# The Ultimate Service Dog Guide!



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Here it is! The ultimate service dog guide (it's long, you've been warned hehe). The result of years of education and training on the ADA (with a focus on service dogs for obvious reasons), and the culmination of many, many posts here on the subject. Title III of the ADA: Public Accommodations is what requires us to take service animals. So, what is a service animal? A service animal is a dog and in some rare cases, a mini horse, that has been "task trained" to assist with a disability. Mini horses do have size restrictions including in their granting of public access that will render them effectively not accessible for most ride share drivers (unless you're driving something pretty big).  So for the purposes of this thread, I'm going to focus only on the dogs.

Just know that it's really not Uber/Lyft doing this, it's Federal Law (in the US), and they are only following, and ensuring you follow, the law. This is actually a 28 year old law, and drivers themselves were liable to follow it from the beginning. Uber tends to have bigger pockets than individual drivers, so ultimately they are the ones who the lawsuits started coming after. To protect themselves, they have to also protect the drivers, by forcing compliance. Hence, you violate the ADA, you get deactivated.  As drivers, we have to accept that we are taking our personal property (our cars) and making them public (by going online). If you don't want to do that, then don't drive ride share. This link will be your friend throughout this post: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

The ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. By substantially limits, we're talking about something that is a really big deal here, not just something that someone has but they muddle through. For example, I have allergies, but they don't rise to the level of a disability, while they are certainly annoying (especially since I'm allergic to dogs and have to be with one pretty much 24/7), I can take an Allegra and muddle through the day.  On the other hand, as my name implies, I have Autism (Asperger's Syndrome), and it does rise to the level of a disability (without accommodations, I likely wouldn't still be employed, probably wouldn't have nearly as many degrees as I do (I barely got through my BA program without accommodations, and it took me 5 years on a 4 year program), and wouldn't be able to get by in the "everyday world". 

By "task trained" they mean that the service dog has to be trained in tasks (at least 2, although some states call for 3 to get their state protection too) that mitigate (lessen, counteract, etc) their disability. This task training usually comes after the Public Access training (which is why they behave so well in public). "Emotional Support" is **NOT** a task.  The ADA (and currently every state law I can find) specifically prohibits ESA (Emotional Support Animals) as "Service Animals" (although FL made an attempt to add them that failed). First, ESAs don't have to be just dogs (and as we mentioned before the only service animals that most drivers are going to need to worry about are dogs). Second, the ADA specifically states that "animals that provide comfort just by being with a person" do not qualify. You hear about pigs flying and living in people's apartments because of the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act) and the FHA (Fair Housing Act), neither of these affect public access (nor ride share drivers). 

They must perform an actual task (take an action) to mitigate the disabilities. For example, being Autistic, there is nothing that really keeps me from going to the fridge and grabbing a soda currently. I actually have some other issue that will one day make that a problem, but right now, it's not one of my "disabilities". So while to someone who has no legs for example, a dog getting something from the fridge would count as a task that mitigates one of their disabilities, my dog getting a soda from the fridge for me (I wish hehe), doesn't count as a task that mitigates my disabilities.  My dogs tasks are medical alert, body blocking, and deep pressure therapy (she actually has a few more, but this post is long enough as it is hehe). 

Service dogs are used for a wide variety of disabilities and haven't been "just for the blind" for at least 20 years now. In the last 10 years or so, their use has started really accelerating. There are guide dogs, hearing dogs, mobility dogs, autism dogs, ptsd dogs, etc. I expect that list to only get longer as more and more studies are being performed as to what service dogs can actually help with. Maybe one day, technology will come along that will replace the service dog. I know things are already being worked on, but until that day, this is where we're at. Personally, I look forward to my personal robot that can take care of my tasks, but alas, I still have a dog. 

Service dogs and in most states, Service Dogs in Training (check your state or if you really can't find it for your state let me know and I'll locate it for you, Service Dogs in Training are typically dogs who have completed their Public Access training, but are still working on their "tasks"), *must* be taken (no if's, and's, or but's). People have tried to get around this for almost 30 years now, no one who has gone up against a legitimate service dog has succeeded. If you can think of it, they've tired it. Allergies, phobias, religion, it's all failed. Ignorance of the law is never a defense for it. Sure you can explain away intent, but discrimination claims don't need intent, they only need to show that the effect of discrimination happened.

The bottom line is simple. If you are SO allergic to or so afraid of dogs that you literally can't function around them, they get you so sick or afraid that they substantially limit your ability to drive (which is a daily activity) then you also have a disability, and unfortunately that disability prevents you from being able to be a ride share driver (as you're unable to complete the basic duties, which including taking service dogs).  Now, if you were an employee, the ADA would have you covered and they'd have to give you another position that you were able to do instead. But alas, we aren't employees, we're independent contractors, and as such, we can't complete our contracts so we're just deactivated.  It's not pleasant, but there is the cold, hard truth. As for religion, well we have a strict separation of church and state in this country. Thus, that is automatically a fail argument, the law can't consider religion (pro or con) when it's considering service dogs (yes, it's been tested in case law, yes, it's failed, many of the cases are up in Minnesota, you're welcome to google it).


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

You can not ask for any documentation. The reason is simple, there is no legitimate documentation to give. With about half of service dogs being owner trained, the documentation would come from the owner anyway, so how is that any different than asking them?  Anyone who does show you some, is almost certainly a fake. There are registration sites where people can get "credentials" that are certifying literally nothing. Because there isn't any legitimate credentials, it's unfortunately not illegal for them to make these fake ones (because they aren't actually forging anything).  After all, I could certify that certain foods don't contain "death crystals", because there is no fraud there. "Death crystals" aren't a real thing. If anyone is ignorant enough to think it is, and pay me to certify it free of it.. win for me. If anyone shows you "documentation" it's almost certainly a fake (real service dog handlers know better).

