Hey, there! Log in / Register
Dedham restaurant, blind people face off over service dogs
By adamg on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:12am
They had a reservation, but it, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, didn't matter. When a party of 13 people, six with service dogs, showed up at Bamboo in the Dedham Holiday Inn, the restaurant at first refused to seat them, then demanded to see IDs for all the dogs. Police were called. Livetweeting was done.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
FYI
This is NOT the same Bamboo as the one on Commonwealth Ave in Brighton.
Bam! Boo!
Wait, there's a buffet there?
Is it too much to ask
That law enforcement employees know what the laws are? Don't municipalities keep lawyers on retainer? Maybe the lawyer should be called in addition to the cops in cases such as this. If the citizens are adamant about a violation of the law, and the cops are telling them no, maybe the lawyer should be on the scene as well.
The police don't have to enforce ADA guidelines.
It is private property and the owners can throw anyone they want off the property at any time. The police don't have to make the owners let anyone stay on their property.
As far has having a license to serve food, alcohol, play music, etc, that is up to the Town of Dedham, and with those regulations come ADA exemptions, etc.
Thank you, Pete
I was wondering yesterday as this was rumbling across the twitter-transom if this was a civil rather than criminal violation. Sounds like. Perhaps the officer should have explained this.
Regardless, sounds like the restaurant earned itself some well deserved bad publicity.
Yes, the ADA is a civil rights law, but...
@Pete... there is a Massachusetts criminal law statute which makes it a crime for places of public accommodation to refuse service dogs: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section98A
The Dedham Police should have enforced this.
That is correct.
But that doesn't mean the police didn't cite the restuarant for this misdemeanor and it doesn't mean the owners have to let those people stay in the resturant (or have the police force them too).
It sounds to me like there was some sort of altercation there and possibly more to this story.
The conversation from our end
The conversation from our end was civil at all times. The police officers did not cite the restaurant, and in fact told us that we shouldn't expect either access or enforcement from the cops because "this is the way the world works." The cop also told us he had a daughter in a wheelchair and therefore we had "picked the wrong cop to deal with disabilities." When asked what he did when he was denied access with his daughter even though it was against the law, he said that he just left and went somewhere else, and so should we. He also blatantly told us that he might have been inclined to "be on your side and help you out," but since he felt we were being argumentative he was "no longer on your side" and not going to help us. He also alternately said that he didn't know the law and didn't care what it was. This was private property and the owners could do whatever they wanted, and refuse to serve whomever they wanted.
The restaurant refused to comply with both state and federal law. The police refused to enforce the state law, and refused to educate regarding federal law (which they are supposed to be trained to do; literally, the federal government issues documents and instructional videos for this). That's the story. You're not missing anything that would justify or make you feel better about that behavior.
Pete?
Pete, your daughter's in a wheelchair? So sorry to hear that, man.
They sure can
If they want to stay open they have some rules and regulations they have to follow, but the police don't have the right to make them keep people on their property that they don't want there. The police can shut the place down to the public, but they can't do anything else.
He got one thing right...
Clearly, this is true...just not quite in the way in which he intended.
Doesn't know or care about the law?
That statement alone, if proven, ought to be a firing offense for someone who took an oath to uphold the law.
However
The police are worse than useless if they arrive to the call and back up the store owner rather than tell them they should comply with the ADA requirements. Now the store owners go to court and quote the cops rather than back down from their civil infractions. To whose benefit is any of that?
Ok I'll reserve judgement.
Untill I hear what the cops, management, and more importantly what any other witnesses say about what happend there.
I'd also like to see some case law regarding groups of service animals in small restuarants.
Well there were 13 of us
What is it you're waiting for to 'judge" and what are you judging, exactly? There were 13 in our party, 6 of which have service dogs, and we can all tell you how disheartening, scary and hunger-magnifying the situation was. The law is the law, it wasn't followed, and that's that. There's not much gray area to the law, making the gray-area response by the responding officer (until we showed him the law, at which point he got very black/white against us) that much more unnerving and frankly terrifying.
