Dept. Comm. No. 256 Cathy Betts Deputy Director
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DAVID Y. IGE PANKAJBHANOT GOVERNOR DIRECTOR DEPT. COMM. NO. 256 CATHY BETTS DEPUTY DIRECTOR STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES P. 0. Box 339 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809-0339 January 8, 2020 The Honorable Ronald D. Kouchi The Honorable Scott Saiki President and Members of the Senate Speaker and Members of the House Thirtieth State Legislature of Representatives State Capitol, Room 409 Thirtieth State Legislature Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 State Capitol, Room 431 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 SUBJECT: REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE RESOLUTION 8 SENATE DRAFT 1 (2019) REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO EXAMINE THE IMPLEMENTATIONOF ACT 217, SESSION LAWS OF HAWAII 2018, REGARDING MISREPRESENTATION OF SERVICE ANIMALS (Revised). Dear President Kou chi, Speaker Saiki, and members of the Legislature, Attached is the following revised report submitted in accordance with: • SENATE RESOLUTION 8 SENATE DRAFT 1 (2019) REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO EXAMINE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACT 217, SESSION LAWS OF HAWAII 2018, REGARDING MISREPRESENTATION OF SERVICE ANIMALS. Insightful revisions were received from the Disability & Communication Access Board and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission after the initial report was submitted to the Legislature. The revisions are underscored. In accordance with section 93-16, HRS, copies of these reports have been transmitted to the Legislative Reference Bureau Library and the reports may be viewed electronically at http://humanservices.hawaii.gov/reports/legislative-reports/. Sincerely, c thy Deputy Director AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGENCY January 8, 2020 Page 2 ecopy: Office of the Governor Office of the Lieutenant Governor Department of Budget & Finance Legislative Auditor Senator Russell E. Ruderman, Chair, Senate Committee on Human Services Representative Joy A. San Buenaventura, House Committee on Human Services & Homelessness AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGENCY Report to the Thirtieth Hawaii State Legislature 2020 In Accordance with Senate Resolution 8 Senate Draft 1 (2019) relating to Act 217, Hawaii Session Laws 2018, Regarding the Misrepresentation of Service Animals Department of Human Services Office of the Director December 2019 - Revised1 1 Please see clarifying revisions that were contributed by the Disability and Communication Access Board and the Hawaii Commission on Civil Rights received after the initial report was transmitted to the Legislature. The revisions are underscored. Senate Resolution 8 Senate Draft 1 (SR8 SD1) (2019). The Senate requested the Department of Human Services (DHS), in consultation with the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) and the Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB), examine and report on the implementation of Act 217 (Session Laws of Hawaii, (SLH) 2018), including: (1) How to enforce the prohibition against misrepresentation of a service animal; (2) Whether administrative rules need to be adopted; (3) How to better oversee and regulate service animals; (4) Whether additional legislation is necessary; (5) Issue guidance about misrepresentation of a service animal for use by law enforcement and the business community. Further the Senate requested: (6) The Department of Human Services develop a public outreach campaign to educate places of accommodations as well as the public as to the important work that legitimate service animals do and why it is important for service animals to assist their owners; and (7) Submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Legislature, including any proposed legislation, no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the regular session of 2020. After consultation with HCRC, DCAB, the Department of the Attorney General, inquiry with County law enforcement agencies, inquiry with several individuals who submitted testimony in support of SB 2461 (2018), review of other States' statutes and recent briefs on the issue, DHS submits this report to the Legislature. I. Background: Act 217 (SLH 2018)/SB 2461 The preamble of Act 217 (SLH 2018)2 articulates the Legislature’s reasons and purposes for the Act: "The legislature finds that there is a growing problem with people fraudulently representing untrained animals as service dogs. This has resulted in legitimate service dogs being needlessly distracted or even attacked by untrained dogs or other animals, 2 See https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/GM1326_.PDF 2 as well as in violations of the food and sanitation code. Currently, there is no legal consequence for misrepresenting a pet dog or other animal as a service animal. The legislature further finds that, generally, a service animal is a dog that is individually trained to work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. The work or task that a service