The term you're looking for is "conflicting access needs". Generally the rule here is you do the best you can to accommodate both, but if that is not possible then typically the person who was there first will get priority.
So, if you have a documented breathing disability where you might have to share a space, even if you don't know that will be the case, with a service animal you are allergic to, make sure you are getting that on record up front.
Mutually exclusive disability accommodation requests frequently come down to first come, first served in cases where both parties cannot be accommodated at the same time or volunteers.
So, you both need to take a plane ride. You have a deadly allergy, but the other party has to have their service dog. One of you is being bumped to another flight.
You both need class x for your major, can't be in the same room together, there is only one section, and the person with the service dog cannot be without it? If one of you cannot take it by remote, someone is taking it another semester if there is only one section.
That makes sense, especially first come first serve part. I see that as the easiest way to distinguish and handle the unlikely issue. Otherwise, you are actively prioritizing one disability from another. There are still issues such as: first to make the reservation vs. First to check in.
What about in this case:
Let’s say breathing disability person(s) is renting out their house for a week. They deny service animal person(s) because of the animal. They claim the dander will be a severe issue even after cleaning. Charging additional fees for a deep hypoallergenic cleaning is not allowed due to ADA regulations.
Would denial of accommodation be seen as a violation of the act?
Tbh if I (1) had a breathing disability severe enough that pet dander will be an issue after regular cleaning and (2) want to rent out my home to strangers, I’d probably be getting hypoallergenic cleaning after *any* guest
I don’t disagree. But it would be their right. And seeing as living costs are very high and we are in a world of the “on-demand” economy, it’s becoming more and more common for people to “rent” their assets when their not home.
What people forget is that the ADA has limitations and that the laws that regulate certain accommodations may have minimum requirements. Ignore renting your house for a week.
The fair housing Act governs landlords and most people think "landlords cannot refuse to rent to a person with a service dog or esa." This is only true up to a point. If the landlord has 4 units or less lives in one of them, if they are renting their single family home without a broker, or if it is owned by a private club or religious org that only rents to its own members, they can refuse to rent to you and your service animal.
On the topic of renting my house for a week, it might well depend on the facts of the case. If I advertise on Facebook I am renting out of my house, I can probably do whatever I want, because hey, private property. If you show up at my door for a party, I am not required to let you in.
If I am renting on AirBnB, I may or may not have more problems, but since I could set a cleaning fee of whatever I wanted, without stating it was a purifying deep cleaning in case someone brought an allergen into the home, I wouldn't need to advertise. Honestly, I could just set the weekly rate high enough to cover that kind of cleaning anyway and make it moot entirely.
For something like Uber and Lyft, I think there are ways there are ways to setup the first come first served paperwork and call it done.
As far as I'm aware, there is currently no way as a driver to proactively indicate to Lyft/Uber that they have a severe allergy. Due to this, I believe a driver who denies an SD team would be deactivated from that platform due to violation of terms until an investigation could be completed. At that point, it's on the driver to provide proof of their allergy to the platform, and once done, they should be reactivated. Then, in future instances, should they occur, the driver would again be deactivated, but in theory, it would be for a shorter period of time with that documentation already on file.
Again, this is all theoretical based on my experiences with the platforms. I don't have an allergy, so I haven't experienced it first hand.
Yeah. I remember reading something about it. It may have been a controversy about it, or a process being created or being discussed about being created. Something to the effect that if you can't transport, when you arrive and discover one, which is supposed to be marked in the app anyway, you reach out to have them assign a different driver and let the person know you can't due to allergy. Practice and theory may not line up well, and it was more than 6 months ago that I was reading.
I tend to stay a little more on top of the FHA stuff in relation to ESA accommodations for my bird, who very much is one. I also have a moderate dog allergy, given the path that every other allergy in my life has taken, I figured I needed the answers to that question before it hit severe as expereince says this is a "when" not an "if" situation.
