By Karen Sutherland

Most people are familiar with guide dogs that assist individuals who are sight-impaired, but are unaware that the law protects other types of service animals as well. This protection arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), RCW Ch. 49.60.

A “service animal” means an animal that is trained for the purpose of assisting or accommodating a disabled person’s sensory, mental or physical disability.1 The federal law is similar: “Service animals include any animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.”2

Under these broad definitions, a service animal can be anything from a dog to a small rodent or farm animal, and the services they render can range from guiding people who are sight or hearing-impaired to providing emotional support for people with mental disabilities.

Training Is Required
Service animals do need to be trained to assist or accommodate the disability. However, “[t]here is no requirement as to the amount or type of training a service animal must undergo. Further, there is no requirement as to the amount or type of work a service animal must provide for the benefit of the disabled person.”3

A Washington case addresses the training issue.4 In Timberlane, a mobile home park appealed the Human Rights Commission’s determination that it had violated the WLAD by giving a tenant notice that her dog was in violation of her lease.

The tenant claimed the dog was a service dog because it would “freak out” when the tenant had a migraine and alert others, who would assist the tenant by taking her to the bathroom, getting her medication or bringing her ice packs. The dog would stand quietly and watch while its owner was given assistance and then the dog would be rewarded.

The dog had never been trained beyond basic commands (sit, stay, etc.), and there was evidence the dog may not have been trainable as a service animal. The Court of Appeals found that there must be some individual training to set the service animal apart from a pet and that “the animal’s training be for the purpose of assisting or accommodating a disabled person.”

Employment Practices Under WAC 162-22-100:
It is an unfair practice for an employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to request that a trained dog guide or service animal be removed from the workplace, unless that employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person can show that the presence, behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal constitutes an unreasonable risk to property or other persons.

The regulation also describes how to assess the risk of harm and states that “when risk justifies the removal of a dog guide or service animal from the workplace, efforts must be made to reasonably accommodate the person with the disability.”

Similar rules apply in the context of public accommodations (businesses, places of amusement, etc.) and real estate. Also, a private entity may not insist on proof of state certification before permitting the entry of a service animal to a place of public accommodation.5 In other words, if an individual goes to a business and claims that the animal accompanying them is a service animal, the business cannot demand proof.

Caring for Service Animals
Owners and employees of public accommodations are not responsible for caring for the service animal, but also may not charge to admit a service animal.

The care or supervision of a service animal is the responsibility of his or her owner, not the public accommodation. A public accommodation may not require an individual with a disability to post a deposit as a condition to permitting a service animal to accompany its owner in a place of public accommodation, even if such deposits are required for pets.6

Criminal Liability
If a business owner or an employee becomes engaged in a confrontation regarding allowing a service animal on the premises, they may be guilty of a misdemeanor under RCW 9.91.170, “Interfering with dog guide or service animal.” In more severe cases:

Any person who wrongfully obtains or exerts unauthorized control over a dog guide or service animal with the intent to deprive the dog guide or service animal user of his or her dog guide or service animal is guilty of theft in the first degree.7

Moreover, intentionally injuring, disabling or causing the death of a dog guide or service animal is a class C felony.8

The best way to avoid confrontations regarding service animals is to educate employers, people who are employed in businesses and industries that are considered public accommodations, and the real estate industry about the laws pertaining to service animals. Public awareness and speaking out can help, too. For example, on more than one occasion, as a customer I have engaged in an impromptu educational session with a restaurant or small business regarding its obligations when the business sought to deny access to someone with a service animal. n

This article is far too brief and general to be relied on as legal advice. For assistance with a specific legal issue, contact an attorney with expertise in this area or the EEOC, Human Rights Commission or Department of Justice. The author, Karen Sutherland, is the chair of the Employment and Labor Law Practice Group of Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC and chair of the Bar Bulletin Committee. She can be reached at ksutherland@omwlaw.com or 206-447-7000.

1 RCW ¤ 49.60.040(23).

2 ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual, III-4.2300.

3 Green v. Housing Authority of Clackamas County, 994 F. Supp. 1253 (D. Or. 1988).

4 Timberlane Mobile Home Park v. Washington State Human Rights Commission, 122 Wn. App. 896, 95 P.3d 1288 (2004).

5 ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual, III-4.2300.

6 Id.

7 RCW ¤ 9.91.170.