3 ms·
The problem is the desire to not devote resources to verifying the legitimacy of individual claims and instead banning the practice wholesale. Honestly, why mak
by gamblor956 6y ago
The problem is the desire to not devote resources to verifying the legitimacy of individual claims and instead banning the practice wholesale. Honestly, why make a mockery of this? Chastise people who are obviously trolling or scamming the system.
It would have required a lot of resources to verify every individual claim and that would have raised prices for everyone. The burden of proof has been shifted to where it should always have been: on the person wanting to bring the animal.
- Ansil849 6y agoThat burden of proof has already existed in the form of having to file the requisite paperwork including a letter from a doctor as well as a specific animal behavior form. It was not just a matter of claiming $random_animal is an emotional support animal. The problem appears to be that airlines ignored the requisite paperwork or the paperwork was fraudulent (for example written by doctors who are family friends).
- gamblor956 6y agoNo, the problem was that airlines did not think they were allowed to examine the paperwork because ADA proponents told them it would violate the ADA to actually verify claims related to emotional support animals. (And in CA, lower-level courts have actually ruled to that effect.) The importance of the new rule is twofold: first, it lets the airlines know that it does not violate the ADA to restrict emotional support animals, and second, it permits airlines to require verification that an animal is actually required for support reasons, emotional or otherwise.
- Ansil849 6y agoThe paperwork was still required. So what exactly are you suggesting? That passengers forged medical paperwork en masse, knowing that airlines would not verify it? Is there evidence that this was happening anywhere?