When James Glaser stepped into Big I’s Restaurant in Oxford, Massachusetts with his service dog Jack, he was quickly told to leave in no uncertain terms. Glaser, a 41-year-old Air Force veteran, was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in November of 2011 when he retired and says that he does not leave his house without Jack by his side. The veteran explained what happened to WHDH 7 News, “I hear, ‘Get that fake service dog out of my restaurant!.’” Big I’s owner, Russell Ireland didn’t consider the canine a true service dog and said, “This is a post-traumatic stress dog. It's to give him emotional support. How much emotional support do you need when you are eating breakfast?”

James grabbed Jack’s paperwork to show the doubting owner that he was indeed a legitimate service dog but was still given a fight. He told WFXT FOX 25 News, “I said, ‘I have his certification paperwork right here. He’s not fake, he’s 100% legit.’ He like, ‘I don’t give a [expletive]. I don’t have time for that. Get out of my restaurant.’” So James called the police and Sergeant Anthony Saad with the Oxford PD confirmed the dog’s paperwork and attempted to convince Ireland. While no charges were brought, the Iraq Vet says he will file a complaint with the Americans with Disabilities Act which states that businesses must, “allow someone with PTSD to bring in a service animal that has been trained to calm the person when he or she has an anxiety attack.” James said, “Got 21 distinguished years in the military. After everything we’ve done, we just shouldn’t be treated like that.”

 djones520 wrote:
It's a shame the employees will have to suffer over that asstards actions.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Isn't it illegal to boot someone because they have a service animal?

 Jihadin wrote:
Being that my former wife (ex now) is from Mass I had plenty of oppurtunities to meet the locals there. They are not military friendly. Couple of times when I was carded to get a beer at meals they wouldn't accept a military ID card.

Hordini wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Isn't it illegal to boot someone because they have a service animal?

Yes. It's similar to booting someone for any other reason that people aren't allowed to discriminate against.

Jihadin wrote:Being that my former wife (ex now) is from Mass I had plenty of oppurtunities to meet the locals there. They are not military friendly. Couple of times when I was carded to get a beer at meals they wouldn't accept a military ID card.

Frazzled wrote:Is this a common sentiment in Massachusetts?

Overview
This publication provides guidance on the term “service animal” and the service animal provisions in the Department’s new regulations.

Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA.
A service animal is a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability.
Generally, title II and title III entities must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where members of the public are allowed to go.

How “Service Animal” Is Defined
Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

This definition does not affect or limit the broader definition of “assistance animal” under the Fair Housing Act or the broader definition of “service animal” under the Air Carrier Access Act.

Some State and local laws also define service animal more broadly than the ADA does. Information about such laws can be obtained from the State attorney general’s office.

Where Service Animals Are Allowed
Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go. For example, in a hospital it would be inappropriate to exclude a service animal from areas such as patient rooms, clinics, cafeterias, or examination rooms. However, it may be appropriate to exclude a service animal from operating rooms or burn units where the animal’s presence may compromise a sterile environment.

Service Animals Must Be Under Control
Under the ADA, service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using these devices. In that case, the individual must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal, or other effective controls.

Inquiries, Exclusions, Charges, and Other Specific Rules Related to Service Animals
When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.
Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.
A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.
Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.
If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.
Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Then yeah, that employee was being stupid.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.
Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.
If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.
Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Even if the dog wasn't acting right the owner wasn't behaving professionally. I mean, we all have bad days so I'm not saying he's satan or anything, but this particular bad day is sort of blowing up in his face.

There are a lot of bogus service animals out there, though. Just because someone is a veteran doesn't make them automatically right, or subject to preferential treatment. It's common practice at many, if not all, hotels (at least in California) to ask: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform.

Based on these criteria, I think that an argument could be made that, since according to the articles on this case the dog has been trained to help the man in question deal with nightmares, it's not necessary for the animal to be with him at the restaurant.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Actually, you saying that means you don't quite understand the subject matter.

 Monster Rain wrote:
If you read the ADA requirements as posted above, and compare it with the store owner's original account of why he found the dog to be a problem, you can see that there may have been ample reason to have the dog removed.

I mean, once you start cursing at a customer you're automatically wrong, so I'm not defending that guy's actions, but a service animal has a specific definition that this dog arguably wasn't meeting.

 ironicsilence wrote:
Seems like a pretty extreme reaction. Even if the dog had acted up in the past there is no doubt the restaurant owner could have handled this all much better. Seems like it all escalated rather quickly.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
If you read the ADA requirements as posted above, and compare it with the store owner's original account of why he found the dog to be a problem, you can see that there may have been ample reason to have the dog removed.

I mean, once you start cursing at a customer you're automatically wrong, so I'm not defending that guy's actions, but a service animal has a specific definition that this dog arguably wasn't meeting.

Perhaps I'm missing what you're trying to say. Are you arguing that the animal in question may not even qualify as a service animal according to those requirements?

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.
Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.
If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.
Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
If you read the ADA requirements as posted above, and compare it with the store owner's original account of why he found the dog to be a problem, you can see that there may have been ample reason to have the dog removed.

I mean, once you start cursing at a customer you're automatically wrong, so I'm not defending that guy's actions, but a service animal has a specific definition that this dog arguably wasn't meeting.

Perhaps I'm missing what you're trying to say. Are you arguing that the animal in question may not even qualify as a service animal according to those requirements?

He's saying to READ.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.
Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.
If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.
Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Mannahnin, who seemingly lives in MA, mentioned that a radio station reported that Ireland(the owner of the restaurant) stated that the dog and its owner had been there before and the dog would act up and bother other customers.

If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it? It's not fulfilling its role as a service animal.

Again, I don't agree with Ireland being abusive to the guy but if the dog is acting up then the ADA provisions for service animals do not apply.