Equine herpes virus-1, a sometimes deadly virus that can cause myeloencephalopathy in some infected horses (Equine Herpesvirus Myeloencephalopathy or EHM), has surfaced at one horse farm in Union County, NJ, as reported by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture on March 20, 2018 and in theHORSE on March 21, 2018.

The second horse had an elevated temperature and was showing respiratory signs, but no neurological signs were noted by the attending veterinarian.

The first horse was moved into the isolation barn on the property last week and the property was placed under quarantine. The finding of another positive horse has reset the quarantine clock and will delay the release date another three days. These are the first reported EHV-1 cases in New Jersey in 2018.

As reported by the UK Gluck Equine Research Center, designated as a World Reference Center for EHV-1 and EHV-4:

Over the past decade there has been an unexpected increase in equine herpesvirus neurologic disease (equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy [EHM]) incidence. Previous research by other scientists suggests a significant percentage of EHM or paralytic herpes outbreaks are caused by a mutant strain. A single mutation has been identified in the gene encoding of the viral replication enzyme, which seems to confer the power of enhanced pathogenicity (a pathogen’s ability to cause disease in an organism) or neurovirulence to such strains.

New Jersey is not a novice in managing EHM outbreaks.  As previously described, New Jersey Department of Agriculture in partnership with the New Jersey Racing Commission, private practitioners, horse trainers, and with assistance from USDA, issued and supervised a quarantine of horses boarding at Monmouth Race Track in October 2006 which lasted two months. See, Equine Herpes Virus Myeloencephalopathy-A Guide to Effective Response; and Infectious Diseases In Animals And Humans – What Is Your Legal Risk?

USDA publishes “A Guide to Understanding the Neurologic Form of EHV Infection” equine_herpesvirus_brochure_2009,  and explains  that “Equine Herpes Virus (EHV-1) infection in horses can cause respiratory disease, abortion in mares, neonatal foal death, and/or neurologic disease. The neurologic form of EHV-1 is called Equine Herpes Virus Myeloencephalopathy (EHM). The virus can spread through the air, contaminated equipment, clothing and hands.”

In USDA’s Equine Herpesvirus Myeloencephalopathy: Mitigation Experiences, Lessons Learned, and Future Needs, in which responders to the Monmouth Race Park quarantine were interviewed (including me):

Dr. Peter Timoney, Professor, University of Kentucky, Gluck Equine Research Center and Chair of the Infectious Diseases of Horses Committee of the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA), pointed out that ‘. . . within the past few years, a mutant of the wild-type of EHV-1 has been identified which evidence would indicate is very frequently associated with outbreaks of EHM. Also, this mutant has been identified among isolates of EHV-1 made prior to 2000. As the distribution of this virus mutant becomes more widespread in the equine population, the frequency and severity of outbreaks of EHM is likely to increase further unless measures to control its spread and occurrence of the disease can be developed.’

In addition to animal health issues, EHM outbreaks can result in lawsuits, as evidenced by the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Ass’n v. Alpen House U.L.C., 942 F.Supp.2d 497 (D.N.J. 2013), in which

Racehorse owners and association to which they belonged brought action for strict liability and negligence against owner of training facility that allegedly was source of outbreak of Equine Herpes Virus—Type 1 (EHV–1) that caused racehorses to be quarantined, which prevented them from racing.

Id.  After Alpen House lost its motion for summary judgment, the parties likely settled, but this has not been confirmed.

Research is still underway to develop a vaccine that will protect horses against the neurological form of EHV, and until completed, more outbreaks should be expected.

We have previously published blogs about the increasing impacts to businesses and people from misrepresentations about service and emotion support dogs.  See, e.g., New York Makes it Unlawful to Misrepresent Dogs as Service Animals.  We are pleased to post several blogs from partner Scott M. Badami who advises companies, private institutions and individuals on compliance with various federal and state laws, including the Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act.  Scott is the founder and editor of the firm’s Fair Housing Defense Blog, which offers discussion and insight on fair housing compliance and other areas of interests to apartment owners and management companies as well as professional management employees.