The ADA does give you an even better way to catch the fakers though. They allow two (2) questions (and ONLY these two questions) to be asked. 1. "Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?" and 2. "What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?" The first one is pretty easy to lie to (unfortunately there are people of such low moral character as to do so). The second one though, this is where you're going to catch your fakers. Anyone with a real service dog knows the two questions you can ask, and will be prepared for this. The fakers won't.  They'll say "you can't ask me that!" (yes, you can). Or, they'll say "emotional support" (not a real service dog, you are not required to take an Emotional Support Animal, and as stated before if it's anything but a dog, you don't have to take it).  If they list actual tasks instead, then they've almost certainly got a real service dog (and not taking it would be a major mistake). 

That being said, service dogs (even legit ones) can still be kicked out on two conditions (three really, but the third is almost never a legitimate reason, so it's almost never actually mentioned). 1. If it "is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it". Out of control is probably the most common legitimate reason. Case law has set this to mean a great many things. The obvious stuff is that the dog is barking (more than just an alert), growling, lunging at people, biting, etc. The slightly less obvious is things like not physically restrained. A service dog still has to be leashed, tethered, etc unless that prevents them from doing their immediate task, in which case they can be off long enough to perform their task then have to be back on again. They also have to remain under effective voice control during that time.

For an example, let's say I was wheelchair bound (I'm not yet, thankfully), and I need my dog to go push the automatic door button. I can release her off the leash so she can run go push it, but then I need to be able to call her back (or stop her mid task with my voice, if a threat emerges or something), and put her back on the leash when she's back. Where this winds up getting a lot of people (especially fakers) is things like shopping carts. Service dogs are *NOT* allowed in shopping carts and putting one there, is considered out of control and reason enough to be asked to leave (if you won't correct it when asked). The same applies at seats/tables in the restaurant. Service dogs are *NOT* allowed on the seats/booths or up at the table. This kind of behavior infuriates most real service dog handlers.  Four (paws) on the floor is the general rule (with an exception for a chest carrier, or something like that, for some smaller diabetic alert dogs that literally need to smell your breath, or have similar tasks).

The second reason is if they aren't housebroken (pretty obvious, but it's a rule). The third? If the presence of a service dog would fundamentally alter the goods/services being provided. This is the core reason why there are a very few areas that service dogs are not allowed (burn units, ORs, etc), there are a few other places (churches come to mind), but that doesn't impact drivers so I won't go too much into them. A famous recent example is a lady who wanted to take her service dog on an open air ski lift chair, after they even offered to drive her up...  she lost, no service dogs on open air ski lifts, deemed a safety issue (they'd have to enclose them to be safe, and that would be a fundamental alteration to their business). Anyway, on the off chance that someone has researched enough about this (and still has low enough moral character) to lie effectively to the second question, and the dog is in control, then you'll have to take it. 

A real service dog will not be an issue at all, so stressing out about it is really an exercise in futility. They are typically trained to sit on the floorboards unless it's a small car and a big dog in which case it will have to go on the seat. Just have a blanket or towel available and that is going to solve the issue of hair and such for you. Bottom line, you wouldn't question if someone in a wheelchair actually needs the chair would you? If someone with glasses actually needs the glasses? Same with service dogs. It's a medical aid device (technically durable medical equipment, they're actually tax deductible).  If someone comes along with a service dog, and you are genuinely in doubt if it's real or not, simply ask the two questions. Between their reaction to (and answers of) that, and the dog's behavior, will tell you far more than any fake documentation from the internet ever could.  People with disabilities are already going through enough, and people with service dogs already get more than enough unwanted attention drawn to them, why make life harder for them, you know? 

If that isn't reason enough, then perhaps this is. In most states it's an actual crime to refuse or interfere with a service dog, typically a misdemeanor (which you can be arrested for, and would go on your record).  For those worried about people faking service dogs, in about 20 states so far, it's a crime (also usually a misdemeanor) to fake a service dog. With all the backlash from the fakes, I'd expect that list to grow too. While the ADA is one thing to worry about (their fines are steep), they really can't arrest you, but your state can (if it's one that has a law making it a crime).  I can't imagine the "what are you in for" chat goes well when others are saying things like assaulting a cop, or attempted murder, and you tell them you refused a service dog.  Criminals, as hard core as they are, tend to not take kindly to people who mess with children, the elderly, or the disabled.


----------



## Iann (Oct 17, 2017)

How do we deny a non service animal after they fail the 2 questions?

I'm all for helping people in need. I have a issue with people faking it.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Iann said:


> How do we deny a non service animal after they fail the 2 questions?
> 
> I'm all for helping people in need. I have a issue with people faking it.


The most common will be "emotional support", so I'd simply say "I'm sorry but emotional support animals aren't service animals, and I only take service animals." Then make sure to document it to Uber/Lyft right away (they tend to believe whoever contacts them first initially anyway), and offer them video footage of her saying "emotional support" or whatever (they probably won't even need to see it). I can tell you that real service dog handlers really despise the fakers too (they are a threat to our highly trained dogs).

This is a video another member made (and posted here), if he wishes to identify himself he's welcome to but I'll not say his name directly. He handled it very well though.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Pawtism you are a Service Animal information GOD. 