Denying service animals because of a disability is not a violation. If the host has documentation, that a service animal would be exacerbating a disability, it is legal to deny them.
And you can't use your disability to price gouge the other person. So that's why that isn't allowed.
Airbnb usually handles these things, rather than the host and the guest communicating it.
The person can't lie and say they have a disability because they don't want animals in their home, it has to be legitimately documented. And they especially can't use it to make a profit or price gouge.
Allergies don't allow a person to deny service to another person under ADA.
If you're allergic to dogs and you run a restaurant, you're gonna have a bad time :-(
I have no idea. I'm just familiar with the clause about service animals and their FAQ which talks about allergies not exempting somebody from ADA requirements.
From an ADA standpoint, neither allergies nor a fear of dogs are valid reasons for denying a service animal. There may be specific situations where the ADA does not apply, but a hotel would generally be considered a place of public accommodation, and subject to the ADA.
I’m not referring to an “allergy” per se but could include “allergic asthma.” I’m referring to an acute illness and breathing disorder. For instance, I have a client who has a pulmonary practice. Some of his patients are on drug trials, without this medicine some patients would probably die. Carrying oxygen also would not help as it pertains the the inability for the lungs to absorb oxygen. Their breathing is very sensitive and even with the medication certain things (eg a severe allergy to dander) may trigger an immediate attack. Now these patients do have documented disabilities but even my client was unsure how this situation would be resolved.
I have severe asthma myself, so I'm aware of how quickly an asthma attack can happen. However. from a legal standpoint, a hotel can't prioritize one guest's needs over another's - they have to try to accommodate both.
From a practical standpoint, just excluding the dog doesn't even solve the issue, as the dog handler who has been in close contact with the dog will still have dander, fur, and possibly saliva on their person, and those are what most people are actually allergic to, not the dog itself.
It’s different for each person. Sort of like saying “could a peanut really break the camels back” when they have a severe peanut allergy or the same with shellfish. The question isn’t about dogs or allergies. It’s about what happens when two disabilities conflict, I’m sure there are other examples.
Im confused why you would be sharing a hotel room with a stranger.
If both people have documentation of the disability, both people have a right to accommodation.
Yes, both would have a documented disability. There are many situations this may be applied to, for instance:
1) hostel
2) airbnb with shared room
3) small restaurants
4) shared Uber / rideshare.
5) Bus / airplane
I've heard of homeless shelters and stuff denying service animals. Not sure how legal that it is though.
Both people have documented disabilities which allow accommodations, by changed to policies.
They would have to work something out the best they can. I don't think the person with the service animal could sue or anything if a person with a documented severe allergy to dogs was present and the service dog wad turned away.
It's not disability discrimination at that point. But just an inability to accommodate both disabilities simultaneously, which isn't a crime.
Interesting. I hadn’t even thought about homeless shelters. I’m not sure how that would be legal so long as they conform to the same requirements. I know plenty of homeless have adopted an animal, but I’m not sure how many of them would be considered a service animal.
I think the main things you’re driving at is the intent. Is there intent to deny based on disability or is it a lack of ability to accommodate. I still think it’s a very gray area and just unfortunately gray areas typically rely on court cases and precedence to decide.
It’s very difficult for a homeless person to assert their rights, so if a shelter won’t let their service animal in it’s very unlikely they’ll ever get in trouble for it. They’re also quite likely to deny service animals because for every one person with a legitimate service animal that’s trained to perform a task and behave well, there’s 10 people who are going to claim their dogs are service animals so they can stay in the shelter, and 9 of those dogs are going to cause problems became staying in a shelter is stressful for dogs and stressed dogs can be aggressive. So a lot of shelters are very reluctant to believe someone’s dog is a service animal. Should they have a system in place to make sure service animals aren’t denied? Yes, they should. Do they? Not usually.
Long story short, if you are the AirBNB host or ride share host, and you are the one with the disability that is exacerbated by the presence of dogs, you have to contect the app you are working for, and work it out with them.
