Man with Service Dog Denied Access at Gym

When the owners of the gym said he could not come in with his service dog, the man handed them a card explaining the Americans with Disabilities Act and suggested they call the ADA Info Line, the number of which was on the card, if they had any questions.  The owners refused to call the number and refused to allow him into the gym

So the man called the police.  This happened in Michigan and in just a few weeks a law goes into effect in the state of Michigan making it a misdemeanor to deny access to someone with a service dog.  The man wanted to office that responded to explain the ADA and the new state law to the owners of the gym. Instead, the office said he didn't know anything about the new state law (which goes into effect in about three weeks, mind you, which he will be responsible for upholding and enforcing) and instead suggested the man just find a new gym to go to.

The owner of the gym now says she and her husband are "getting up to speed" on the laws.  Well, the ADA has been in effect for 25 years, so they've had ample time to get up to speed.  She also says they just did not know what to do.   Well, how about complying with the law and not discriminating against people with disabilities, to start with?  Or maybe calling the ADA Info Line, the number of which was given to her, and asking what to do?

But she says she mean no harm.  She violated the federal law and discriminated against a disabled veteran.  Well, I'd say that's harmful.

Here's the article if you want to read it.

Discrimination Is Not Helpful

Quite a few people have suggested to me that the first church I called, the one that said I could bring Isaac but we would have to sit in a special reserved seat, was not trying to discriminate or make me uncomfortable but was trying to be helpful.  Well, I don't know what their intentions were.  You would assume a church would want to be helpful and welcoming, but then, many churches refuse to allow people with service dogs to attend at all, so those churches do not intend to be helpful or welcoming.  So that is not the intention of all churches.

But maybe it was the intention of this church.  I don't know.  I didn't ask them.

The bottom line is, no matter what their intentions, discrimination is not helpful.  Discrimination is not welcoming.

And yes, segregating a person because they have a disability, insisting they must sit in a special reserved seat when everyone else gets to choose any seat they like, is discrimination.  Offering to reserve a seat or asking if I would need a special seat, that would be offering to be helpful.  But insisting I sit in a special seat when I do not need or want a special seat?  That is discrimination.

The U.S. Department of Justice even says it is discrimination.  Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is illegal for a business to do that.  But of course, churches are exempt from the ADA, so they are allowed to discriminate.  The fact that it is legal doesn't make it helpful, though.

The thing that surprised me is that many of the people suggesting the church just wanted to be helpful and that I was being unreasonable have disabilities.  I've written before about how bigotry can be internalized and this is yet another example.  I am unreasonable for objecting to discrimination.  The people discriminating against me are not unreasonable.  I should appreciate them just allowing me to attend their church and not expect to receive equal treatment. 

Well, no.  I don't appreciate discrimination and I don't find it helpful.  Not at all.

Internalized Ableism

I remember reading about a study once in which researchers offered both black and white dolls to both black and white children.  Both the black children and the white children preferred the white doll.  That is telling, right?

Well, people with disabilities internalize ableism, too.  They internalize prejudice and sometimes discriminate against others with disabilities.  Also, they sometimes cooperate with people that want to discriminate against them.

Examples?

In the last few weeks, I have had discussions with:

• Two different EMT's, both of whom are disabled and have service dogs, that believe service dogs should not be allowed in ambulances.  One went so far as to say she would refuse to transport a service dog in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Another service dog  handler, not an EMT, who also thinks service dogs should not be allowed in ambulances.  She informed me I would be risking my life if I insisted on taking my service dog with me in an ambulance and said she thought the paramedics should refuse to transport my dog.  Besides risking my life, I would be inconveniencing the paramedics, who would have to disinfect the ambulance after transporting my dog.
• Someone with 12 years of experience working in an emergency room, who is himself disabled with a service dog, who said people should not bring their service dogs to the ER.  He said it was just "common sense."
• Another service dog handler who said a group of five friends, all of whom have service dogs, should not have gone to eat in a restaurant together with their service dogs.  A group of disabled people with service dogs is too noticeable and might intimidate some people.  Plus, that much dog hair would be a health hazard.  Later, she said a regular restaurant would be OK but not a buffet, because of the dog hair.

The U.S. Department of Justice has clearly said that people can take their service dogs in ambulances, to emergency rooms and to restaurants, including buffets.   Now, if someone feels it is risky to take her service dog in an ambulance, or doesn't want to inconvenience the paramedics by making them disinfect an ambulance that has been exposed to dog hair (they must clean the ambulances anyway, right?  I sure hope so!), or doesn't want to take his service dog to the ER, or is uncomfortable being noticed in a restaurant or prefers not to dine out with other disabled friends - well, they are not required to do so.