Thank You for all you do. And thanks for being you, boo!


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Julescase said:


> Pawtism you are a Service Animal information GOD.
> 
> Thank You for all you do. And thanks for being you, boo!


Thanks! I didn't intend it to be quite so long, but I also wanted to make sure I was not only giving the info but explaining it in a way that drivers could relate to. You can imagine my surprise when I tried to post it and it said I couldn't post anything over 10,000 characters.   

Ah well, hopefully it will serve as a good resource when some of those service dog questions do come up for people.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Great information. What treats do you recommend? I give them recess peanut butter cups....and they really love be them. For some reason, the pet owners are not too happy with the gesture.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> Here it is! The ultimate service dog guide (it's long, you've been warned hehe). The result of years of education and training on the ADA (with a focus on service dogs for obvious reasons), and the culmination of many, many posts here on the subject. Title III of the ADA: Public Accommodations is what requires us to take service animals. So, what is a service animal? A service animal is a dog and in some rare cases, a mini horse, that has been "task trained" to assist with a disability. Mini horses do have size restrictions including in their granting of public access that will render them effectively not accessible for most ride share drivers (unless you're driving something pretty big).  So for the purposes of this thread, I'm going to focus only on the dogs.
> 
> Just know that it's really not Uber/Lyft doing this, it's Federal Law (in the US), and they are only following, and ensuring you follow, the law. This is actually a 28 year old law, and drivers themselves were liable to follow it from the beginning. Uber tends to have bigger pockets than individual drivers, so ultimately they are the ones who the lawsuits started coming after. To protect themselves, they have to also protect the drivers, by forcing compliance. Hence, you violate the ADA, you get deactivated.  As drivers, we have to accept that we are taking our personal property (our cars) and making them public (by going online). If you don't want to do that, then don't drive ride share. This link will be your friend throughout this post: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
> 
> ...


" A HAPPY CUSTOMER CAUSES NO TROUBLE"

Take all dogs if you can.

I never had a dog puke in my car.



Ribak said:


> Great information. What treats do you recommend? I give them recess peanut butter cups....and they really love be them. For some reason, the pet owners are not too happy with the gesture.


Do you put baby aspirin in them ?

Chocolate is supposed to be Toxic to dogs.

Although i have witnessed a dachsund that ripped open a 3 pound bag of hersheys kisses and ATE THEM ALL !
Foil included.
With no ill effects.
Dog was mentally deranged as it was before and healthy and happy.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> "
> Do you put baby aspirin in them ?
> 
> Chocolate is supposed to be Toxic to dogs.
> ...


No asprin.

Where did you get the chocolate info.....sounds like fake news to me. However, you have a lot of credibility in my book, so I will stop giving away the candy to the pets.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> No asprin.
> 
> Where did you get the chocolate info.....sounds like fake news to me. However, you have a lot of credibility in my book, so I will stop giving away the candy to the pets.


Its the Caffeine & Theobromine in Chocolate which is toxic to dogs.
It affects their central nervous system which is highly sensitive to these 2 chemicals.
One Reeses cup should be harmless.
But this is why owners may give a look.

One Pound of chocolate is toxic to a 20 pound dog. ( i thought the levels were lower) The tables do not show over how long a time period for consumption of these amounts.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

YIKES!!!! Thank you for sharing this useful info.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Peanut Butter is Good for dogs.
Now too much consumption of sugars may also be bad for dogs teeth


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Fake documentation is INCREDIBLY easy to fake

5 minutes and a google search was all it took..










It has the governors signature, it's back dated for realism, and it has the state seal...

The suggestions to ask the two questions is a much better idea than asking to see paperwork.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Fake documentation is INCREDIBLY easy to fake
> 
> 5 minutes and a google search was all it took..
> 
> ...


If someone takes the take to make and carry fake documents, they deserve the damn ride with the dog.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Pawtism said:


> Thanks! I didn't intend it to be quite so long, but I also wanted to make sure I was not only giving the info but explaining it in a way that drivers could relate to. You can imagine my surprise when I tried to post it and it said I couldn't post anything over 10,000 characters.
> 
> Ah well, hopefully it will serve as a good resource when some of those service dog questions do come up for people.


Well you explained everything beautifully but new members will still keep starting threads--this needs to be a stickie if it's not already, and I wish there was an easy way for someone not familiar with the site to be automatically directed here anytime they use the words "dog" or "pet" or "service animal" in a post.



tohunt4me said:


> Peanut Butter is Good for dogs.
> Now too much consumption of sugars may also be bad for dogs teeth


You do have to be careful with fat intake. Pancreatitis is common in dogs and usually set off by a high fat meal. So some peanut butter is fine (it's fun watching them lick, and lick, and lick...) but too much can be a problem like any high fat food. Weight issues aside.

Pancreatitis is incredibly painful and can be fatal. Basically it digests itself.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Well you explained everything beautifully but new members will still keep starting threads--this needs to be a stickie if it's not already, and I wish there was an easy way for someone not familiar with the site to be automatically directed here anytime they use the words "dog" or "pet" or "service animal" in a post.


Yeah, I guess I'm mostly hoping that as newbies do ask questions or whatever someone will link this in their thread so they can read it.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

If you get a scofflaw, write them up, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I've refused to accommodate several dozen fake service animals. I suspect that because I immediately log off and write them up, I've never had any issues with Uber. I make sure I video every single interaction for my protection, but haven't yet had to use this evidence. I let Uber know I had video, too.