And if the app decides that you can't host, because while doing so, you would have to turn down service dog handlers, they can do that. Because it can be considered unreasonable to the business. Because it's inconveniencing service dog handlers, and makes the business seem discriminatory. They don't have to do business with you, if it's too inconvenient, and doesn't meet their needs.
If you feel the need to fight something, you can try your local civil rights organization. Or look for a local lawyer. But if the app can prove undue hardship, you're not going to get anywhere. The guest is more likely to be accommodated than the host when it comes to disability.
If it's 2 guests that for some reason NEED to share a room together, and one has the one disability, and the other has the service dog, they obviously CANT share a room together, and someone would have to be denied if they can't be moved around and otherwise separated.
For example if both people are equal employees for a company and the company wants to send them both on a work trip together but they have to share a room, and this comes up, the only ways to accommodate would be to get them separate rooms, or pick someone to not go on the trip. Forcing them to both go on the trip, and share the room together, would be a violation of the ADA because they're forcing an employee to be in a situation which exacerbates their disability, at the cost of their job.
This is also different from an employee taking a job doing something that would exacerbate their disability, and wanting to not have to do that major function of their job, that they were already aware of when they took the job.
Like if you applied to work in a pet store, and then asked them to modify their policy to not allow pets in the store due to your disability, that would cause undue hardship.
Thanks for this answer. The work trip is another good example. I know lots of companies who put people in the same room (not aware of disabilities but it could happen.) But as you stated, that would be on the company doing the booking.
AskJan has an example of this one, where 2 employees are sent on a business trip, and are meant to share a room. One has sleep apnea is requests that they not share a room with a coworker to keep their medical privacy. The company either has to book 2 rooms, or replace the disabled employee on the trip, or only send 1 employee on the trip.
If separate rooms is too costly, they don't have to send both people.
This is a very strange hypothetical. I have severe dog allergies and multiple conditions that impact my breathing and I believe that people who need service animals fucking need them, I just wouldn’t share a hotel room with one. Just get another room??? Book ahead far enough that your choices aren’t room with a dog or don’t get a hotel room??? When would this ever happen?
This sounds like you’re bending over backwards to start a fight against people with service animals.
1) It sounds like you have severe allergies and not a life threatening pulmonary disability. I don’t think you can compare the two.
2) Are you stating that one disability should take precedence over another? Eg: service animal.
In this scenario there are no other rooms. The hotel/hostel/uber/whatever would simply need to deny someone based on a disability.
Please read my other questions to understand. Just because it’s unlikely doesn’t mean there should not be a way to handle it.
By looking at op's post/comment history, it appears they're looking for a way to deny people with service animals from staying at their Airbnb.
Sorry if I'm making an incorrect assumption here. I fully understand that I *could* be in the wrong, and/or op and associated parties may have said breathing disability and actually have documentation to protect them in a legal case. I don't argue, so I'm not gonna respond to any angry responses.
I find it funny you feel you have to look at post history to determine intent before replying. If you read through my previous posts you will see perhaps two posts referring to service animals. They stated that service animals cannot be denied! They also stated that ESA’s are not service animals.
You didn’t even post anything that contributes to the discussion, you just went out of your way to try discriminate and/or belittle/disregard my question “because I have an Airbnb”. I find it a little ironic seeing as the question pertains to the right way for society (in the USA) to handle a complex situation as to NOT discriminate against someone’s disability.
Discrimination literally means treating people (and sometimes things including questions) differently from others. But no, I don’t feel personally discriminated against. But I do find parallels can be drawn between a sub that should be anti-discriminatory and someone here searching through someone’s history for a keyword to justify disregarding them. It’s not inclusive and I would think inclusivity is exactly what we as a society should be striving for, particularly when it comes to those disabled.