But does it surprise you that these people, who have disabilities and service dogs, hold these beliefs and argue vehemently against the rights of fellow service dog handlers?  It surprised me.  This is internalized ableism.

Accessibility at State Parks

I've wanted to write about this ever since my camping trip back in June. 

Since I've been paying more attention to accessibility, I notice more and more how inaccessible many places are.  And Isaac and I have spent a lot of time at state parks this summer and I am disappointed, though not really surprised, at how inaccessible many of them are.

It really hit home for me on our camping trip.  There was this trail that was marked with a sign announcing how the first 3/4 of a mile or something like that was accessible.  Keep in mind that "accessible" is usually shorthand for "wheelchair accessible" or "accessible for people that have trouble walking." 

So the first 3/4 mile of this trail was paved and wide and flat.  That's great. 

Many of the trails at this state park were not very accessible and it would be impossible to make them all accessible, because it was a very hilly area.  Many of the trails were very steep and narrow and windy and would be hard to pave and even if you did pave them, they were much too steep for a wheelchair and it would have been impossible to make many of them flat enough.  I get that.  I do.  But why not make as many trails as possible accessible? 

And then there is this.

The accessible part of this particular trail led to a wide sandy area under a huge rocky ledge, almost like a shallow cave.  It was really cool.  And just around a little bend, on the other side of this ledge, was the coolest part.  A waterfall. 

The paved part of the trail ended at the sandy area.  And there is no way a wheelchair could make it through that sandy part (unless it was one of those special chairs designed for use on the beach or something).  From the end of the paved part of the trail, you could hear the waterfall.  But you couldn't see it.

Seriously?  They couldn't extend the paved part of the trail a little bit longer, so that someone using a wheelchair could see the falls?

I can tell you why they didn't.  They didn't because the trail was designed by able-bodied people, without input from anyone that actually uses a wheelchair, without much thought given to what accessibility really means.  The accessible part of the trail was an afterthought, done more so they could say "We have some accessible trails," not so much to actually provide access to people with disabilities.

Oh, that's not the reason they'd give if you asked.  Hmm, maybe I should contact the park service and ask them and see what they'd say.  But it would be something like "We only had so much funding for accessible trails" or "It would have been too difficult to pave the sandy area" or "We didn't want to mar the natural beauty of the area" or even "We didn't realize you couldn't see the falls from the end of the paved part of the trail, sorry."  But what all those excuses really mean is "We didn't think it was that important and we didn't even bother to see what it would actually be like to use the trail with a wheelchair."

And that got me thinking.

The bathrooms nearest our campsite where not accessible.  No way someone in a wheelchair could have used one of those toilets.  Teeny tiny toilet stalls and no grab bars.  And there was no sign telling anyone where the nearest accessible bathroom was, either.

The nearest accessible bathroom was the shower house, about twice as far from our campsite.  Only it was only sort of accessible.  There was an accessible toilet stall inside, but there was a super heavy door that opened out to get into the building and there was not one of those door opener buttons.  It is unlikely someone using a wheelchair could have opened that door and gotten inside the building without help.  Which kind of cancels out the accessible toilet stall, you know?

Want to know why it was designed that way?  Why they didn't bother to make the shower house really accessible and why the other bathroom wasn't accessible at all and why they didn't bother to put a sign on the other bathroom to let people know where they had to go for an accessible toilet?  Well, I'll tell you.

They figure people with disabilities don't really go camping anyway.  They figure people that use wheelchairs can't camp.  So why would you need accessible bathrooms at a campground?  And if by some small chance a disabled person using a wheelchair does go camping, surely they will be accompanied by an able-bodied caregiver.  Maybe not a paid caregiver, but a parent or other relative or maybe a friend, someone that can open the door to the shower house for them.  They figure those things don't really need to be accessible, anyway.

They might not tell you that, either, if you asked.  But that's the real reason.

School Punishes Blind Student by Taking Away His Cane

This has nothing to do with service dogs, but it's an example of the type of discrimination and mistreatment of people with disabilities that, unfortunately, is not uncommon.

This article tells about how the school took away the child's cane for punishment and replaced it with a pool noodle, which of course is not a substitute for a long cane.  They send the child home with the pool noodle, keeping his cane.

Do you understand that this would be like blindfolding a sighted child for punishment?  And then sending home that child still blindfolded, with a blindfold that could not be removed until he returned to school the next day.  Unless the child had an extra cane at home, which is possible.  The article didn't say.  But still.  How would you feel if your kid came home from school wearing a blindfold?