By Scott M. Badami,  originally posted on March 16, 2018

When evaluating assistance animal requests from our residents, one of the issues faced by apartment leasing offices across the country is what to do if the animal is believed to be a “direct threat.” The law is absolutely clear that an animal (usually a dog) cannot be categorized as a “direct threat” unless there is evidence that the specific animal in question presents a legitimate danger to other residents, to property management employees, or to the property itself. To illustrate, we cannot simply deny an assistance animal because he or she is a particular breed, a particular size, or because of the animal’s weight.

Applying applicable standards concerning the “direct threat” analysis, last year the Vermont state Supreme Court issued an opinion, affirming the trial court below, concluding a landlord was correct in denying a reasonable accommodation request for a specific dog as the evidence demonstrated that the animal posed a direct threat. Even though the dog never attacked another resident, the evidence relied on by the court included:

  • that the dog regularly reared up on her back legs, lunged, or bared her teeth at people and other dogs when outside;
  • that the dog often went “crazy” [the court’s word, not mine] when other resident or dog passed the resident’s apartment home;
  • that the resident informed others that the dog had been trained as a “guard dog” and was “people and dog aggressive”;
  • that the resident asked another resident to walk their dogs at different times to avoid conflict with the purported assistance animal;
  • that there was evidence in the record that the resident may not have been able to control the dog; and
  • efforts by the resident to reduce or control the potential threat (such as limiting the time the dog was outdoors) would not sufficiently reduce the potential for aggression and/or were not appropriately raised or were thought not to be potentially successful.

While every reasonable accommodation request must be evaluated on a case by case basis, the court here provided some concrete examples of the types of behavior that it found disqualifying in an assistance animal. In my experience, even when we see an animal which may be a direct threat, management must always engage in the interactive process with the resident to determine if there are ways to control the animal. If you don’t, there is a decent chance that you might need to speak with a lawyer like me.

Just A Thought.

An interesting study about ordinances governing backyard poultry ownership in Colorado was recently published, titled “A Method for Guarding Animal Welfare and Public Health: Tracking the Rise of Backyard Poultry Ordinances” (the “Report”).

The Report “tracks the development of municipal ordinances, with attention to provisions for animal health and welfare and significant concerns for public health.”

Public and animal health officials, as well as large commercial poultry operations, have been concerned about the spread of infectious, contagious diseases, such as avian influenza virus from small backyard flocks where owners are unaware of and not familiar with the typical biosecurity measures that are generally recommended in animal agriculture.

USDA has published a number of guidance documents for people interested in raising poultry for their personal consumption of eggs.

In “Biosecurity for Birds,” USDA explains:

Raising backyard poultry is a growing trend across the United States. It is very important for all backyard poultry owners to know the signs of two deadly poultry diseases, as well as the basic ‘biosecurity’ steps you can take to protect your birds. APHIS runs the Biosecurity for Birds campaign to help raise awareness among backyard, hobby and pet bird owners.

On the other hand, animal rights activists often blame commercial agriculture for the spread of avian influenza.  See, e.g., An HSUS Report: Human Health Implications of Intensive Poultry Production and Avian Influenza, and Avian Influenza Just One Marker of Sickness in Industrial Agriculture .

The fact is that avian influenza is most often spread from wildlife to privately owned domestic flocks, regardless of the size of the flock.  Therefore, for animal and public health concerns, statutes and regulations̶̶-federal, state, or local-should provide for the health and welfare of laying hens as well as ensuring quality standards for eggs.

Federal and state laws govern standards of egg quality relating to the prevention of contamination with Salmonella.  As the Report discusses:

The federal regulations include requirements related to egg handling and storage prior to point of purchase by consumers, as well as testing for Salmonella on farms that have more than 3000 hens and implementation of biosecurity programs on those farms to control egg safety risks. For poultry meat safety, USDA inspects live birds and carcasses at federally inspected slaughter plants (i.e., plants that process meat for export or interstate commerce) to ensure that they are free of disease, and also evaluates conditions at those plants to ensure that they are sanitary and following ‘good commercial practices.’

However, as the Report states, local ordinances that permit ownership of backyard poultry usually do not include provisions related to either the health or safety of the hens.