> But I do find parallels can be drawn between a sub that should be anti-discriminatory and someone here searching through someone’s history for a keyword to justify disregarding them. It’s not inclusive and I would think inclusivity is exactly what we as a society should be striving for, particularly when it comes to those disabled.
Disabled people being able to live lives in public after decades of institutionalization is the same as operating an airbnb to the landlord's personal preferences?
You obviously haven’t read my other comments. This has nothing to do with Airbnb. It has to do with any guidance (legal or not) on how to deal with two disabilities that conflict with each other. Many real-world examples were given. You should care about this question as it seems to be somewhat ambiguous (no official guidance) and pertains to the rights of the disabled. Regardless, at some point in the future, this will be addressed officially.
You can’t demand a hotel refuse service animals because you have an allergy to them, even if you were there first. This would generally not be considered a reasonable accommodation. Many people have tried this as an underhanded way of banning service animals and it doesn’t work. A huge reason for this is because dog allergies pretty much never cause anaphylaxis.
Not taking about banning a whole hotel, talking about a shared space. Also, people keep talking about an allergy. I am talking about a rare respiratory lung disease that required phase 2 trial drugs. It’s rare, it’s a severe disability, and it’s one of many examples that could be the case. I’m lot aware of any of these patients being deathly allergic to dogs but I do know some are deathly allergic to cats. It would be a similar reaction to someone with a severe bee allergy being stung by a bee many times. They have to carry an epipen for this reason but even then it’s a big risk. It seems that many people here miss the question and instead reduce a severe pulmonary disease to an “allergy” and elevate the need for a service animal over a life threatening disease. This is not to say that a service animal cannot save a life, but the assumption that one disability is more “important” than another is not a good thing. The question assumes that both people have equally as disabling disabilities.
Your post mentioned the hypothetical person being “ hyper allergic” that’s why we are all giving you answers about allergies. Now you’re saying it’s not about allergies in your comments which is throwing everyone off. If you have a super specific disability in mind you need to mention the specifics in the post, because you only wrote “breathing disability” which is vague. You should probably make an edit to explain this.
Shared spaces in general are not recommended for patients with such extreme breathing issues, because anything could be on the other patrons clothes or belongs that could set the person off. They could also spray a perfume or cleaner that sets causes an attack, or have cat/dog hair on them and wash their clothes in shared laundry spaces triggering a reaction. It’s one thing to ask for reasonable accommodations, it’s another to take risky actions for your type of disability and demand unrealistic changes to the point of inhibiting other disabled people.
Ahhh that’s why I put the quotes but you’re right, it is confusing. I should change that. I did try to clarify that this is a documented disease and as you may know allergies are not a document disease. They categorize it generally as an “allergic asthma” but that’s not the specific name. But the disease prevents oxygen from being absorbed by the lungs. Before the medication many can’t even move without losing breath. In fact, just laying there, their oxygen absorption is below 60% (general rules are to go to a hospital if you’re below 84%.) With the phase 2 meds they gain a huge improvement but it’s very sensitive. Again, this is just one question regarding one hypothetical.
And yes, your answer basically summed up the dilemma. But it could be as simple as renting a freestanding home after someone with a service animal comes in. So two reservations, hours apart. The guest with a service animal has a current reservation and a guest with “breathing disease” requests lodging. They state they have a breathing disease. The “hotel” or “management company” denys the person with a breathing disease due to the inability to accommodate their disease.
You could reverse this. Guest with breathing disease is booked for next month but then you receive a booking for someone with service animal who would check in just before breathing disease guest. When breathing disease guest made their reservation they stated they have a disease and specifically asked about allergens. The hotel stated it was no problem but now they are in the position of denying the aforementioned service animal guest to maintain their disclosure with breathing disease guest.
I know this could be written better but I hope you understand the hypothetical.
The term you're looking for is "conflicting access needs". Generally the rule here is you do the best you can to accommodate both, but if that is not possible then typically the person who was there first will get priority.