I can't imagine how any school employee would ever think this was OK.

So What Are Disabled People Supposed to Do, Then?

I was telling a friend about my problem with the mail yesterday and about the past problem with Fed Ex.  She knows how much my back hurts and she was angry on my behalf.  And she asked, "WTF are disabled people supposed to do, then?"

I said I didn't know, but a moment later, the answer came to me.  What we are supposed to do, I think, is not be disabled.  Some people that are fortunate enough not to have a disability find the disabilities of others terribly inconvenient and bothersome, it seems.  What they want is for us to simply stop being disabled, but if we can't do that, then they would like us to pretend we aren't disabled, to stop inconveniencing them with our disabilities.

Because how hard is it for the mail carrier to knock on my door and wait 30 seconds for me to open it so he can hand me my package instead of just leaving it on the ground?

And remember me writing before about how the property manager of my building delivers notices by wedging them into the doors so that when tenants open their doors, the papers fall to the floor?  I spoke to the property manager three months ago (three months and two days, to be exact, as I happen to know because I blogged about it that day) about it, about how I and several of my neighbors find it very difficult or impossible to pick up those papers from the floor and asked if he could please find another way to deliver notices.  Well, they are still being wedged into the doors.  Apparently that is what is most convenient for him and it doesn't matter how inconvenient it is for the tenants.

Disabled people are supposed to deal with it.  To find a way to deal with it, a way that doesn't involve the non-disabled people having to make any changes or go to any extra effort at all, no matter how small an effort it might take.

Words Matter (Part II)

There is a wonderful book called The Future of White Men and Other Diversity Dilemmas by Joan Steinau Lester, in which she does a great job of explaining why words matter.  It's an easy read and highly entertaining, and if you can find a copy, I definitely recommend it.  In it, she explains that a word is not just a word, no matter how much some people insist it is.  Words have histories.  Words have complex and varied meanings.  They affect the way we think about things.

And if words didn't matter, some people wouldn't get so upset when other people suggest changing them.  Consider the people that insist the word "mankind" really means everyone.  They don't want to change a title from Chairman to Chairperson, for instance, insisting it isn't necessary because the "man" in Chairman really refers to women, too.  Suggest to one of these people that since a word is just a word, the title instead be changed to Chairwoman, which would include men, too.  The amount of resistance you'd get to such a suggestion is a clue that the word really does matter.

Do you know where the word "handicap" comes from?  In England in the 1700's, people with disabilities were not allowed into the poorhouses.  They were not considered good enough for that.  Instead, they were given caps with which they were supposed to beg.

Many people today prefer to be referred to as "a person with a disability" rather than as "a person with a handicap."  I see their point.  I have a disability, a condition that affects my abilities, but I don't beg on the street corner with a cap.  I also object to the idea that a person with a disability is not even good enough to be admitted into a poorhouse.

When someone refers to me as handicapped, do they mean to say I am not even good enough for a poorhouse?  Probably not.  I bet most people that use the word "handicapped" don't even know the origin of the word.  But now you do.  And you know that some people find it offensive or objectionable.  If it's just a word, and if you don't mean to use it to demean someone, why not just say "disability" instead?

I Found This a Bit Insulting

A few days ago, I came home from running some errand and found a flyer on my door.  It looked like there was one on every door in my apartment building.  I took the flyer and went inside and read it over.

It was a handy list of "Tornado Safety Tips," which apparently my landlord thought would be of use to all the tenants in the building.

The flyer listed signs that a tornado might be coming, including a low-hanging cloud that looks to be rotating (well, yeah, I guess that would be a sign of a tornado, huh?), debris dropping from the sky, and a "greenish-black tint to the sky."  I was immediately turned off because as a freelance writer, I have to do research and put accurate facts, based on reputable sources, in my articles.  I recently read something that said that a greenish-colored sky did not indicate an approaching tornado.

To be certain of my facts, I looked it up.  According to the Journal of Applied Meteorology, a green sky is a sign of severe weather.  Well, yeah, you usually don't see a green sky on a calm, sunny day.  But it doesn't necessarily mean a tornado.

If my landlord wants to help me  prepare for a possible tornado, I would appreciate accurate information.  But whatever.  That's not the part that I found most insulting.

The flyer went on to advise me to inform "the blind or deaf" about the weather conditions.  Because, what, they aren't bright enough to know what the weather is like?