There are plenty of us who can tell you what the situation was like. But I don't think you have reason to judge.
No that isn't that.
Just like if you were all arrested for disorderly conduct and we all read the police report and said "that's that" and you all went to jail based on what the police and management said.
And of course I have no reason to judge, that is why I fricken said I would RESERVE judgement. I just like to hear the story from all sides first.
And yes, there is A LOT of grey areas when it comes to many laws. I have seen many blind, deaf, and other mentally and physically handicapped persons act like criminals and aholes, and they are treated like criminals and aholes. I'm not saying you or your group are criminals or aholes, but I'm not going to anonymously smear a businesses or police departments reputations based on one side of a story.
uh, no
A restaurant is considered public and it's a federal law that requires businesses that serve the public to allow service animals. No matter what the local or state law is it does not supersede the federal statute.
Uh, yes. You are completely
Uh, yes. You are completely misinformed as to how federal and state laws work. Masschusetts can make denying entry to service dogs a criminal law if it wants to (and it does); the ADA is a civil law and has nothing to say about what the states can choose to criminalize. Those laws are still completely valid and enforceable in the state of Massachusetts, and the cops' outright refusing to enforce them constitutes negligence.
Additionally, if state and federal civil rights law conflict, it's actually NOT the federal law that automatically controls; it's the law that is the least restrictive to those upon whom the rights are conferred. For example, if the ADA had a clause that said Asian restaurants could refuse to serve people with service animals, but Masscachusetts civil rights laws said that all restaurants needed to grant access, then the Massachusetts law would control (but you wouldn't have to be granted access to a Chinese restaurant with your service animal next door in Connecticut, if they had no similar law on the books). Conversely, if Massachusetts law said that all service animals had to be German shepherds, it would not be enforceable, because the ADA states that service animals don't need to be any specific breed.
Spread the word. This is important stuff, and clearly many people don't understand it.
References
Can you reference a link showing that ADA violations in MA are a criminal, not civil issue? I've done some digging around and can't find that. (And I am genuinely interested).
Also, I don't know the restaurant in question, but I do see a potential area for wiggling on their part. From the ADA's own FAQ;
(See http://www.ada.gov/q&aeng02.htm#Public for further details).
Is it possible that the restaurant was concerned with the size of your party and the number of service animals? Still a pretty crappy thing to do, of course...
See below
I linked to the 2 relevant chapters of the criminal code below in my "Oh, really?" response to someone else.
Thx
Thanks, Kaz.
There are not ADA exemptions.
There are not ADA exemptions. At least not on a local level. Local law cannot override Federal Law.
John Winske
Who wants dogs in a restaurant?
They have a tendency to wander and how can anyone enjoy a meal with a dog sitting next to your table with that look. The way they look at you intently, their head moving along with every move you make. And the way they put their paw on your leg when you take too long to give them a morsel, it's just disgusting. I mean really!....
Dogs, service animals or not, are bad.
I know you're being sarcastic dvdoff but I am not.
I don't want dogs in any restaurant I am in. It's bad enough there are dogs in existence at all. They should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
My cats endorse the above statement 100%.
Manners
I've never seen a service dog behave as badly in a restaurant as I've seen misbehaving children do. I've never seen a service dog behave badly, period.
Right?
I was in Borders yesterday...this boy was crying for a good two minutes. Mom did absolutely nothing to stop it. I would have been dragged out of there by the shirt collar if I had pulled that stunt at his age.
Let kids be kids and let dogs be dead.
Children cry and run around and make other types of noises. That doesn't bother me. The mere presence of dogs anywhere in the same state as me however repulses me and makes me ill.
In defense of dogs let me state I was also told to write that squirrels, raccoons, skunks, possums, mice, voles, rats, and even other cats should go away too.
