community feeling like they're not in it totally alone. AARON: I would agree. I find it kind of interesting that some of the state laws, you know, specify in a fairly exhaustive list of businesses that are covered, but I think that's in an effort to educate businesses and make sure that they understand the kind of nebulous phrase public accommodation under the ADA. It means a lot to us, but it may not stand as a reminder to an average business owner that they are obliged under the ADA . There was a question regarding the state of Tennessee, and I think that concerned all of us, and in review of the Tennessee law, it appears to be pretty close to the way this question was represented that in fact they have a fairly restrictive set of identification requirements where a hearing dog must be on a leash, must receive a card from -- I guess from the council for the hearing impaired, in addition to other requirements, and again, I guess they detailed that there is an attorney general opinion that seems to state that that's in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and I would encourage someone to challenge that and the attorney general's opinion if they feel that they've been discriminated against because it does appear to overreach the ADA. That's my opinion. SALLY: Well, I brought this specific issue to John Wodatch, who is our section chief, and he was very interested in looking at this. AARON: Look out, Tennessee. SALLY: This is something we're going to look at, this specific issue. AARON: You are incredibly cool and you have a lot of power that we don't have. John Wodatch is of course the Executive Director of the office on civil rights for the Department of Justice? SALLY: He's our section chief. He runs the Disability Rights Section where I am. AARON: I see. SALLY: So rest assured that did not go unnoticed. AARON: Well, you see, avid listener, your question has probably already started the machine in motion. Like I said, I've seen most of the questions aligned along this way. I mean, can the states do this? And it appears where they are requiring something more than the ADA and they're not offering any more protection than the ADA, then of course they can't do that because the ADA is going to be the supreme law at least there. It's going to be the most protective and the most stringent. But there are, again, all of these -- this list of these idiosyncratic issues--the misrepresentation, the ability to take ananimal in training, the ability to go yourself as a trainer and these are things that I think that are important protections that aren't addressed specifically by the ADA and your states have done a remarkable job in trying to draw the circle on a complete set of rights for people with disabilities. So I would never discourage somebody from trying to enforce their rights with the state law. SALLY: Absolutely not and you can always file a complaint, always, always, always, and then you can withdraw it with no penalty, but if there are filing deadlines and you miss that golden deadline, you can never go back and do it again. And so I need to echo what Aaron has said. If you have a comparable or even a more protective or more inclusive state law, don't ever hesitate to file at the state level in addition to the federal level, just don't ever worry about doing that. RACHEL: Great. All right, we are way over our time and I think we're going to get cut off. So let me just ask you guys if there is anything that you want to say to wrap us up before I do our final farewells? AARON: We did receive some questions on transportation and housing, and I want to encourage those folks to revisit us on the next Web cast, in addition, we will be posting the Web site addresses that some of you missed because of a server error on our Web site. So you can be assured that that information will be available. RACHEL: Okay, great. Sally, anything you wanted to leave us with? SALLY: Let's see –-- RACHEL: You've given us a lot. SALLY: Well, I think whether you're a business or a governmental entity that is trying to comply with the law or whether you're a person with a disability that uses a service animal, the key is –-- is to think in terms of what does that animal do and, you know, service animals by their very nature -- and I don't mean innate nature, but I mean, by their very training are not animals that are going to be disruptive. So, you know, before you say if you're a covered entity and before you say, no, I'm not letting you in here, remember that there may be significant time that you may have to spend to defend that decision. The other thing is, it is absolutely okay under the ADA to exclude under very specific conditions, but the key is, is to look at those three prongs, number one, is it a person with a disability? Number two, is the animal individually trained? And number three, has that animal been trained to perform work or perform tasks on behalf of that individual with a disability? And if you always get back to that -- those cold, hard facts, it takes the emotionalism out of it, and you can look better at what is this animal and make a really objective, informed decision. So always go back to the facts if everything else fails. And I appreciate the time that you folks have given me. RACHEL: Well, we really appreciate your giving us so much time. As you can tell, this is a hot topic and will continue to be so, but I think that you've given us some really helpful information. I think that people are going to be better equipped after listening to today's Web cast and applying some of what -- the principles that you have addressed and applying those to their real life situations. So thank you, thank you, thank you, Sally and Aaron, also, thank you. I know you have a lot more to give and hopefully there will be another opportunity to do that. I know there is a lot of interest in state law. So, you know, just to the crowds listening, again, please continue to send your questions. We will follow up with you individually at this point. And again, on May 12th, a Wednesday, our usual time, Wednesday at three o'clock eastern time, we will have another Web cast about service animals. Today's will be archived and lastly, I'd like to do some thank yous. In addition to our presenters, I would like to acknowledge NIDRR who funds the Disability Law Resource Project here at ILRU. And there are a handful of other people who have made today possible, we've got Marj Gordon, Sharon Finney, Dawn Heinsohn, Vinh Nguyen. On behalf of Rob Dickehuth, we have John in today and I'm sorry John your last name escapes me and last but not least we have Marie Bryant who is our realtime captioner and we've given her a challenge today. So, Sally and Aaron again, thank you, and for everybody else we look forward to visiting with you again on May 12th. Thanks a lot and have a great rest of the afternoon, everybody. Bye-bye.