I guess blind people wouldn't be able to see that green sky, but since that doesn't mean a tornado is imminent anyway, I'm not sure that really matters.  I haven't known many people with visual impairments, but there was a woman that used to live near me that was blind.  We took the same bus downtown to work, back when I was a social worker.  She was a social worker, too.  I'm guessing she was aware of the weather conditions.  When it was raining, she got as wet as I did, standing on the corner waiting for that bus.  She used her umbrella when it rained, zipped up her coat and put on her gloves when it was cold, etc.  She seemed to be as aware as I was about the weather, even though she could not see the sky.  I wonder if she would have appreciated me saying, "Hey, Mary Ann, it's raining" when it was raining.  I'm thinking not.

I've known quite a few people that were deaf and they all seemed to be aware of the weather, too.  Sometimes they would even tell me about the weather.  For instance, when I did volunteer work at a summer camp for kids with disabilities, some of them would sign to me, "It's hot!" on a particularly hot day.  I bet they would be aware of things like low-hanging rotating clouds and debris falling from the sky, too.

Besides the apparent assumption that people that are visually impaired or deaf must be too dumb to notice if the weather is bad, this flyer referred to them as "the blind and deaf."  Not people with visual impairments, not people that are blind, not people that are hard of hearing, not deaf people.  The blind.  The deaf.  Because of course they are all the same and the most important thing about them is their disability.  I'll have to write about person first language another time, but if you didn't know, it is appropriate to say "a person with a disability," putting the person first.  It is not appropriate to say "the disabled."

More on Goodwill Store Discriminating Against Customer with Service Dog

I just wanted to post a link to another article about Goodwill and their policy of discriminating against disabled customers with service dogs.

Goodwill Store Refuses to Comply with Americans with Disabilities Act, Discriminates Against Disabled Customer
http://voices.yahoo.com/goodwill-store-refuses-comply-americans-with-11462578.html?cat=70

Goodwill Store Discriminates Against Disabled Customer with Service Dog

Goodwill Industries, as you probably know, operates a chain of thrift stores.  The income generated by those stores goes to fund numerous social service programs, many of them focused on vocational rehabilitation for people with disabilities.  

Many years ago, I worked for Goodwill briefly as a vocational rehabilitation technician.  That’s a fancy-sounding title for a job that was much less technical than it sounds.  I worked in a sheltered workshop, a place where adults with developmental disabilities and some physical disabilities came Monday through Friday to work.  They performed simple jobs, like counting out eight screws and sealing them inside little plastic packages or carefully pasting labels on the front of the little plastic packages.  Those with more skills performed more complex tasks, like counting out four screws and four bolts that went in the same package.

Clients were paid by the piece, not by the hour.  Most earned well below minimum wage.  My duties included teaching clients to perform their tasks, finding ways to help them complete the tasks (like if they could not count to eight, we gave them a wooden tray with eight slots in it and they put a screw in each slot, then put the screws into the plastic packages), keeping them on task (clients sometimes fell asleep at their work stations, or got distracted talking to each other, or simply wandered off), running over to help when one had a seizure, and filling out tedious observation forms. 

To complete the observation forms, I was required to watch a client closely for 15 minutes and write down what he was doing every 15 seconds on a chart.  I used a code: W for working, T for talking, S for sleeping, NP for nose picking, etc.  Yeah, really.  I had a code for nose picking.  The client was not supposed to know I was observing him, so I would take a seat across the room and try not to let him see me looking at him.  I was good at doing observations; I could monitor three or four clients at a time by choosing those that were sitting near each other and lining up the forms in front of me.

I know I’ve gone off on a tangent here, but my point is, I did not feel Goodwill treated their clients very well.  I did not feel they treated their employees very well, either, which is why I left that job. 

So anyway, Goodwill deals with people with disabilities all the time.  So you would think they would be familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act and comply with it, right?  Well, you’d be wrong.

A woman with a service dog that helps her when she has seizures recently tried to go shopping at the Goodwill store in Johnson City, Tennessee.  The store manager refused to allow her to come in with her service dog.  He asked to see some sort of certification or other documentation, which is not required by law and doesn’t really even exist.  I mean, there are companies that will issue you some sort of certification for a service dog, but it’s a scam.  It’s meaningless paper.  You don’t have to be disabled to buy one and you don’t have to have a trained service dog.  You just have to have a credit card.  So this woman did not have a meaningless piece of paper saying her dog was a real service dog, so the manager refused to allow her to shop at Goodwill.

A representative for Goodwill was later asked about the manager’s behavior and said that he agreed with the manager’s actions and that people with service dogs would only be allowed in if they had “the right paperwork.”  He did not explain what “the right paperwork” would be.  Apparently, he was not impressed with the Americans with Disabilities Act.  He was more impressed with fake certificates for service dogs.