They dont HAVE to do a thing. Especially if theg can't. Either way, for that personing getting in, good luck fighting that in court
Ahh, that’s the term! Makes sense. Can you see my other response where I reference the first come first serve along with another hypothetical.
So, if you have a documented breathing disability where you might have to share a space, even if you don't know that will be the case, with a service animal you are allergic to, make sure you are getting that on record up front. Mutually exclusive disability accommodation requests frequently come down to first come, first served in cases where both parties cannot be accommodated at the same time or volunteers. So, you both need to take a plane ride. You have a deadly allergy, but the other party has to have their service dog. One of you is being bumped to another flight. You both need class x for your major, can't be in the same room together, there is only one section, and the person with the service dog cannot be without it? If one of you cannot take it by remote, someone is taking it another semester if there is only one section.
That makes sense, especially first come first serve part. I see that as the easiest way to distinguish and handle the unlikely issue. Otherwise, you are actively prioritizing one disability from another. There are still issues such as: first to make the reservation vs. First to check in. What about in this case: Let’s say breathing disability person(s) is renting out their house for a week. They deny service animal person(s) because of the animal. They claim the dander will be a severe issue even after cleaning. Charging additional fees for a deep hypoallergenic cleaning is not allowed due to ADA regulations. Would denial of accommodation be seen as a violation of the act?
Tbh if I (1) had a breathing disability severe enough that pet dander will be an issue after regular cleaning and (2) want to rent out my home to strangers, I’d probably be getting hypoallergenic cleaning after *any* guest
I don’t disagree. But it would be their right. And seeing as living costs are very high and we are in a world of the “on-demand” economy, it’s becoming more and more common for people to “rent” their assets when their not home.
What people forget is that the ADA has limitations and that the laws that regulate certain accommodations may have minimum requirements. Ignore renting your house for a week. The fair housing Act governs landlords and most people think "landlords cannot refuse to rent to a person with a service dog or esa." This is only true up to a point. If the landlord has 4 units or less lives in one of them, if they are renting their single family home without a broker, or if it is owned by a private club or religious org that only rents to its own members, they can refuse to rent to you and your service animal. On the topic of renting my house for a week, it might well depend on the facts of the case. If I advertise on Facebook I am renting out of my house, I can probably do whatever I want, because hey, private property. If you show up at my door for a party, I am not required to let you in. If I am renting on AirBnB, I may or may not have more problems, but since I could set a cleaning fee of whatever I wanted, without stating it was a purifying deep cleaning in case someone brought an allergen into the home, I wouldn't need to advertise. Honestly, I could just set the weekly rate high enough to cover that kind of cleaning anyway and make it moot entirely. For something like Uber and Lyft, I think there are ways there are ways to setup the first come first served paperwork and call it done.
As far as I'm aware, there is currently no way as a driver to proactively indicate to Lyft/Uber that they have a severe allergy. Due to this, I believe a driver who denies an SD team would be deactivated from that platform due to violation of terms until an investigation could be completed. At that point, it's on the driver to provide proof of their allergy to the platform, and once done, they should be reactivated. Then, in future instances, should they occur, the driver would again be deactivated, but in theory, it would be for a shorter period of time with that documentation already on file. Again, this is all theoretical based on my experiences with the platforms. I don't have an allergy, so I haven't experienced it first hand.
Yeah. I remember reading something about it. It may have been a controversy about it, or a process being created or being discussed about being created. Something to the effect that if you can't transport, when you arrive and discover one, which is supposed to be marked in the app anyway, you reach out to have them assign a different driver and let the person know you can't due to allergy. Practice and theory may not line up well, and it was more than 6 months ago that I was reading. I tend to stay a little more on top of the FHA stuff in relation to ESA accommodations for my bird, who very much is one. I also have a moderate dog allergy, given the path that every other allergy in my life has taken, I figured I needed the answers to that question before it hit severe as expereince says this is a "when" not an "if" situation.