It doesn't matter
what anyone thinks about dogs. Service dogs are permitted to enter restaurants and that is the end of it. If the cops don't enforce this law, then who does? Do lawyers have to get involved?
Cops do not enforce civil law
Cops enforce criminal statutes and court orders, not civil law. If I have a trademark dispute with some corporation, I certainly don't expect the cops to get involved.
Oh, really?
Marijuana possession is a civil infraction.
So is speeding...or jumping fare on the T...or license violations!
BUT. This was a criminal violation of Ch 272 Sec 98/98A (the cops also should be charged under Sec 98 for aiding in the discrimination).
So as long as we agree that cops enforce criminal statutes, then whether they enforce civil infractions at all is immaterial.
Fair enuff
I obviously don't fully understand where the line is drawn between what cops can enforce on the spot versus what needs to be litigated, since the examples of parking tickets and marijuana possession are good.
So cops cant give parking
So cops cant give parking tickets now because it's not a criminal manner?
Fascinating.
can't dogs and Kats just get along?
I know my dog and my housemates cat get along fine...
Dogs love food.
Just sayin'.
Say what?
Dvdoff,
A trained service dog is not going to wander around the restaurant. They will lie down usually at the owners feet under the table.
John Winske
According to the Twitter
According to the Twitter feed, members of the party wanted to bring their service dogs up with them to the buffet, and would not/could not provide ID's for some of the animals.
Also according to the tweets, asking for animal ID's to identify them as service animals is illegal. Is this true? Why?? This seems like a perfectly reasonable request from any business owner, to avoid people who might lie and otherwise abuse ADA exceptions.
I'm in agreement with the restaurant owners asking that dogs not be allowed to go up to the buffet. It's one thing to sit with your dogs at your own table, but bringing them up to everyone else's food is a bit much. I'm all for respecting the rights of persons with disabilities, but I don't think it's too much to ask for doggie ID's and to request them to not accompany owners to buffets shared with other customers.
It sounds altogether like there's a whole lack of clarity and enforcement, in terms of patron rights and a business owner's rights, and what a reasonable, happy medium can be.
Partial answer re: IDs
http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm
And I've seen far more small children stick their grubby little hands into buffet food than I've seen dogs...I don't even know what you think they're going to do. Lick the food? Shed on it? They're too well-trained for the former (or they wouldn't be service dogs) and, well, I've found plenty of human hairs that cannot possibly be mine in my food. It's gross, but we carry on.
I cannot agree that business
I cannot agree that business owners are not allowed to ask for ID to prove that a service animal is indeed, a service animal. This is a completely fair and reasonable option for business owners, to deter those that might bring their ordinary pet and lie. And I have no doubt that someone's done this before and abused legitimate consideration for those that actually need to have an animal with them.
And yes, some kids are more gross/have worse manners than pets, but I think it's perfectly understandable to ask patrons to not bring any animals up to a buffet. Totally refusing service for those that can provide ID is completely unacceptable, but it's perfectly reasonable to not allow anyone to bring animals up to shared food - irrational fear, general dining-out grossness, and all.
Your agreement is moot
It doesn't matter whether or not you personally agree; the ADA states that businesses cannot ask for ID for service animals.
But you don't have to take my word for it.
http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm
Floor buffet
Where you come from are the buffets served from below knee level? Usually the counters for those are several feet off the ground and away from wandering wet noses and/or that thing where dogs kind of lean their head on to the table and snatch something off it (not that service dogs would do that anyway).
Movies?
That page you cite says that a service dog could be ejected for barking during a movie.
Without barking, how else is the service dog supposed to explain the on-screen action to the visually impaired patron?
What are you saying? That's absurd.
What are you saying? That's absurd. Service dogs don't do that. I mean, for one, they are specifically trained not to reveal any spoilers.
That's what human friends are for
Soundtracks, too. Meanwhile, the dog is enjoying a nap on a cool floor in an airconditioned space like half the audience.