I carry a copy of the ADA's Requirements cheat sheet in my log book, with the important sections highlighted. It's amazing how when I pull it out, and begin reading the pertinent sections out loud, the liars sometimes just slither away. I still write them up. Every. Single. Time.

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

The few that passed the two questions, that did anything else that indicated they were scofflaws (i.e., produced fake documents, or their dog misbehaved enroute, or they smuggled a second dog - yes, that's happened), are also written up, and automatically 1-starred. I've collected cleanup fees on almost all of them. I know how to get it done.

I have two family members who are disabled, and I work during the day with a disabled attorney (all of these disabilities are readily apparent, too, there's no mystery). I have no sympathy for scofflaws and liars who abuse the system. They can burn.

For giggles and grins, I also carry a one page print out of the criminal penalty for fake service animals. It's a $300 fine in my state. It's very easy to swear out a criminal complaint at the police station, which is my next stop if I get any d-baggery at the point of their criminal attempt, including any threats of retaliation by false report on their part.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Cary Grant said:


> If you get a scofflaw, write them up, EVERY SINGLE TIME.
> 
> I've refused to accommodate several dozen fake service animals. I suspect that because I immediately log off and write them up, I've never had any issues with Uber. I make sure I video every single interaction for my protection, but haven't yet had to use this evidence. I let Uber know I had video, too.
> 
> ...


Some people are surprised, but I actually like it when fakers are brought to heel (pardon the pun hehe). Fake service dogs are a threat to highly trained service animals, it only takes one attack to ruin years of training. Thankfully I've not personally had that happen yet, but some of the people I serve have had that happen. It's a real problem because you can't just train up a new service dog overnight. It typically takes at least a year (and that's in a hurry).

I think those two questions are really the crux of it all, the fakers don't know what to do with the second one. It's almost funny watching their wheels try to turn to process it. I'm glad there are people out there who keep a copy of the ADA reference available (I can just imagine the fakers slithering away hehe).


----------



## DrivingForYou (Aug 6, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Here it is! The ultimate service dog guide .


I (perhaps more than most) really appreciate this great recitation of the law.

Nevertheless, I tend to believe (now more than ever) that Uber will still deactivate drivers even if it is not a legitimate service dog, and the passenger complains. Uber will do nothing to determine if the passenger was "faking", and simply deactivate the driver.

Uber considers drivers as replaceable as rolls of toilet paper. Use 'em up and get another.

Uber has no advocacy for drivers, no real appeals process, nor recourse for drivers to follow.

As such, on the subject of service animals, and animals in general, I take all dogs, cats, etc.. I carry a beach blanket in the trunk and cover the seat before I allow them in the car. If the dog seems like a real danger, such as a pit bull, then I might ask the two questions while videotaping with my phone, and proceed from there.

I've found my open animals policy leads to tips, and it's really no issue.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

DrivingForYou said:


> I (perhaps more than most) really appreciate this great recitation of the law.
> 
> Nevertheless, I tend to believe (now more than ever) that Uber will still deactivate drivers even if it is not a legitimate service dog, and the passenger complains. Uber will do nothing to determine if the passenger was "faking", and simply deactivate the driver.
> 
> ...


That is because UBER is uselesss and ineffective on behalf of drivers.


----------



## Drizzle (Jan 1, 2018)

I'm not an uber employee so I don't care, don't want to care and refuse to read all that. That's ubers and their employees problem, not me im my own boss i do want i want when i want.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Drizzle said:


> I'm not an uber employee so I don't care, don't want to care and refuse to read all that. That's ubers and their employees problem, not me im my own boss i do want i want when i want.


You are your own boss, which is exactly why it's your problem. The ADA applies to you, as a business owner and as a representative of your business. If you had bothered to read it, you'd have noticed this part very early on, "Just know that it's really not Uber/Lyft doing this, it's Federal Law (in the US), and they are only following, and ensuring you follow, the law. This is actually a 28 year old law, and drivers themselves were liable to follow it from the beginning."

People seem to have the erroneous idea that this is some Uber/Lyft rule, but it's actually Federal Law. Might want to go actually read it, especially before you refuse a service dog. Not only will the ADA fines sting, I see you're in Colorado, and they have a state law there that makes it an actual crime to refuse one (as in, you can be arrested, and wind up with a criminal record, for it). CO *§ 24-34-804*


----------



## Drizzle (Jan 1, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> You are your own boss, which is exactly why it's your problem. The ADA applies to you, as a business owner and as a representative of your business. If you had bothered to read it, you'd have noticed this part very early on, "Just know that it's really not Uber/Lyft doing this, it's Federal Law (in the US), and they are only following, and ensuring you follow, the law. This is actually a 28 year old law, and drivers themselves were liable to follow it from the beginning."
> 
> People seem to have the erroneous idea that this is some Uber/Lyft rule, but it's actually Federal Law. Might want to go actually read it, especially before you refuse a service dog. Not only will the ADA fines sting, I see you're in Colorado, and they have a state law there that makes it an actual crime to refuse one (as in, you can be arrested, and wind up with a criminal record, for it). CO *§ 24-34-804*


Actually it doesn't apply to me, I don't have to do allow anyone in my car I don't want in my car. End of story. In fact uber doesn't pay enough for me to allow their dirty pax in my sweet ride. The ada applies to public places my car is not public. Oh wait do i have to put handicap ramps on my house too? No. I am not an uber employee.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Drizzle said:


> Actually it doesn't apply to me, I don't have to do allow anyone in my car I don't want in my car. End of story. In fact uber doesn't pay enough for me to allow their dirty pax in my sweet ride. The ada applies to public places my car is not public. Oh wait do i have to put handicap ramps on my house too? No. I am not an uber employee.


