| |
|
|
|
Let The Dogs In - Disability laws protects right to bring assistance animals |
Last year the Federal Court found that a health service had unlawfully discriminated against someone by refusing entry to two of its premises when the person was accompanied by an assistance dog. |
On six occasions the person had been refused entry to nonsterile areas of a hospital and a community health care centre and denied health services when he was accompanied by one or both of his dogs. Security guards intercepted him and escorted him from the premises or denied him entry outright, advising him that the administration had issued a notice not to allow him in with his dogs. |
The health service had refused to allow access because it considered the dogs ill behaved and badly controlled with inadequate evidence of proper assistance-dog training. The person had trained the dogs himself over a number of years to help alleviate the effects of a psychiatric disability. |
While the judge expressed concerns about the possible consequences of a broad interpretation of the disability discrimination laws in this area - pointing out that a Shetland pony, for example, could be an assistance animal - his decision has implications for all service providers. |
Hospitals, dentists, surgeries, taxis, trains, airlines, restaurants and shops need to consider whether they have in place a fair, meaningful, objectively assessable and publicly available policy and procedure for all animals seeking entry to their premises. Staff customer service training and induction material should cover situations where customers may be accompanied by assistance animals. An internal complaint handling process should be set up for cases where a person is refused a service because accompanied by an assistance animal, and contact made with established assistance animal organisations for access to timely expertise. Policy change may not be enough; a genuine attitudinal shift is likely to be just as important. |
|