I know you're joking, but...
I just thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that our own WGBH is responsible for pioneering audio description technology that uses the SAP audio channel as a way to describe the on-screen action for the blind.
The media access group responsible for most of the audio description tracks available on TV, movies, and DVDs is Descriptive Video Service (DVS). Some theaters even broadcast the DVS feed on a common channel that the blind can pick up on a wireless headset tuned to that frequency.
They weren't gonna groom them on the food
Sorry, but how do you expect the blind to not walk into the buffet and burn themselves or not run into others in line? These dogs supplement their lack of vision. It'd be like telling you that you're only allowed to go up to the buffet with a blindfold on. The dog isn't going anywhere near the food, it's on the floor and the counter is a good 3-4 feet above that.
Also, this isn't a debate or a place where consensus is needed. There's no "happy medium" for how someone who is coping with a disability has to reduce their standard of living just so you're less squeamish about seeing a dog at the foot of their owner at a buffet. Have you ever been to a picnic where someone brought their pet dog? How did you ever survive?
You've misread twitter, or at
You've misread twitter, or at least my twitter - as a member of both the hungry party attempting to go to dinner and one of the folks tweeting. The law is pretty clear (and folks have posted it, I'll as you to reference the links throughout this post) about how and when folks with service animals are permitted to enter places of business open to the general public. It's down right criminal in the state of Massachusetts not to. That's a pretty happy 'medium' if you will.
With regards to IDs; because there is no universally-attended school for all types of disabilities and service dogs, and because some people receive assistance in training their' service dog on their own; not all service dog handlers have IDs to show. That's one really good reason why the law states that we aren't required to; because there is no state or federal process to issue IDs to service dog teams. If you made that law, then you'd have to make issuing IDs an accredited process mandatory prior to receiving a team, something not in place in the United States. So asking us for IDs wasn't necessarily something we could all (or should) provide. That does not mean that we are not protected by state and federal laws and permitted in their' restaurant.
Simple as that.
I totally understand
that service dogs can be taken anywhere and should be allowed access, however, I do think that this group was pushing the envelope so to speak. Six service dogs, which are usually large dogs, in a confined restaurant space may pose navigation problems for others such as servers and other folk, especially if the dogs are stretched out in the aisles. How about we all try to work together and bring one service dog and have the other sighted folks help the non sighted folks to their seats?
My father in law is blind and we have no problem leading him to his seat at a restaurant and then leading him back to the car. People we meet are more than generously holding doors open and making sure his way is clear.
I am just saying.
That does not seem like such a good plan
1) Who decides who gets to bring their dog and who doesn't? What if more than one guide dog user took public transportation? Why should they have to navigate to and from the restaurant sans dog?
2) I don't know how Bamboo is set up, but the guide dogs I know have mad "staying out of the way" skills and can tuck themselves under tables for way longer than most dogs would. I've been at restaurants with groups consisting of a similar number of humans and guide dogs. We were seated at a long table, and the dogs were not in anybody's way. The guide dog users I know go out of their way to make sure their dogs aren't obstacles.
3) Does your father-in-law usually use a guide dog?
More doggedness
Also, it doesn't specify that all the service dogs were guide dogs for the blind. I just read a Yelp review that says one was a hearing dog. So it's entirely possible (although I don't think this is the case) that all six dogs were trained for different purposes, so you might have a guide dog, a hearing dog, a balance dog, a pick-things-up dog, a seizure-sensing dog and a blood sugar monitoring dog.
(Those in the know, please forgive me if I totally botched the example.)
Putting aside the fact that they and their humans would probably make the awesomest superhero team ever, which five humans should have to leave their dogs behind?
I'll Take A Stab At It
Molly, I was in total agreement with you - and with the law - up until you raised the possibility that some of the dogs were not trained to assist a blind person. If the six dogs were as you whimsically suggest, I'd say that the hearing dog and blood sugar monitoring dog, at the very least, are not needed to navigate a buffet. For that matter, if the other five humans have normal hearing, then why is the hearing dog needed at all? Just asking (and I'm reasonably certain you might have a good answer, which is why this is fun to play!)
