Service animals, assistance animals, and emotional support animals each arise under a different legal framework, and the employer or housing provider that applies the wrong one is exposed regardless of the answer it reaches. This course aims to help attorneys:
- Distinguish the standards governing service animals under ADA Titles I, II, and III, assistance animals under the Fair Housing Act, and emotional support animals under state human rights statutes.
- Identify the scope and limits of permissible inquiry and documentation requests by an employer or housing provider, including the treatment of online certification.
- Conduct and document a compliant interactive process, including recognizing when undue hardship or direct threat is properly invoked and what record each requires.
- Apply facilitated dialogue to competing accommodation requests and to voluntary pet-friendly workplace policies that create disability-law exposure they were never designed to carry.
- Framing: Three Animals, Three Statutes
- Why a service animal, an assistance animal, and an emotional support animal each arise under a different legal framework
- The single most common client error, and why it happens
- The Workplace: ADA Title I and the Interactive Process
- 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A); why Title I contains no service-animal definition at all
- Permitted inquiry, documentation, and the treatment of online certification
- The four-step interactive process, and where employers most often fail it
- Undue hardship as a factual record, not a conclusion
- Housing: The Fair Housing Act and HUD's Two-Part Inquiry
- 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and HUD FHEO Notice 2020-01
- What does not survive a granted request — pet fees, deposits, breed and weight restrictions
- Direct threat, substantial damage, and undue burden as individualized findings
- Public Accommodation and State Law
- Title III's two permitted questions under 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.104, 36.302(c), and why that script travels badly into other settings
- A side-by-side comparison of the workplace, housing, and public-accommodation standards
- New York's cooperative dialogue requirement and California's FEHA as examples of state law exceeding the federal floor
- The Conversation the Law Requires
- A four-step structure for the accommodation conversation: Notice, Acknowledge, Bring Forward Alternatives, Plan
- Competing accommodation requests: allergy, phobia, and religious objection when one person's accommodation meets another's disability
- Why a voluntary pet-friendly workplace policy creates disability-law exposure it was never designed to carry
- Practitioner Takeaways
- A six-point checklist for auditing a client's accommodation policy this week
- Questions & Answers (as time permits)
Free Justia Connect Memberships are available to lawyers, other legal professionals, students, and all law enthusiasts.
Log In NowNot a Member? Get Connected for Free
* CLE credit is only available to Justia Connect Pro members.
Hamilton Law & Mediation
Debra Vey Voda-Hamilton is an attorney mediator and conflict coach with significant animal law experience including civil & criminal litigation, who now focuses on resolving conflicts between people over animals using mediation, collaborative processes, conscious conversations, restorative process and integrative law techniques. Debra handles matters including contract issues, divorce, breeder/owner/handler disagreements, veterinary malpractice, disability, service and emotional support animals and criminal/civil disputes involving animals. She is the pioneer in applying alternative dispute resolution and restorative process to conflicts involving animals. She is an internationally recognized speaker, coach, mentor, and teacher on these topics. Read More ›
*CLE credit is only available to Justia Connect Pros. Not a Pro? Upgrade today>>
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual)
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand
Credits: 1.00 Recognition and Elimination of Bias
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual)
Credits: 1.20 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual)
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand
Credits: 1.20 Diversity, Inclusion, and Elimination of Bias
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual)
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual)
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand
Credits: 1.00 Substantive Law, Practice, and Procedure
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual)
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Format: Live (Virtual)
Credits: 1.20 General
This presentation is approved for one hour of General CLE credit in Alabama, one hour of General CLE credit in Alaska, one hour of Recognition and Elimination of Bias CLE credit in California, one hour of General CLE credit in Hawaii, one hour of General CLE credit in Illinois, one hour of General CLE credit in Missouri, one hour of General CLE credit in Nevada, one hour of General CLE credit in North Carolina, one hour of General CLE credit in Ohio, one hour of Substantive Law, Practice, and Procedure CLE credit in Pennsylvania, one hour of General CLE credit in Vermont, and one hour of General CLE credit in West Virginia. This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 1.20 hours of total CLE credit. Of these, 1.20 qualify as total hours of credit for Ethics/Professionalism, including 1.20 hours in Diversity, Inclusion, and Elimination of Bias. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.00 credit hours.
Justia only reports attendance in jurisdictions in which a particular Justia CLE Webinar is officially accredited. Lawyers may need to self-submit their certificates for CLE credit in jurisdictions not listed above.
Note that CLE credit, including partial credit, cannot be earned outside of the relevant accreditation period. To earn credit for a course, a lawyer must watch the entire course within the relevant accreditation period. Lawyers who have viewed a presentation multiple times may not be able to claim credit in their jurisdiction more than once. Justia reserves the right, at its discretion, to grant an attendee partial or no credit, in accordance with viewing duration and other methods of verifying course completion.
At this time, Justia only offers CLE courses officially accredited in certain states. Lawyers may generate a generic attendance certificate to self-submit credit in their own jurisdiction, but Justia does not guarantee that lawyers will receive their desired CLE credit through the self-submission or reciprocity process.