If you aren't a driver (they are independent contractors, not employees, rather famously actually), then no, it wouldn't apply to you (unless of course you own another business hehe, then it would but not your car  ). I was confused by your "not an employee" part (as drivers are independent contractors). Now I get that you're not a driver. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Drizzle (Jan 1, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> If you aren't a driver (they are independent contractors, not employees, rather famously actually), then no, it wouldn't apply to you (unless of course you own another business hehe, then it would but not your car  ). I was confused by your "not an employee" part (as drivers are independent contractors). Now I get that you're not a driver. Sorry for the confusion.


I drive just not a vehicle owned by uber, and I haven't driven uber in a while bc they take 50% of the fare. Why should an independent contractor be forced to use private property to transport animals? At no extra charge, with no notice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I also think it's illegal not to give the driver the destination before the accept the ride. I think what uber is trying to do is illegal. They classify uber drivers as independent bc they have the right to refuse a ride. If they take this right away then you are an on call employee and they have to pay you a lot more.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Great information. What treats do you recommend? I give them recess peanut butter cups....and they really love be them. For some reason, the pet owners are not too happy with the gesture.


Chocolate is toxic to dogs. Do not give them Recess



Pawtism said:


> If you aren't a driver (they are independent contractors, not employees, rather famously actually), then no, it wouldn't apply to you (unless of course you own another business hehe, then it would but not your car  ). I was confused by your "not an employee" part (as drivers are independent contractors). Now I get that you're not a driver. Sorry for the confusion.


He said "Uber doesn't pay me enough". So he's another of those arrogant assholes who think they can ignore the law


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Drizzle said:


> I drive just not a vehicle owned by uber, and I haven't driven uber in a while bc they take 50% of the fare. Why should an independent contractor be forced to use private property to transport animals? At no extra charge, with no notice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I also think it's illegal not to give the driver the destination before the accept the ride. I think what uber is trying to do is illegal.


Oh, well then when you do drive, it does apply to you then (obviously when you don't take rides, it doesn't). You made your vehicle public by taking rides (same as people make their home public by taking bed and breakfast reservations, or opening it as an office, etc). If you don't want it to be public (private only) then don't take rides. What did you expect when operating your car as a low rent taxi? That somehow the laws wouldn't apply to you?

Transporting animals is exactly the job (humans are animals), if you meant pets, then you don't have to take pets (service dogs are medical equipment, not pets). The meaning (definition) of words matter. You wouldn't refuse someone with crutches because they have crutches right? Same is true with all medical equipment. What's illegal is refusing a service animal (I quoted the Colorado statue above and the ADA version is pretty well known and quoted in the OP here). It's not Uber that is saying all this, it's the law (both Federal and State in your case). You really should read the OP before you make a costly mistake, I'm sure the Judge in your criminal case won't be very impressed by "I think what uber is trying to do is illegal", you know?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Drizzle said:


> I drive just not a vehicle owned by uber, and I haven't driven uber in a while bc they take 50% of the fare. Why should an independent contractor be forced to use private property to transport animals? At no extra charge, with no notice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I also think it's illegal not to give the driver the destination before the accept the ride. I think what uber is trying to do is illegal. They classify uber drivers as independent bc they have the right to refuse a ride. If they take this right away then you are an on call employee and they have to pay you a lot more.


You are confusing your desires with what the law is.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

Article on Fake Service Animals.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...fake-service-dogs-n871541?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Drizzle said:


> I drive just not a vehicle owned by uber, and I haven't driven uber in a while bc they take 50% of the fare. Why should an independent contractor be forced to use private property to transport animals? At no extra charge, with no notice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I also think it's illegal not to give the driver the destination before the accept the ride. I think what uber is trying to do is illegal. They classify uber drivers as independent bc they have the right to refuse a ride. If they take this right away then you are an on call employee and they have to pay you a lot more.


You aren't being forced to use your private property to transport, you're willingly offering to do it.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Pawtism said:


> I think those two questions are really the crux of it all, the fakers don't know what to do with the second one.


Answers I have received to "what tasks has it been trained to do?":

- "to say hello". Ride denied - in all my 40+ years on this Earth I have never come across a talking dog
- "to sit on my lap". Ride denied - the ADA requires that the service dog must have had training to perform the task. Sitting on someone's lap does not require training. Any dog can do that; it simply lowers its rear legs until its arse comes to rest on whatever is beneath it
- "whatever we tell it to do". Ride denied - the task must be specific and related to a disability
- "emotional support". Ride denied - this is not a specific task and is also specifically excluded by the ADA


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Answers I have received to "what tasks has it been trained to do?":
> 
> - "to say hello". Ride denied - in all my 40+ years on this Earth I have never come across a talking dog
> - "to sit on my lap". Ride denied - the ADA requires that the service dog must have had training to perform the task. Sitting on someone's lap does not require training. Any dog can do that; it simply lowers its rear legs until its arse comes to rest on whatever is beneath it
> ...