[B]ackyard birds may pose significant risks to the general public. The outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI, H5N1) in Egypt offers a shocking example. The majority (107/112) of Egypt’s clinically confirmed HPAI cases of human infection from 2006 to 2009 are linked to close contact with diseased backyard birds resulting in 36 deaths and human-to-human spread. In addition, the 2002 California outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) originated in backyard flocks. The outbreak spread into commercial operations and resulted in depopulation of over 3 million birds, costing taxpayers $161 million. (citations omitted).

The Report, analyzing backyard poultry ordinances in Colorado, found, in part:

  1. The most common guidelines for poultry ordinances pertain to housing design and placement, the sex of birds, and total number of birds allowed, including specific space requirements for birds, in come cases.
  2. Ordinances commonly required housing to be predator resistant, easily cleaned, and maintained regularly to prevent the development of pests, rodents, or odors that would cause nuisances.
  3. In urban locations, the number of birds permitted was often limited to between 4 and 6 birds per lot.
  4. Ventilation requirements were often not included in ordinances.
  5. Roosters were commonly prohibited.

Notably, the Report stated that “[r]egulations pertaining directly to animal health and welfare were rare.”

The Report concluded that ordinances should include these provisions.

[O]ur study indicates that there are fewer guidelines for the health and welfare of backyard poultry than their commercial counterparts. Regulation is important in disease prevention. Fragmented oversight of animal welfare and health creates policy blind spots critical to shared human and animal health.

I concur.

New Jersey proposed bills S2037 and A1050 would revise the State’s “equine animal activities law in accordance with recommendations of New Jersey Law Revision Commission to clarify responsibility and liability issues.”

The New Jersey Law Revision Commission issued its final report on May 22, 2014 in which it:

[r]ecommend[ed] . . . modification of current statute to address an issue raised by the 2010 New Jersey Supreme Court in Hubner v. Spring Valley Equestrian Center[, 203 N.J. 184 (2010)]. The Court found that the Act’s assumption of risk provisions conflicted with the exceptions to limitations on operator liability. Accordingly, the Act’s assumption of risk provisions have been consolidated and new language emphasizes affirmative duties and responsibilities of equestrian activities operators and participants.

The bills incorporate the Commission’s recommendations which clarifies the responsibility of both the equine operator and participants, similar to sections in sister laws governing skiing and rollerskating.

It looks like this is the second legislative session these bills have been introduced to the New Jersey Legislators.

Historically the equine industry in New Jersey has had a significant economic impact in the State. The Commission, citing reports from Rutgers Equine Science Center stated

[t]he New Jersey equine industry, which is home to 42,500 horses, is valued at $4 billion…producing an annual economic impact of approximately $1.1 billion…and 13,000 jobs. Horses are found on 7,200 facilities in every county statewide which maintain open space of 176,000 acres, which in turn provides an enhanced quality of life for New Jersey residents. Horse operations tend to be more sustainable than other types of agricultural businesses, making the horse industry critical to the growth and land-use strategy of the state.

These statistics were reported in a comprehensive report published by the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station in 2007.

The report included the direct and indirect economic impact related to equine activities.

It would be helpful to receive an update from that now decade-old report, but that should not hinder the movement of these bills through the legislative process until they are hopefully passed and enacted.

S1093 and A1923, the latest versions of Nosey’s law, a bill that originally would have prohibited the use of elephants in traveling animal acts, has now expanded its reach to “prohibit the use of [all] wild or exotic animal traveling animal acts.”

Why is this a concern?  There are many legitimate animal exhibitions that inform and educate the public about exotic and wild animals that would be prohibited if this bill were to become law.

The current version of this bill, originally introduced in 2016, attempts to but fails to address the flaws in its prior iteration, which Governor Christie vetoed as one of his last official functions.

The definitions and provisions in the proposed bill, described here in relevant part, demonstrate the problems with the law:

“Performance” means any animal . . .  display, exhibition, exposition, fair . . . petting zoo, presentation, public showing . . .  trade show, or similar undertaking in which animals . . . participate as accompaniments for the entertainment, amusement, or benefit of a live audience.

“Wild or exotic animal” means any non-domesticated species of mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian.

In previous versions of this bill, the terms “wild” and “exotic” were not defined.  The proposed definition above does not correct the prior deficiencies.  First, there is a problem with the term “domesticated.”