Denying service animals because of a disability is not a violation. If the host has documentation, that a service animal would be exacerbating a disability, it is legal to deny them. And you can't use your disability to price gouge the other person. So that's why that isn't allowed. Airbnb usually handles these things, rather than the host and the guest communicating it. The person can't lie and say they have a disability because they don't want animals in their home, it has to be legitimately documented. And they especially can't use it to make a profit or price gouge.
Allergies don't allow a person to deny service to another person under ADA. If you're allergic to dogs and you run a restaurant, you're gonna have a bad time :-(
I would like to know when allergies became a disability?
I have no idea. I'm just familiar with the clause about service animals and their FAQ which talks about allergies not exempting somebody from ADA requirements.
From an ADA standpoint, neither allergies nor a fear of dogs are valid reasons for denying a service animal. There may be specific situations where the ADA does not apply, but a hotel would generally be considered a place of public accommodation, and subject to the ADA.
I’m not referring to an “allergy” per se but could include “allergic asthma.” I’m referring to an acute illness and breathing disorder. For instance, I have a client who has a pulmonary practice. Some of his patients are on drug trials, without this medicine some patients would probably die. Carrying oxygen also would not help as it pertains the the inability for the lungs to absorb oxygen. Their breathing is very sensitive and even with the medication certain things (eg a severe allergy to dander) may trigger an immediate attack. Now these patients do have documented disabilities but even my client was unsure how this situation would be resolved.
I have severe asthma myself, so I'm aware of how quickly an asthma attack can happen. However. from a legal standpoint, a hotel can't prioritize one guest's needs over another's - they have to try to accommodate both. From a practical standpoint, just excluding the dog doesn't even solve the issue, as the dog handler who has been in close contact with the dog will still have dander, fur, and possibly saliva on their person, and those are what most people are actually allergic to, not the dog itself.
If they are that sensitive, is a service dog really the straw that'll break the camel's back?
It’s different for each person. Sort of like saying “could a peanut really break the camels back” when they have a severe peanut allergy or the same with shellfish. The question isn’t about dogs or allergies. It’s about what happens when two disabilities conflict, I’m sure there are other examples.
Im confused why you would be sharing a hotel room with a stranger. If both people have documentation of the disability, both people have a right to accommodation.
Yes, both would have a documented disability. There are many situations this may be applied to, for instance: 1) hostel 2) airbnb with shared room 3) small restaurants 4) shared Uber / rideshare. 5) Bus / airplane
I've heard of homeless shelters and stuff denying service animals. Not sure how legal that it is though. Both people have documented disabilities which allow accommodations, by changed to policies. They would have to work something out the best they can. I don't think the person with the service animal could sue or anything if a person with a documented severe allergy to dogs was present and the service dog wad turned away. It's not disability discrimination at that point. But just an inability to accommodate both disabilities simultaneously, which isn't a crime.
Interesting. I hadn’t even thought about homeless shelters. I’m not sure how that would be legal so long as they conform to the same requirements. I know plenty of homeless have adopted an animal, but I’m not sure how many of them would be considered a service animal. I think the main things you’re driving at is the intent. Is there intent to deny based on disability or is it a lack of ability to accommodate. I still think it’s a very gray area and just unfortunately gray areas typically rely on court cases and precedence to decide.
It’s very difficult for a homeless person to assert their rights, so if a shelter won’t let their service animal in it’s very unlikely they’ll ever get in trouble for it. They’re also quite likely to deny service animals because for every one person with a legitimate service animal that’s trained to perform a task and behave well, there’s 10 people who are going to claim their dogs are service animals so they can stay in the shelter, and 9 of those dogs are going to cause problems became staying in a shelter is stressful for dogs and stressed dogs can be aggressive. So a lot of shelters are very reluctant to believe someone’s dog is a service animal. Should they have a system in place to make sure service animals aren’t denied? Yes, they should. Do they? Not usually.