I'd have rejected for all of those too. Really, any task that doesn't somehow mitigate a disability is going to be a fail. Most people here already know about some of my disabilities, but let's pretend you didn't. My answers would probably be (typically are) "Medical Alert, Body Blocking, Deep Pressure Therapy, and Egress". Those would be tasks that can mitigate a disability, but doesn't actually tell anyone what my disability is. In fact, most people guess (when I invite them to guess) PTSD (especially if they ask if I served or not, and they find out I have). That guess would be incorrect though. Not only did I never leave the states (let alone was in any combat), PTSD is not one of my diagnoses (there are ways to have PTSD outside of combat, but I don't have it). As most of you know (and as my name implies), I'm Autistic (Asperger's Syndrome). I also have CVID, and have a few other issues I haven't made public. Anyone with a real service dog will know about the two questions and will be ready to answer the second one.


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

Another reason service animals need to be registered.

https://m.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Company-sold-25-000-service-dogs-that-were-12898053.php


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

mikes424 said:


> Another reason service animals need to be registered.
> 
> https://m.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Company-sold-25-000-service-dogs-that-were-12898053.php


I'm not sure how a registration system would help with that since it would be after the fact anyway (that would be a program certification issue more than a service dog registration issue). However, if those allegations are true, that's a pretty despicable program.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

mikes424 said:


> Another reason service animals need to be registered.
> 
> https://m.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Company-sold-25-000-service-dogs-that-were-12898053.php


I don't see how.


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

Another point.
If, or when, we ask the two questions, how do we know the pax is being honest? If a cheat knows the questions, and lies to us , how can we disprove the claim?

Example 

1. "Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?" 
Answer: yes
2. "What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?"
Answer: I am an epileptic (not true) . Dog is trained to sense when a seizure is coming.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

mikes424 said:


> Another point.
> If, or when, we ask the two questions, how do we know the pax is being honest? If a cheat knows the questions, and lies to us , how can we disprove the claim?
> 
> Example
> ...


If they know enough about the law to know how to answer the two questions, and assuming the dog isn't out of control, you'll have to take them at their word. Could they be lying? Sure. However, since you have no way to prove they are, you'll basically just have to go with it (which, btw, is exactly what the states that do the voluntary registrations have to do currently too).

When you see someone in a wheel chair in the mall, do they really need it? We can't possibly know, but we don't make them prove they do, you know?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

mikes424 said:


> Another point.
> If, or when, we ask the two questions, how do we know the pax is being honest? If a cheat knows the questions, and lies to us , how can we disprove the claim?
> 
> Example
> ...


If they're smart enough to do that, too bad. It's not as if you can get their medical records and disprove it. Unless the dog is very badly behaved or pees/poops in the car and you have it on dash cam you're stuck with them.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

mikes424 said:


> Another point.
> If, or when, we ask the two questions, how do we know the pax is being honest? If a cheat knows the questions, and lies to us , how can we disprove the claim?
> 
> Example
> ...


Service animals are not considered service animals unless they can first behave socially. The way the animal behaves will be your first indication as to whether or not it's possible for this dog to be a service dog. If it's wandering around looking for a place to lift its leg or squat, it's not a service dog. Part of their social training is a very sophisticated potty training where they only go when they are told to. Pawtism I would love it if you could tell me how you trained your dog to do that, it's a very useful trick for even a non service dog!

Even if the dog is, or was, a legitimate service dog, if the behavior has been allowed to deteriorate, it is no longer qualified as a service dog. If the Handler can answer the two questions, but the hairs on the back of your neck are still standing on end telling you that this person is sketchy, you can always ask if there is another task as well that the dog does. They're not officially service dogs unless they have two tasks related to their handlers disability. Up until that point, they are considered in training, and they are not covered under the ADA, although your state may consider them as protected as well. It's up to you to know the laws that will affect your business.

There are a lot of people on this forum that keep taking the "my car, my rules" stance, and how they run their business is certainly their business. The reason that we keep going over this is not for them, but rather for other people who may not be as familiar with what the law is. You should know what you're up against. I'll give you an example.

There is a Costco in my area and occasionally when I go there, I will see people roaming around the store with dogs. Every once in awhile I am able to look at the animal and identify it as at least a potential service dog. Other times I will see a dog wearing a vest that says service dog, with a Handler telling someone that it is a therapy dog, and the dog is mean while sniffing at carts and straining to get to children to play.

First of all, therapy dogs are not classified as service dogs. It is not necessary to accommodate them. They are simply dogs that have gone through specific training so that various institutions will know that they have received that training and passed their course and can be used for therapy purposes with patients/residents/children-in-crisis/etc. They do not have to be accommodated in restaurants or taxis or Rideshare or trains. Not even in Planes, where even ESAs are accommodated. Anyone who is a Handler for a therapy animal, knows this full well. Secondly, this dog didn't qualify as either, based on its Behavior.

Costco sells food, some of it open. It's a health code violation to bring an animal into a store like this, unless it is a service animal. The dog was not necessarily badly behaved, but the store was crowded, and it was an inconvenience to other people trying to maneuver and do their shopping. I asked the store manager about it, pointing out that this was obviously someone trying to scam the system so that they could bring their dog into a public place and use it to become a center of attention. I was told, quietly, that the Unwritten corporate policy was to Simply take any dog that the Handler claimed was a service animal, ESA, or therapy animal. Why? Because the fine from the local Board of Health for violating health codes would be a couple of hundred dollars. The ensuing Court drama and fines for possibly being wrong and denying a service animal would go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that would be before you dealt with the civil lawsuit.