The terms “domestic” and “domesticated” have been interpreted by courts where those terms were not defined in statutes or regulations in suit.  See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Comella, 735 A.2d 738 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999) (questioning whether a “dog” is a “domestic animal,” based on statutory analysis); Bueckner v. Hamel, 886 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Ct. Appl. 1994) (affirming judgment based, in relevant part, on the exclusion of “deer” as “domestic animals”); City of Rolling Meadows v. Kyle, 494 N.E.2d 766 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (reversing holding that owner’s monkey was not a domesticated house pet); Turudic v. Stephens, 31 P.3d 465, 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2001) (concluding that “although the cougar may be more exotic than goldfish or hamsters, they are, nevertheless, indisputably family pets.”)

Instead of using the term “domesticated” the term “domestic” should be used.

“Domestic” should be defined as “domestic livestock” and “domestic companion animal” and “pet” should be defined as “domestic animal.”  Since these terms have been subject to court interpretation (see, e.g. People v. Garcia, 777 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004) (asserting that the statutory definition of “companion animal” was unconstitutionally vague); Levine v. Connor, 540 F.Supp.2d 1113(N.D. Cal. 2008) (addressing the exclusion of poultry from the definition of “livestock” in the Humane Slaughter Act); State v. Nelson, 499 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (reversing conviction for cruelty to a rooster, based on the definition of “livestock”), “domestic livestock” should be further defined pursuant to section 1 of P.L. 1995, c. 311 (C.4:22-16.1); “domestic companion animal” should be further defined pursuant to subsection u. of section 1 of 14 P.L. 1978 (C.2C:20-1).

It would be problematic to incorporate NJDEP’s definition of exotic mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian which means “any nongame species or mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian not indigenous to New Jersey,” since that would prohibit many animal exhibitions and fairs.  For example, domestic cattle are not indigenous to New Jersey.

Then, there is the issue with ferrets, which New York City has ruled are “wild” animals.

In addition to these issues with defined (or undefined terms) the proposed exemptions in the bill, presented below, do nothing to right size the problems with this bill.

This section shall not apply to:

(1)   exhibitions at a non-mobile, permanent institution or facility certified by the United States Department of Agriculture and accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, the American Sanctuary Association, or a similar organization as determined by the Department of Environmental Protection;

(2)   outreach programs for educational or conservation purposes conducted by a facility accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, the American Sanctuary Association, or a similar organization as determined by the Department of Environmental Protection;

(3)   an institution of higher education exhibiting wild or exotic animals for research or education purposes; or

(4)   outreach programs for educational or conservation purposes conducted by governmental entities.

First, there is a concern about the arbitrary deference to accreditation by third parties, without reference to any specific animal care standards required.

Second, there are a number of non-governmental entities that are not institutional of higher education that conduct educational and outreach programs that help the public understand the importance and beauty of certain species.

As others have suggested, the language of the originally proposed bill, which would have prohibited the use of elephants in traveling animal acts, was much more preferable than these current versions.


A set of bills introduced in the New Jersey legislature would dilute funds from the decades-long spay neuter program overseen by the Department of Health, to the detriment of pets and their owners.

New Jersey bill S883 and sister bill A 2197 would authorize the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission “to issue special Humane State license plates . . . [and] [a]fter the deduction of the cost of designing, producing, issuing, renewing, and publicizing the plates and of any computer programming changes that are necessary to implement the license plate program, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, the additional fees will be deposited into a special non-lapsing fund known as the ‘Humane State License Plate Fund”’ that will be appropriately annually to the Animal Welfare Federation of New Jersey (AWFNJ).  http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S1000/883_S2.HTM

The funds are mandated “to be used to provide grants to county societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals for the shelter and care of animals.”

While the bill was reported from the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, Senator Sarlo, Chair of that committee voted no, saying that he is opposed to this bill, like all others establishing a special license plate, because they all cost the taxpayers money.

Here, there is additional concern because New Jersey has a pre-existing special license described above, established during the Florio administration.  I remember attending the bill signing at Drumthwacket, the official residence of the governor of the State of New Jersey.  The “Animal Friendly” license plate, which debuted in 1994, helps fund “the animal population control program. . . [which] provides low cost spaying and neutering for thousands of pets and encourages the adoption of thousands more each year in New Jersey.”