animal has been trained to provide must be directly related to a person's disability. The legislature affirms that a dog or other animal whose sole function is to provide companionship, comfort, or emotional support does not qualify as a service dog under chapter 347, Hawaii Revised Statues, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The legislature additionally finds that a penalty for misrepresentation of a dog or other animal as a service animal will discourage people from fraudulently representing their pets as service animals in order to bring the animals into restaurants, supermarkets, and other inappropriate locations. The legislature also finds that statutory penalties will also discourage persons from fraudulently misrepresenting a pet animal as a service animal in order to gain housing amenities which, but for otherwise lawful restrictions on pet ownership, would not be available to residents of a dwelling or building. The legislature finds that such penalties are not inconsistent with the spirit of the ADA. The legislature also finds that an appropriate definition of "service animal" will help businesses and other organizations to comply with the law. It is not the legislature's intent to undermine the valuable purpose and goals of the ADA or other applicable state or federal laws. The United States Department of Justice has issued guidance on the questions that can be asked of a person to determine if a dog is a bona fide service dog, suggesting that it does not violate the ADA to ask questions concerning the specific and appropriate training of a particular dog being presented as a service animal.3 The legislature further recognizes that more than fifteen states currently prohibit misrepresentation of a service animal by means of civil or criminal penalties, or both. The purpose of this Act is to: (1) Establish a civil penalty for fraudulently representing an animal as a service animal; and (2) Establish a definition of "service animal" that more closely conforms with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended." SR 8 SD 1 (2019) is relevant to purpose (1) of Act 217 (SLH 2018). Act 217 (SLH 2018) created a new section in Chapter 347, HRS, BLIND, VISUALLY HANDICAPPED, AND OTHER DISABLED PERSONS. Specifically, Section 2 of Act 217 (SLH 2018) added section 347-2.6 (HRS) 3 However, see the referenced guidance https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm; in contrast, the guidance states that staff may ask two specific questions. The guidance does not suggest that additional questions regarding specific and appropriate training of the service animal is permitted. 3 that defines “misrepresentation of a service animal” and creates a "civil penalty." Section 347- 2.6 (HRS), states: (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly misrepresent as a service animal any animal that does not meet the requirements of a service animal as defined in section 347-2.5. (b) Upon a finding of clear and convincing evidence, a person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined not less than $100 and not more than $250 for the first violation, and not less than $500 for a second violation and each violation thereafter. (c) Nothing in this section shall preclude any other civil remedies available to a person, entity, or other organization arising from misrepresentation by another person of a service animal.4 Act 217 (SLH 2018) also amended section 347-2.5, HRS,5 to read: Service animal, defined. As used in this chapter, "service animal" means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must relate directly to the individual's disability. Neither the potential crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence nor the provision of emotional support, comfort, or companionship by an animal constitutes work or tasks for the purposes of this definition. In his letter to Senate President Ronald D. Kouchi and House Speaker Scott K. Saiki, Governor David Y. Ige provided the following reasons why SB2461 SD1 HD1 CD1 would become law without his signature: “Enforcement of this civil offense may be problematic because there is no official registry or form of recognized identification for a service animal. The ADA prohibits asking any questions beyond "is the dog a service animal, required because of a disability?" and "what task(s) has the dog been trained to perform?" In other words, the ADA makes it illegal to ask about the nature of the person's disability, require proof of the disability, and/or require the animal to perform the stated task. Additionally, owners are allowed to train their own animals, as opposed to being professionally trained. 4 https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol07_Ch0346-0398/HRS0347/HRS_0347-0002_0006.htm 5 https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol07_Ch0346-0398/HRS0347/HRS_0347-0002_0005.htm 4 None of the county police departments submitted testimony. However, it appears they would be the primary agencies responsible for enforcement. It may be difficult to prove in court by a clear and convincing standard that a person knowingly misrepresented an animal as a service animal.