Suldog (performs no useful service whatsoever)
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Doggone it
This is all, of course, speculation, since I do not use a service dog, and the only service dogs I know personally are guide dogs for the blind.
But to your question, those dogs not being needed to navigate the buffet itself, I will grant you.
However, getting to the buffet from the table and back is one thing; everybody still needs to be able to get to and from the restaurant, whether that's via driving, public transportation or walking. (Or anything else, really).
The blood sugar dog (officially known as a "hypo alert dog", thank you, Wikipedia!) can apparently tell its human if his or her blood sugar is off up to thirty minutes before it becomes dangerous. If I were prone to serious blood sugar imbalances, I'd want my dog with me at all times.
Hearing dogs can alert their human to the human's name being spoken, among other things, which must make conversation easier. People don't have to be profoundly deaf to get a hearing dog. I would think they could also be trained to alert their people to sirens when driving and the like.
Those are just examples off the top of my head; anything further would require actual research. ;)
service dogs
I was part of this group, part of the 6 who had service dogs (part of a party of 13, some of whom had service dogs) and here's the thing; we weren't asking to take dogs up to a buffet. We made a reservation to be seated at a table for 13 like *any other patrons* and were refused entrance because some of us have service dogs. Whether some of us needed our dogs to navigate through a loud, busy place to get ourselves food and get back to our table is irrelevant truly because we never got that far. Not to mention the fact that *all* service dogs are trained to be with their' handlers for a reason, and it is not the job nor the ability of someone else untrained/qualified to state whether that bond/partnership is necessary in a given situation.
It's unfortunate that more people aren't aware of the intricacies of being a service dog handler or of what it's like to go out into public, into places where we are legally protected, only to be told by business owners and local law enforcement that we can't and won't be entering those places. It is even further jarring and damaging to our psyches to have the general public decide whether we have a right, as a team to enter a place or participate in the activities of daily living. In this case, my wanting to go to a restaurant and eat dinner was denied simply because I have a dog to assist me with my various disabilities. Even though the law says I can and should be allowed to do that, and pay like anyone else.
Thank you!
Unfortunately many of us are not aware of the intricacies of being a service dog handler and this is been very informational.
I do think the restaurant should of allowed you all in and I am sorry that you were treated in that manner by them and the police.
Not to make poor excuses for the restaurant, but maybe the restaurant did not believe your dogs were "service dogs", for example, if all people in your party were sighted and six had "service dogs" for other types of disabilities, the restaurant might of challenged that (out of ignorance) and asked to see proof. Were the dogs seeing eye dogs, hearing dogs or other?
Just curious.
Etana
Thank you for the further clarification. I was only playing Devil's Advocate, and I somewhat know Molly, so I knew if I was barking up the wrong tree, she would set me straight in as gentle a manner as possible.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I am a member of the party denied access at Bambo..
Blind folks have the same right to independent mobility as sighted folks. I am 34 years old, work, go to school, volunteer in my community, and pay my taxes. Not only is it my human right to be able to go to dinner my own damned self without having to rely on the whims and politeness of the able-bodied, but it is my LEGAL right as well.
As for dogs being a safety obstruction or a bother: After being refused access at Bamboo, we proceeded to a local Italian restaurant. The waiter that served us had not seen us come in. Toward the end of the meal, it was mentioned that there were six dogs in the restaurant, under the table (they had also been utilized before and during the meal to enter, find seats, and come to the restroom and back). The waiter absolutely could not believe that they had been there the whole time.
THAT is how service dogs behave in public places, and if they don't behave that way--and if they do turn out to pose a safety issue--then the business has every legal right to eject them. But businesses do NOT have the right to make the kind of misinformed presumptions you have made here, nor to use those presumptions as a reason to deny perfectly capable adults their independence.