If you really don't want animals in your car except for service animals, under the current climate, my best advice is to make sure that you have a dash cam that you can turn one of the cameras so that it can record the passenger and animal while they are still outside of your vehicle, and that it also does audio recording so that you can apply the questions and record the answers. If it's a really close call, just take the animal. If it's obvious, you can say no, and report to Uber immediately that the tax tried to pass off a fake service animal and that you have video to prove it was a fake. You have to get to them first. Especially with this particular situation. You want to stress that the Pax is engaging in fraudulent behavior that may also be illegal in your state.

If you have a Pax that has a service animal and has gotten Fed Up with being denied service from taxis or Uber or Lyft or restaurants or hotels or any number of other businesses that are supposed to accommodate them, they may well be wearing a recording device themselves. A lot of people who belong to demographics that are often harassed, abused, exploited, or discriminated against will do this. They Tap a button and it starts recording.

If you run across one of these people and you try to deny them when they have a legitimate service dog that is behaving as a legitimate service dog is supposed to behave, they may well get an attorney and start a lawsuit. Any decent attorney is going to sue both Uber and the driver individually, because Uber has the deeper pockets. This is why Uber has established their policy of deactivating any driver after the first *plausible* complaint of this sort. "Plausible" is actually the operative word here. In doing so, they have made it possible to make a motion to have themselves removed as a defendant in the case, and leave the driver swinging in the Wind. If you think you are poor now, you have no idea how poor and under the thumb you can be. And this is assuming you can scrape up enough money to hire an attorney that will defend you in this matter. Uber will not be providing your attorney. This would come out of your pocket, win or lose.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Service animals are not considered service animals unless they can first behave socially. The way the animal behaves will be your first indication as to whether or not it's possible for this dog to be a service dog. If it's wandering around looking for a place to lift its leg or squat, it's not a service dog. Part of their social training is a very sophisticated potty training where they only go when they are told to. Pawtism I would love it if you could tell me how you trained your dog to do that, it's a very useful trick for even a non service dog!
> 
> Even if the dog is, or was, a legitimate service dog, if the behavior has been allowed to deteriorate, it is no longer qualified as a service dog. If the Handler can answer the two questions, but the hairs on the back of your neck are still standing on end telling you that this person is sketchy, you can always ask if there is another task as well that the dog does. They're not officially service dogs unless they have two tasks related to their handlers disability. Up until that point, they are considered in training, and they are not covered under the ADA, although your state may consider them as protected as well. It's up to you to know the laws that will affect your business.
> 
> ...


I wish I could "like" this more than once. Very, VERY well said. Many places have been sued too. Google "Duck Stop Service Dog" and you'll see a case of a small little convenience store (not even some big 7-11 or anything) that rejected a lady because she had 2 service dogs (so she must be faking, they thought, incorrectly as it turns out). One dog was nearing retirement and the other was being trained (dogs will actually help train each other). That state (Oregon) does include protection for in training. She was denied a few times actually and then they were stupid enough to harrass her by following her around filming her. She sued (federally) and asked for $30,000. This case went on for 4 years (she had the ADA covering her legal costs, but they had to pay their own), just recently it ended, with the jury granting her $60,000 (and the court costs reimbursed to the ADA) They doubled what she asked for because of the frequent times it happened and the harassment afterwards. It's all fun and games until someone gets sued.

Costco has already been sued (which is probably why they have the policy you mentioned now). There is a fairly famous case you can google too (I seem to recall they settled when they realized there was no way they were going to win it). As for the potty training, it was a lot of "go potty" (treat after) and "no!" when she started to go before I had commanded it. It took about a month before she was solid on it. Pretty much the same as housebreaking, but just longer as we had to keep it going outside too.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

I was thinking to myself just yesterday, "it's been a long time since a lady tried to pass off an emo dog as a service animal". Well, that error was evidently the kiss of death for my doggie-free streak - today I was requested by this lady, who was pushing a fluffy little toy-sized dog along in a baby stroller.

As usual, I sent the video and accompanying complaint against the pax for attempted service animal fraud to Uber. No account suspension yet from the Dark Side, but that's sure to come later tonight or tomorrow morning.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

See how she tried "Asthma, Allergy" first? Obvious faker, but someone who didn't know the rules might have fallen for it. For those not clear on what happened here, "Asthma, Allergy" is not a task, now if she had said "she alerts me to allergens so I can avoid them" (for example), that might have been different. As soon as she was pressed about it a bit, it all fell apart though, because the fakers just don't know how to handle the second question (and that's why it's your best defense against them). Which is, the whole reason I made this (admittedly long) post. I know you already knew the difference elelegido (and thank you for that), but for those who didn't. Clearly, I want to protect real service dogs, but no one should be faking that, and I like it very much when the fakers are put in their place. Sorry your streak got ruined but keep those videos coming as they happen.


----------



## KellyC (May 8, 2017)

This is a great thread; thanks, Pawtism.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

KellyC said:


> This is a great thread; thanks, Pawtism.


Most welcome!


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

A big part of fake service animals is it victimizes REAL Service Animal owners. Creating doubt and suspicion towards those who genuinely need a Service Animal at their side.

We should post videos (like the one posted here) outing fakers. Similar to all the _Stolen Valor _videos out there~


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

I'm just happy that I carry pet clean up stuff with me, a towel for them to sit on, a sticky roller that picks up pet fur, and an oder neutralizer. I have no trouble with service animals because I take all animals. Bring on your Service Honey Badgers, because I'd rather have this:










Than this anyway;









I'd much rather clean up after dog butt been on my seats, than these MallRats with too short skirts and no panties. (Sorry for the TMI, but these Trainwrecks don't care that they are sitting bare assed on your seats and they won't even try to put something under them.)

