I meant nobody can ban them from places where the general public has access. They're not allowed in the cockpit or the control room of a nuclear missile submarine either.

Airlines don't want bad publicity, and even more importantly they want to sell tickets...even at the risk of annoying their employees other customers. They will turn a blind eye until something really bad happens.

Actually an employer or merchant could ask for details to

1) Ensure they properly accommodate the peron's needs and

2) To verify that accommodation is legitimately required. Although it seems like it, we're not required to provide accommodations to anyone and everyone just because they ask for it. It's legally reasonable to require verification..even though the media would say otherwise

Yup I meant to write emotional support pet..thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How to Take Your Pet Everywhere - The New Yorker

Amusing (in a crying on the inside sort of way) and informative article about emotional support animals. You should see what the author does with her emotional support reptiles and livestock.

Exerpt:

Again #2 is reasonable though to some degree. Imagine you got shrapnel injury in war and just have to walk slowly, and then LNL and company asks you to "prove" it every time you fly. Gets old pretty quickly. I'd rather have a few freeloaders than a checkpoint/gestapo, which is why I feel just elminating the whole "advantage" for mildly handicapped would solve the problem.

Somebody who is nonambulatory is generally obvious and could make rare case-by-case accommodations.

Lady caridomd does litigation occasionally in this and related areas. I see you looked up the ADA wording - the "general public" has been focused on "can't blanketly ban" areas / businesses etc without reason. There are still "general public accessible" areas that dogs are not allowed, health, safety, even cases of religious areas etc., and while the original wording included general public area it has not held up or historically been enforced as strictly such.

ADA was a great law to prevent blanket discrimination, but people misinterpret it all the time (e.g. some people think you 'can't ask if somebody could do the job'). Of course an employer can ask about specifics - somebody who can't walk can't do a job that requires stairs etc. A custmoer who can't move his arms shouldn't go white water rafting. However every front line employee asking questions about a handicap may be perceived as harassment for better or worse, which is why LNL and other employees are told to not ask.

Wow, those stories are simply horrible. I am unaware of any legal status of "emotional support" animals, will have to ask the better half after get back from FLYING.

I like Adam Carolla's idea. He wants to bring along his emotional support pelican, Gilligan. Suffice to say, this emotional support BS is getting out of hand.

This whole charade will be allowed to get ever more outrageous until someone's "ESA" decides to take a bite out of the face of an adjacent passenger. That's the only way legislation ever seems to get implemented in this country anymore.

A friend of mines older sister does this all the time. She brings this old dog of her basically everywhere she goes. She's a vet and has some other friends that are doctors so she got one of them to sign off some note that she needs this dog for support or whatever. I believe she told me she just doesn't want to pay to put in down under with all the other dogs

So got my legal in-house counsel and apparently both LNL and I were right, there is apparently supersets of regulations regarding access and "public access" transportation carriers that prohibit asking of disabilities (not ADA act, which I am familiar with as MD). It is designed to prevent the "screening" of disabled-appearing people as I referenced above.

LNL is correct airlines and employees are apparently legally prohibited from asking what a disability is, but may ask if specific functions are able (e.g. can you lift 10 pounds). Most are defined in the Air Carrier Access Act which was apparently passed around the time of the ADA under pressure from a veterans group and is a famous precursor. Lady cardiomd feels strongly this was needed because prior there would be no incentive to remotely accommodate somebody not ambulatory or who might slow them down.

Just got back and read the New Yorker article. From the anecdotes the front-line employees just don't want to be accused of causing a scene and don't recognize the distinction between service animals and non-service animals. The person comes up with some official-looking paperwork and the employee doesn't know any better / care enough to verify so the animal gets in.

I'm really suprised that these Emotional Support Animals have ANY sort of legal standing, and I take back my earlier skepticisim. Wow it is ridiculous.

Service Animals | Delta Air Lines

Yeah I agree. The setup is just ripe for abuse.