Have you Consulted an Attorney?
The ADA was clearly violated here. Even if it wasn't a criminal violation, it was certainly a civil one.
It was both a criminal
It was both a criminal violation (at the state level) and a civil one (at the state and federal levels). But we're definitely considering our options, at any rate!
to be fair...
you get that sweet tax deduction.
Yeah, but my refund still
Yeah, but my refund still wasn't enough to cover the iPad2. I've already written to my representatives about it.
Sorry
I'm sorry the people at Bamboo were both idiots and assholes.
But I'm more sorry that the cops did not do anything to help the situation and in fact sound like they made it far worse. They're supposed to be working for you in that situation and instead it sounds as if they were intimidating and intimating that they were about to ring you up instead.
I just felt you were owed an apology.
I sincerely appreciate the
I sincerely appreciate the support. It helps more than you can imagine.
Emotionally, for me, the reaction of the cops has been more difficult to deal with than the reaction of the restaurant owners. Access issues happen, and occasionally people don't back down; as a service dog handler I'm prepared for that, always. But until now I thought I could count on the police to help me secure my rights when necessary. I no longer take that for granted. (I know: White privilege much, squonk?)
The responding officer bordered on abusive. He (and the officer who joined him later, who didn't say much at all) supported and not-so-tacitly encouraged the restaurant's violation of the law. He actively contributed to the ongoing systemic and systematic oppression of a group of citizens and had no qualms about doing it.
If anything? I feel so, so sorry for this man's daughter.
Fallacy police
I'm'a guess the wheelchair-daughter cop was using whatever words put him at a rhetorical advantage over you at the moment; and in reality, he'd even go as far as to abuse his power to get his daughter special treatment.
Keep up the good work
Squonk,
Keep up the good work and keep on fighting. As a person with a disability and one who is considering applying for an assistance dog I appreciate your battling on and publicizing the egregious behavior of the restaurant and the police.
I hope that the Disability Commission in Dedham is able to help. But like you most of all I feel sorry for the daughter of the police officer. If he truly leaves places she is not welcome, then she is going to learn some horrible lessons and unfortunately will never learn to stand up (so to speak) for her rights.
John Winske
I think that the cops in
I think that the cops in Dedham need a special mandatory ADA training day and they also need to get the message that they had better fucking know what they are doing and saying the next time they have to deal with a situation like this. the more I think about this the more outrageous it becomes.
Would love to hear what comes of this.
Thanks, John. And I agree
Thanks, John. And I agree with you completely wrt the officer's daughter.
We will provide follow-up on Twitter as we go forward.
Service dogs - invisible unless helping
Indeed, a blind co-worker has the cutest service dog, and it's absolutely annoying that you're not allowed to play with him when he's in his working harness. 8-) And I'm a cat person, too.
Seriously: the dog helps him walk around, and when the man sits down, the dog sits/lies next to him. Or under the table. Or under the desk. *Completely* out of the way, and completely silent. I can believe a party eating at a large table in a restaurant and not having the waiter realize the dogs are under there if you don't get out of your seat.
It's the law 'round these parts, so learn to deal with it. The majority of animals serving as professional service dogs probably have better manners (well, for being a quiet dog that just sits/lies there quietly) than some human restaurant patrons, children or otherwise.
And in terms of the... non-blind helping dogs not being allowed to come in, well - what would you expect the owner to do with their dog in the meanwhile? If they say they need a service dog, they probably really do need it.
You're totally right - 6
You're totally right - 6 people who happen to have service dogs should never go out in public. We should be in an asylum somewhere twiddling our thumbs, if we have them, if we aren't in straight jackets.
Oh wait....it's not 1892 anymore so they let 'us' out in public and we can gather in groups like anyone else now. It's why the ADA was put into place in the first place!
Woohoo! I get to be free!
Oh no, you're totally right!