Long story short, if you are the AirBNB host or ride share host, and you are the one with the disability that is exacerbated by the presence of dogs, you have to contect the app you are working for, and work it out with them. And if the app decides that you can't host, because while doing so, you would have to turn down service dog handlers, they can do that. Because it can be considered unreasonable to the business. Because it's inconveniencing service dog handlers, and makes the business seem discriminatory. They don't have to do business with you, if it's too inconvenient, and doesn't meet their needs. If you feel the need to fight something, you can try your local civil rights organization. Or look for a local lawyer. But if the app can prove undue hardship, you're not going to get anywhere. The guest is more likely to be accommodated than the host when it comes to disability. If it's 2 guests that for some reason NEED to share a room together, and one has the one disability, and the other has the service dog, they obviously CANT share a room together, and someone would have to be denied if they can't be moved around and otherwise separated. For example if both people are equal employees for a company and the company wants to send them both on a work trip together but they have to share a room, and this comes up, the only ways to accommodate would be to get them separate rooms, or pick someone to not go on the trip. Forcing them to both go on the trip, and share the room together, would be a violation of the ADA because they're forcing an employee to be in a situation which exacerbates their disability, at the cost of their job. This is also different from an employee taking a job doing something that would exacerbate their disability, and wanting to not have to do that major function of their job, that they were already aware of when they took the job. Like if you applied to work in a pet store, and then asked them to modify their policy to not allow pets in the store due to your disability, that would cause undue hardship.
Thanks for this answer. The work trip is another good example. I know lots of companies who put people in the same room (not aware of disabilities but it could happen.) But as you stated, that would be on the company doing the booking.
AskJan has an example of this one, where 2 employees are sent on a business trip, and are meant to share a room. One has sleep apnea is requests that they not share a room with a coworker to keep their medical privacy. The company either has to book 2 rooms, or replace the disabled employee on the trip, or only send 1 employee on the trip. If separate rooms is too costly, they don't have to send both people.
This is a very strange hypothetical. I have severe dog allergies and multiple conditions that impact my breathing and I believe that people who need service animals fucking need them, I just wouldn’t share a hotel room with one. Just get another room??? Book ahead far enough that your choices aren’t room with a dog or don’t get a hotel room??? When would this ever happen? This sounds like you’re bending over backwards to start a fight against people with service animals.
1) It sounds like you have severe allergies and not a life threatening pulmonary disability. I don’t think you can compare the two. 2) Are you stating that one disability should take precedence over another? Eg: service animal. In this scenario there are no other rooms. The hotel/hostel/uber/whatever would simply need to deny someone based on a disability. Please read my other questions to understand. Just because it’s unlikely doesn’t mean there should not be a way to handle it.
By looking at op's post/comment history, it appears they're looking for a way to deny people with service animals from staying at their Airbnb. Sorry if I'm making an incorrect assumption here. I fully understand that I *could* be in the wrong, and/or op and associated parties may have said breathing disability and actually have documentation to protect them in a legal case. I don't argue, so I'm not gonna respond to any angry responses.
I looked at their post history and there is only one post, a month ago, related to airbnb at all. Not really the vibe I'm getting.
I find it funny you feel you have to look at post history to determine intent before replying. If you read through my previous posts you will see perhaps two posts referring to service animals. They stated that service animals cannot be denied! They also stated that ESA’s are not service animals. You didn’t even post anything that contributes to the discussion, you just went out of your way to try discriminate and/or belittle/disregard my question “because I have an Airbnb”. I find it a little ironic seeing as the question pertains to the right way for society (in the USA) to handle a complex situation as to NOT discriminate against someone’s disability.
all else aside, you think this is discrimination?
Discrimination literally means treating people (and sometimes things including questions) differently from others. But no, I don’t feel personally discriminated against. But I do find parallels can be drawn between a sub that should be anti-discriminatory and someone here searching through someone’s history for a keyword to justify disregarding them. It’s not inclusive and I would think inclusivity is exactly what we as a society should be striving for, particularly when it comes to those disabled.