This one can sit up front with me;


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Lissetti said:


> I'm just happy that I carry pet clean up stuff with me, a towel for them to sit on, a sticky roller that picks up pet fur, and an oder neutralizer. I have no trouble with service animals because I take all animals. Bring on your Service Honey Badgers, because I'd rather have this:
> 
> View attachment 232146
> 
> ...


Agree 100!

And I'd rather take any animal over these two


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

I would be careful refusing even if they’re blatantly lying (fail the two questions, etc.) if you are absolutely depending on Uber income (you should always have a backup plan anyways as there’s many things Uber may deactivate you at the drop of a hat for). This goes especially if you have no problems with dogs or love dogs. Just take them. No matter what, Uber may deactivate you at least while they investigate and you tell your story, provide dash cam footage, etc. Just because they don’t deactivate someone else doesn’t mean they won’t deactivate you. That’s how crazy they are as it seems no one issue is ever investigated same way or with any consistency. 

However, if you drive as a side gig for beer money, or you can just as easily deliver pizza for Domino’s or whatever as a side gig if you get deactivated, then I would be more inclined to fight it.


----------



## AMP (Apr 4, 2018)

Very informative. Thanks for taking the time to give it to us.

We should do what you do. It's all by the book. I love the $300 fine part.

Thanks again.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

RynoHawk said:


> I would be careful refusing even if they're blatantly lying (fail the two questions, etc.) if you are absolutely depending on Uber income (you should always have a backup plan anyways as there's many things Uber may deactivate you at the drop of a hat for). This goes especially if you have no problems with dogs or love dogs. Just take them. No matter what, Uber may deactivate you at least while they investigate and you tell your story, provide dash cam footage, etc. Just because they don't deactivate someone else doesn't mean they won't deactivate you. That's how crazy they are as it seems no one issue is ever investigated same way or with any consistency.
> 
> However, if you drive as a side gig for beer money, or you can just as easily deliver pizza for Domino's or whatever as a side gig if you get deactivated, then I would be more inclined to fight it.


^^^^^*THIS*^^^^^


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RynoHawk said:


> I would be careful refusing even if they're blatantly lying (fail the two questions, etc.) if you are absolutely depending on Uber income (you should always have a backup plan anyways as there's many things Uber may deactivate you at the drop of a hat for). This goes especially if you have no problems with dogs or love dogs. Just take them. No matter what, Uber may deactivate you at least while they investigate and you tell your story, provide dash cam footage, etc. Just because they don't deactivate someone else doesn't mean they won't deactivate you. That's how crazy they are as it seems no one issue is ever investigated same way or with any consistency.
> 
> However, if you drive as a side gig for beer money, or you can just as easily deliver pizza for Domino's or whatever as a side gig if you get deactivated, then I would be more inclined to fight it.


I'll agree this is the safest course. That being said, it really bugs me when someone takes advantage of a system designed to protect those who need it, for their own personal gain. So on pure principle, I'd deny the fakers (once I was sure they were a faker with the 2 questions). But then, as you correctly point out, I wasn't depending on uber/lyft. If you are, Ryno's way is safer.

Example of a disability faker (watch through towards the end, or at least to the 6:00 to 6:30ish point, up to that point it's possible it wasn't a faker):


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I'll agree this is the safest course. That being said, it really bugs me when someone takes advantage of a system designed to protect those who need it, for their own personal gain. So on pure principle, I'd deny the fakers (once I was sure they were a faker with the 2 questions). But then, as you correctly point out, I wasn't depending on uber/lyft. If you are, Ryno's way is safer.
> 
> Example of a disability faker (watch through towards the end, or at least to the 6:00 to 6:30ish point, up to that point it's possible it wasn't a faker):


In my example, I would not even ask if it was a service animal. Just someone and their dog. Again, that is for someone who had everything to lose if they get deactivated. Some people need both the extra money _and flexibility_ that driving Uber provides that a standard part time job may not. Hopefully those same people can also drive Lyft or other "gig" jobs.

As for myself, I dislike the fakers as well and would probably challenge them if they told me they had a service animal.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Someone on a complete different forum asked me for this info, and I realized, while I had the link up, I should really put it in this thread too. For those who are curious, I give you the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners (IAADP) Minimum Training Standards for service dogs (basically both the programs, and the owner trained dogs, who take their training seriously anyway, train to this, international, standard). http://www.iaadp.org/iaadp-minimum-training-standards-for-public-access.html

This pretty much mirrors the Assistance Dogs, International (ADI) standards (who are the ones who do the actual "certification" for the countries that do have actual certifications, aka much smaller countries hehe). In fact, even some other smaller countries are having trouble keeping up. Canada, for example, has had to start allowing owner training in some provinces as they just can't keep up with it anymore. If we ever did come up with a way to do a national standard though (we'd need like 10 times the number of trainers and testers than we have now, so that seems unlikely anytime soon), this would almost certainly be it (and those of us who take our training seriously, do train to these standards).

Here is a sample of the ADI Public Access Test Form. This is just a blog post I found on the net. Technically speaking, they weren't supposed to post this (the ADI test is supposed to be accessible only from members, which is expensive and difficult to achieve). However, since they posted it, and not me (plus, I'm not a member)....  http://jaydensrowena.blogspot.com/p/adis-public-access-test-for-service-dogs.html this one seems to be a bit older , but it seems to have most everything on it. I've actually got a more recent copy off the net from someone else who posted it but wasn't supposed to. However, it's in PDF form and I don't have an easy way to show it to you.

Enjoy!


----------