Because your disability trumps everyone else's right to have an allergy free meal. Many people suffer from severe allergies, and, should six dogs enter the room, they would be forced to leave. But hey, what does their comfort matter, right? You're disabled!
WAAAAMMMMMBULAANNNNNCE
Arriving any minute.
Feel free to enter some public health statistics on the prevalence of this conflict into the debate.
Allergic to dumb
I know many people who are allergic to cats and would have to leave their dinner if a cat jumped on their lap and stuck its head in their face. I know more who can be in our three-cat condo for a limited time (we do clean).
I don't know anybody (that I'm aware of) who can't be in a large room with a dog. I don't know why cat allergies seem so much more prevalent (maybe it's because I'm a cat owner, so I know about it), but really, I've never ever heard of anyone having to vacate the premises because of a service dog.
Not that it's never happened, but I'd second SG's call for stats.
And yes, I do think one person's "being able to live an independent life" trumps another's non-life-threatening allergy. If the allergy's life-threatening, well, being so allergic to dogs that you're going to have a deathly reaction in the middle of a restaurant probably also qualifies as a disability, no?
Do what?
Maybe those people should avoid petting the dogs and they wouldn't flare up their allergies.
Dog allergies are from the dander and saliva of the animal for the most part. In the hour or so that the dog(s) is/are present, it would take an extremely sensitive individual to react to the dog's presence and I'd argue that if they're that sensitive then dog dander/saliva tracked in from other patrons would be just as bad for them as whatever the dog might have shed during the same period of the meal.
Well...
This:
is only part of the solution, but people aren't supposed to pet service dogs anyhow, because the dog could/would get fired from its job.
Secondly, maybe the owner of the restaurant should get a good HEPA (high efficiency particulae arrest) filtered air purifier and keep it running constantly, to filter out dog dander and reduce the risk of allergic reactions in susceptible people.
According to the Department of Justice
"Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals."
http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm
However, yes, this issue does come up. A quick google search brought up several stories (in restaurants, taxis, classrooms). Seems like are severe allergies/respiratory issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Good thing they didn't call in the CSI
OMG. That is
OMG. That is awesome.
(Accessible description: CSI four-pane comic, the format of which is explained here.
First pane
(out of shot): Bamboo Dedham kept out a group of guide dogs for the blind!
Caruso: Hm...
Second pane
Caruso (reaching into pocket): I guess you could say they don't...
Third pane:
Caruso (putting on sunglasses over his sunglasses): ...See eye to eye.
Fourth pane:
Cityscape. YEEAAAAHHHH)
From the ADA...
Most employees do not receive sufficient disabilities training. Which leads the employee to do common sense things... like ask for ID about the person or the animal... which they don't realize is against the law. Unfortunately that led to the escalation of this incident in Dedham. Fault on the company for not training employees...
For reference:
The rest...
Yes and no
In an ideal world, all employees everywhere would be taught about things like the ADA, not saying things that assume customers are straight, dealing well with people who aren't native English speakers, etc. These things should be taught in schools.
But in the event that a person hasn't been trained sufficiently, part of NOT BEING A JACKASS is that you give the benefit of the doubt and assume that, hmm, a blind person probbbbbably knows the regulations around guide dogs, since she deals with this every day? So unless you're absolutely sure of the laws, how about you defer to the person who probably knows a lot more than you do?
One thing that sucks about this situation
Right, so let's assume Bamboo's employees haven't got a clue about the ADA (probably true) and they're not just willing to take the group of guide dog lovers' words for it (hey, it's their job if the boss sees all those dogs in the dining room!)...
So, the cops are called...and they back the EMPLOYEES!
So, now in what world is Bamboo going to let them in at this point? Even if they feigned ignorance later in court (not a valid defense, but would look better with a mea culpa as mitigating their offense a bit), they just have to say "but we trusted the cops to know the right answer and they told us we were right!".