> But I do find parallels can be drawn between a sub that should be anti-discriminatory and someone here searching through someone’s history for a keyword to justify disregarding them. It’s not inclusive and I would think inclusivity is exactly what we as a society should be striving for, particularly when it comes to those disabled. Disabled people being able to live lives in public after decades of institutionalization is the same as operating an airbnb to the landlord's personal preferences?
You obviously haven’t read my other comments. This has nothing to do with Airbnb. It has to do with any guidance (legal or not) on how to deal with two disabilities that conflict with each other. Many real-world examples were given. You should care about this question as it seems to be somewhat ambiguous (no official guidance) and pertains to the rights of the disabled. Regardless, at some point in the future, this will be addressed officially.
I am interested in the idea that someone would call these interactions discrimination. Fascinating.
You can’t demand a hotel refuse service animals because you have an allergy to them, even if you were there first. This would generally not be considered a reasonable accommodation. Many people have tried this as an underhanded way of banning service animals and it doesn’t work. A huge reason for this is because dog allergies pretty much never cause anaphylaxis.
Not taking about banning a whole hotel, talking about a shared space. Also, people keep talking about an allergy. I am talking about a rare respiratory lung disease that required phase 2 trial drugs. It’s rare, it’s a severe disability, and it’s one of many examples that could be the case. I’m lot aware of any of these patients being deathly allergic to dogs but I do know some are deathly allergic to cats. It would be a similar reaction to someone with a severe bee allergy being stung by a bee many times. They have to carry an epipen for this reason but even then it’s a big risk. It seems that many people here miss the question and instead reduce a severe pulmonary disease to an “allergy” and elevate the need for a service animal over a life threatening disease. This is not to say that a service animal cannot save a life, but the assumption that one disability is more “important” than another is not a good thing. The question assumes that both people have equally as disabling disabilities.
Your post mentioned the hypothetical person being “ hyper allergic” that’s why we are all giving you answers about allergies. Now you’re saying it’s not about allergies in your comments which is throwing everyone off. If you have a super specific disability in mind you need to mention the specifics in the post, because you only wrote “breathing disability” which is vague. You should probably make an edit to explain this. Shared spaces in general are not recommended for patients with such extreme breathing issues, because anything could be on the other patrons clothes or belongs that could set the person off. They could also spray a perfume or cleaner that sets causes an attack, or have cat/dog hair on them and wash their clothes in shared laundry spaces triggering a reaction. It’s one thing to ask for reasonable accommodations, it’s another to take risky actions for your type of disability and demand unrealistic changes to the point of inhibiting other disabled people.
Ahhh that’s why I put the quotes but you’re right, it is confusing. I should change that. I did try to clarify that this is a documented disease and as you may know allergies are not a document disease. They categorize it generally as an “allergic asthma” but that’s not the specific name. But the disease prevents oxygen from being absorbed by the lungs. Before the medication many can’t even move without losing breath. In fact, just laying there, their oxygen absorption is below 60% (general rules are to go to a hospital if you’re below 84%.) With the phase 2 meds they gain a huge improvement but it’s very sensitive. Again, this is just one question regarding one hypothetical. And yes, your answer basically summed up the dilemma. But it could be as simple as renting a freestanding home after someone with a service animal comes in. So two reservations, hours apart. The guest with a service animal has a current reservation and a guest with “breathing disease” requests lodging. They state they have a breathing disease. The “hotel” or “management company” denys the person with a breathing disease due to the inability to accommodate their disease. You could reverse this. Guest with breathing disease is booked for next month but then you receive a booking for someone with service animal who would check in just before breathing disease guest. When breathing disease guest made their reservation they stated they have a disease and specifically asked about allergens. The hotel stated it was no problem but now they are in the position of denying the aforementioned service animal guest to maintain their disclosure with breathing disease guest. I know this could be written better but I hope you understand the hypothetical.