A few days after the media picked up this story, the representative from Goodwill changed his mind and said something along the lines of he still thinks some sort of documentation should be required but since federal law says business owners are not allowed to ask for documentation, Goodwill would begin complying with the law and allow service dogs without fake certificates into the store.  He said it like he was doing disabled shoppers a big favor by allowing them to shop there, not like he was doing his legal duty or just being a decent guy.

Here are some related articles:

Service Dog Owner Claims Discrimination

http://www.wcyb.com/news/31182541/detail.html

Goodwill Changes Policy on Service Dogs

http://www.wcyb.com/news/31192411/detail.html
‎
Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens all the time, even at places you wouldn’t expect to have problems, like at agencies that deal with the disabled on a daily basis.

More on Therapy Dogs International

I recently did an article for Yahoo Voices about Therapy Dogs International and their current policy that discriminates against disabled people that rely on service dogs.  I can't post the text of the article here, but I can share a link to it. 

Therapy Dogs International Discriminates Against Disabled People that Rely on Service Dogs

Please take a moment to read about what they are doing - and what you can do about it!

Therapy Dogs International Discriminates Against People that Rely on Service Dogs

I had to post something about this because I think it is such an important issue.  Discrimination hurts everyone.  Even if you’re not disabled, even if you don’t have a service dog, even if you have no interest in therapy dogs, it still affects you.  No one benefits when someone is a victim of discrimination.

Therapy Dogs International is an organization that certifies therapy dogs, along with their owners.  Therapy dogs are dogs that have been trained to visit patients in hospitals, people in nursing homes, people in emergency shelters, autistic kids, etc.  They distract people from pain and fear, they provide a non-judgmental ear, they provide unconditional love, they give affection to the lonely, they give those in unbelievably difficult circumstances a moment of relaxation.  Therapy dogs need to be well-trained, well-behaved, friendly, not get nervous about strange things like wheelchairs or ventilators, tolerant of people that pet them a bit less than gently, and not get startled by sudden noises.  These are all characteristics of good service dogs, too.

However, Therapy Dogs International (TDI) has a new policy under which they will not certify service dogs as therapy dogs.  If a disabled person that relies on a service dog wants to do volunteer work with a therapy dog, they have to get a second dog to be certified as a therapy dog.  Of course, it takes more work and more money to own and care for two dogs than it does to care for one, and some disabled people have limited resources.

To certify a dog as a therapy dog, TDI requires the dog and its owner to pass a certification exam.  If someone that relies on a service dog has a second dog they want to certify as a therapy dog, TDI requires them to take the test with both dogs at the same time, presenting challenges that non-disabled dog owners don’t have to deal with when they take the test with only one dog.  Seems unfair, doesn’t it?

Ursula Kemp, president of TDI, says service dogs can’t be therapy dogs because dogs can’t pay attention to two people at once.  A service dog, she thinks, could not pay attention to its handler and pay attention to the person it was visiting for therapeutic reasons.  That might be true in some instances, but certainly is not true in all cases.  For instance, if someone with a seizure disorder took their service dog to visit elderly people in a nursing home, and the dog was busy being petted by the residents, it would still be able to notice if its handler began having a seizure.  It could then go over to its owner and provide assistance. 

Or what about someone that relies on a service dog to help them balance when walking?  That person could take their service dog to the library, sit in a chair, and the service dog could sit nearby while children practiced reading to the dog.  If the handler was sitting, they would not need their dog’s assistance at all.

There is also the fact that a number of other well-known therapy dog organizations are happy to certify service dogs as therapy dogs.  Apparently their presidents disagree with Ms. Kemp.

TDI’s policies violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal law that prohibits this type of discrimination against the disabled, including those that rely on service dogs.  A complaint has been drafted and will be filed after the holiday weekend with the U.S. Department of Justice, the agency that enforces the American with Disabilities Act and investigates violations of the ADA.

If you want to read more about the situation, you can do so on Service Dogs Central, a website that provides a wealth of information about service dogs.

If you want to contact Ursula Kemp of TDI to let her know you disagree with her discriminatory policies (and I wish you would), you can contact her at:

Therapy Dogs International
88 Bartley Road
Flanders, NJ 07836
Phone: (973) 252-9800
Fax: (973) 252-7171
E-mail: tdi@gti.net
Website: www.tdi-dog.org 

Don’t expect her to return your calls or respond to your emails, though.  Apparently she’s stopped doing that.  She’s even started blocking the email addresses of people that have contacted her to share their concerns.