I'm just saying that while Bamboo was ignorant (and maybe naively so)...they had their misconstrued reality reinforced by the completely negligent police. So, you have to feel a bit of pathos for them being led down the wrong path by authorities at that point.
I mean imagine if this is Durgin Park and when the cops are called because of the ass-grabbing oyster shucker, the cops arrive and go "He grabbed your ass? So what? Are you being confrontative with me, missy?" Can you really come down so harshly on the management when the very people put in charge of knowing and enforcing the laws agreed with the rights violator instead at the time of the incident?
Hopefully the court moves
Hopefully the court moves this case quickly and the group gets a nice paycheck from the police department and the restaurant.
Blatant discrimination should not be tolerated. The officer should be fired, the department should apologize, and the cash should be provided because of the emotional trial suffered here. One thing is dealing with an idiot minimum wage employee, but having an officer come by and tell you you're wrong, when at this point everyone should know the ADA basics? Inexcusable.
You know, these people really
You know, these people really aren't entitled to a Paycheck, just to sit down and eat. Oh yes, lets sue another small business.
Despite the ADA rules, having service animals in a buffet restaurant could cause an issue. I've actually seen this occur at the old super buffet in Natick, where a disabled couple went in line with their dogs, and one of the dogs went up the table and stuck its face in the food. Does that mean dogs should be banned from all buffets? Of course not (fat children should, but that's another story)
Yes, the first instinct is to call the cops and Fox, that will get you some action! Maybe VB can watch your dogs while you get shrimp fried rice!
You can't have it both ways, anon
You already said "The ADA was clearly violated here. Even if it wasn't a criminal violation, it was certainly a civil one."
You can't both find it an ADA violation and also not want them to get a "paycheck" out of the deal.
lol
Funny how people will make themselves sound innocent. Those 13 individuals were not turned away. They had an agenda and to cause issues. I was there.
Please take your issues
and shove them. So you *saw* them there. Congratulations. You are free to identify yourself to the restaurant and assist them and the cops in their appeal of the inevitable legal judgement against them.
Otherwise "anon who says they were there" isn't going to buy much around here. Seriously. I'm sure *they* weren't turned away, but their dogs were turned away - not only a violation of longstanding legal precident, but a serious slight for people who would not be able to leave their houses OR navigate a restaurant without their working companions.
You need to learn both your responsibilities as a citizen, and compassion.
Even if that's true
They don't need to make themselves sound innocent. They were innocent since they did nothing wrong even if we give your comment the benefit of doubt. Their supposed agenda that you claim they had wasn't illegal, but the restaurant's response was.
There wouldn't have been issues if everyone in the situation knew and abided by the law.
So what's your point?
Dedham's Welcoming Attitudes are Hit & Miss
I use a wheelchair and live in Dedham in the neighborhood of this incident. On July 19 I had a similar incident of attitudes of disability intolerance at the Showcase Legacy restaurant.
It's becoming a crap shoot around here if going out to eat will be a nice event or another hassle of being treated unwelcomed and unwanted by staff. Restaurants are using different excuses to turn away the disabled community at a growing occurrence. The attitude is 'go eat at the next restaurant'. It's a 'not in my back yard' attitude since there are numerous resturants in a small area. Some Dedham businesses are welcoming others want to cherry pick their customers.
Frankly the establishments guilty of turning away the disabled are being foolish to alienate customers of any ability in this bad economy.
I hope customers of any ability become involved in accepting individuals with disabilities and fair treatment at public venues.
All of us need to send a message that it's not okay to welcome one customer and exclude another. See something unfair going on say something. If managers won't be welcoming then quit bringing business to that establishment. Would you want your loved ones being treated like dirt in a public venue?
Bamboo apologizes
Just noticed this apology on boston.com
Looks like the manager who
Looks like the manager who caused all commotion will be opening her own restaurant out in Wellesley named Jin's. Hopefully she now understands not to discriminate anyone.