Talk:Board Policy on Animals

The wording on this policy is overly broad, and states things are illegal when they are not.

Regarding this: "If a member brings a service animal into the space, persons may only ask the owner the following 2 questions (defined by federal law) about the animal and its service to the owner:

• Is the animal required because of a disability?
• What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?

Questions outside of these two are a breach of federal and state law and will be considered a violation of the Pumping Station: One membership agreement."

The way this is worded, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANIMAL ARE SAID TO BE ILLEGAL. This is ONLY true if the questions are pertaining to whether the animal is, in fact, a service animal. The way this is worded, if a person said "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" would be considered grounds for removing a member, and called illegal. The wording should be clearer. --Davidfell (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT)

I asked not to include the language in the policy because it is confusing, but I did not want to block consensus and didn't object to leaving it in. Originally I was for only stating that we allow service animals as defined by <the list of laws> because the laws will have the details. It got pointed out to me that members might harass someone with a service animal by grilling them on its status. That's a good point. So, maybe the actual policy language could be changed to remove the questions bit, and we have a non policy section on the policy page with advice on how to talk to people with service animals. --Skm (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT)

First off, disability law is really complicated. Here is what I've been able to find regarding the actual text of the regulations for ADA Title III, source: http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm

(c) Service animals.

    (1) General. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.
    (2) Exceptions. A public accommodation may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if:
        (i) The animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it; or
        (ii) The animal is not housebroken.
    (3) If an animal is properly excluded. If a public accommodation properly excludes a service animal under § 36.302(c)(2), it shall give the individual with a disability the opportunity to obtain goods, services, and accommodations without having the service animal on the premises.
    (4) Animal under handler´s control. A service animal shall be under the control of its handler. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal´s safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler´s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).
    (5) Care or supervision. A public accommodation is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.
    (6) Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person´s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person´s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).
    (7) Access to areas of a public accommodation. Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a place of public accommodation where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.
    (8) Surcharges. A public accommodation shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. If a public accommodation normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.
    (9) Miniature horses.
        (i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.
        (ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider –
            (A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;
            (B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;
            (C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and
            (D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.
        (iii) Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.

I originally quoted a summary of the rules to the mailing list which prohibited "staff" asking questions. You questioned whether it would apply to us because PS:One has no staff. The text in (6) above makes no mention of "staff" and just speaks of the "public accommodation". This begs the question of what person should be considered the public accommodation. If a restaurant waiter asks a patron intrusive questions about their disability or animal, that's clearly a violation. If a fellow diner asks the same questions, it's rude, but not a violation against the restaurant. Because PS:One has no staff, it isn't clear who is or is not bound by this. Sure, you could say it would apply to the Board. But what about the Area Hosts? Volunteer Authorizers? Additionally, members may host events. What about the person in charge of the event? What if the disabled person is at the space for an authorization run by a random member and the random member asks the questions? Etc. All of these could result in litigation against the space if the disabled person felt offended and was inclined to do so. So it makes sense to apply the PS:One policy to everyone.

Now the way (6) is worded above is extremely broad! It seems the intention is to protect the privacy of the disabled person, and to make sure the public accommodation isn't trying to impose additional requirements on the animal beyond what the law allows (e.g. can you make the animal demonstrate its task, where are its training papers, do you you have a note from your doctor, etc.) So "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" could potentially be illegal, especially if they are followed up by "What is your disability? Where was your dog trained and for how long? Etc." That's why the PS:One policy is, likewise, broad, so that it matches Federal rules.

That said, "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" asked alone will almost certainly not offend the disabled person and not result in a lawsuit! PS:One policies are interpreted by humans who are rational, have common sense, and who find the discipline process of the membership agreement painful to follow; if the disabled person wasn't offended and no lawsuit results, then there is no chance any disciplinary action would be taken against a person who asked those two questions.

Keeping this as part of PS:One's policies is beneficial. First, I don't think anyone knows about this. I didn't before researching this issue. A well-meaning person could ask questions of a disabled person that are illegal and could result in litigation. We don't want that. Making this a PS:One policy helps educate our own membership about federal law. Second, if someone does ask these questions and the organization does gets sued, we can assert as a defence that the organization itself took efforts to prevent this from happening, and that the person asking the questions did so while violating our policy. --Rdpierce (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (CDT)