If enacted into law, this new special plate will dilute the existing animal population program, which had, as of 2012, aided in the spaying and neutering of more than 192,000 cats and dogs, according to then Commissioner of Health, Mary E. O’Dowd.

The funds raised through the [program] support[s] the spay or neutering of dogs and cats adopted from New Jersey shelters, pounds and rescue groups, as well as those owned by persons on public assistance programs.

This fund has been historically popular but runs out of money quickly-many needy families are unable to benefit from the program.

An added benefit of the spay-neuter program, is that it introduces new pet owners to their local veterinarian (who performs the surgery at a greatly reduced fee) and establishes a veterinarian-client-patient relationship that serves as a basis for lifelong veterinary care.

If the State is interested in providing additional funding for animal welfare concerns, this pre-existing program could benefit from additional funds, or perhaps be expanded to assist pet owners without sufficient means provide veterinary care to their pets throughout their lives.

The unfortunate and misguided bans of sales of professionally and purposely-bred dogs throughout the United States (which as previously described violates the constitutional rights of many and exposes people and pets to a host of infectious, sometimes deadly diseases), reveals a dearth of objective and science-based research about the welfare of dogs (and puppies) historically provided to the public from breeders through pet stores compared with the welfare of these pets sold (aka adopted) through rescue and shelter channels.

Fortunately, through the work conducted at universities, including, for example, Purdue University’s Center for Animal Welfare Science (“CAWS”), and Mississippi State University College of Veterinary Medicine, peer-reviewed, science-based research is underway and the results published.

At Purdue’s CAWS, researchers “facilitate the well-being of animals using sound science and ethics to investigate and promote the best animal care and management practices.”

Dr. Candace Croney and her research group, study the “Welfare of Breeding Dogs.”

The welfare of dogs housed in commercial breeding facilities is of great public concern.  However, little research has been performed to examine the welfare status of the dogs on-site at kennels, characterize the nature and extent of welfare problems experienced, and explore solutions. We are developing tools to evaluate the behavioral and physical welfare of commercial breeding dogs and create practical recommendations to improve their lives and those of their puppies.

In addition to studying techniques and practices used by dog breeders, the group also studies the multi-factorial issues involved when people chose to adopt or purchase a new dog.  Researchers conclude, as reported in “Factors that impact dog selection and welfare:”

Dogs are not selected based on a single factor. While animal shelters and rescue organizations work hard to encourage the adoption of the dogs under their care, they may not be able to meet the demand for purebred dogs. This demand creates the need for a solution that balances consumer freedom of choice as to where (and how) to obtain a dog with ethical concerns about procuring dogs from sources where animal welfare is not adequately protected.

Notably, the paper also identifies the fact that, regardless of the source, pets can experience varying levels of welfare.  Increasingly, as shelters are pressured into decreasing numbers of animals euthanized (a laudable goal, when properly implemented), shelter residents are moved from shelter to shelter or rescue or even adopted out, even when behavioral and/or medical abnormalities exist.

A study recently conducted at the MSU College of Veterinary Medicine attempted to take a sharp, science-based look at brick and mortar shelter populations in the United States.

One of the authors (Kimberly Woodruff) noted:

For many years, people have quoted numbers of animals going in and out of shelters, but there’s never really been any research behind them . . .Even beyond that, nobody really knows how many shelters are in the United States. There’s no official registry for shelters and no group providing oversight. Shelters can be anything from a few kennels to a huge facility that adopts out thousands of animals a year.

As previously discussed, the National Animal Interest Alliance has been tracking the movement of dogs and cats into and out of shelters, using data obtained from government agencies, and reporting this information on the NAIA Shelter Project.

Both the MSU research and the Shelter Project are hampered by the unreported movement of pets through rescue organizations, which are often completely unregulated, are not required to register or obtain a license to function, and do not report animal movement to any agency.  Some states have adopted laws governing these entities, including those in the Northeast, like Connecticut and Rhode Island, where so many transplanted pets are relocated.

As the MSU study discussed, concerns about the spread of diseases and pests through adoption networks must be addressed:

‘For example, there are a lot of dogs moving out of the Southeast and into other regions,’ [researcher] Smith said. ‘Well, this is a highly endemic heartworm disease area, we possibly could be transporting heartworms across the country. That means we need to do due diligence to control that disease. We may need to ask those shelters about how they’re addressing heartworm disease and other regional diseases.’

You have likely heard about the recent attempt by an individual to board a flight with a peacock who purportedly served as an emotional support animal.  See, e.g., “Woman denied emotional support peacock on United Flight.

United has published current rules regarding Psychiatric/Therapeutic/Emotional Support Animal Authorization on its website, which indicates that changes to the current requirements will be forthcoming:

Pursuant to the Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance for the carriage of service animals, United requires a passenger with a qualified disability traveling with a psychiatric/therapeutic/emotional support type animal to obtain documentation from their medical/mental health professional.

This form is only valid for travel between now and February 28, 2018; additional documentation will be required for travel on or after March 1, 2018.

Other documentation may be required for travel entering or exiting an international location.

United requires service animals to be “properly harnessed for the duration of the flight. Small animals may remain in the passenger’s lap during the flight. If a carrier will be used, it must meet the USDA guidelines and fit under the aircraft seat.”

Notably, the airline also states that animals “must be trained to behave appropriately in a public setting. Animals found not to have been trained to behave will only be accepted in accordance with United’s current pet policies or may be denied boarding.” (Emphasis in original).


There is additional information on United Airlines’ Service animals webpage:

Beginning March 1, 2018, United will require additional documentation for customers traveling with an emotional support animal. Currently, customers must provide 48 hours’ notice to the Accessibility Desk and a letter from a licensed medical/mental health professional. For travel on or after March 1, customers will need to also provide a veterinary health form documenting the health and vaccination records for the animal as well as confirming that the animal has appropriate behavioral training.

Additional information and forms will be available soon, so please continue to check united.com if you have upcoming travel with an emotional support animal. The process for trained service animals is currently not changing.

We have published several blogs about legal requirements and provisions governing the use of service and emotional support animals.  Individuals with legitimate disabilities may be disadvantaged by those who want to travel with their pets but have no legitimate disability or emotional disorder.  Since specific certification is not required for service or emotional support animals, but a plethora of websites offer registration, vests and identification cards provided for a fee and based on the honor system, it is easy for people to fake it.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has published a comprehensive “Service Animal Definition Matrix—Air Carrier Access Act vs. Americans with Disabilities Act,” dated July 1, 2016, that includes helpful definitions, questions and answers summarizing information about:

  1. The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and 14 CFR Part 382;
  2. DOJ’s interpretation of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA);
  3. FRA’s interpretation of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 49 CFR 37.3;
  4. FTA’s interpretation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 49 CFR 37.3, 37.167(d); and
  5. HUD’s FHAct and/or Section 504.

In addition to definitions based on the above-mentioned categories, helpful questions and answers are included in the matrix, including, for example:

  1. Should disability mitigation training for the animal be required as a condition of access?
  2. Should public access training for the animal be required as a condition of access?
  3. Should the rule designate eligible species and, if so, what species should be allowed? Should the rule allow certain species to travel as service animals subject to certain restrictions (such as remaining contained during flight)?
  4. What requirements should the rule impose to prevent fraud in the documentation process.

This matrix, while not legal advice, should be helpful to airline and other carriers considering whether to amend their policies regarding travel with emotional support animals.

It may be worth considering policies to permit pet owners to purchase seats for certain pets, with reasonable requirements for health and behavior, since it is likely that many people would pay for these tickets, if available.

Just a quick update about some recent blogs describing proposed bills in New Jersey.

Governor Christie pulled the plug on the NJSPCA signing S3558 into law which removes the association’s law enforcement authority.

Nosey’s bill (S2508), which would have threatened the continued existence of zoos and  other educational  facilities in New Jersey, based on its overly broad definitions, was pocket vetoed, as was Sweeney’s Animal Abuse Registry bill-S2295 substituted by A3421.  

Nosey’s bill was prefiled for the current legislative session (A1923) and was Introduced and Referred to Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

At least 2 animal abuse registry bills have been prefiled as well (A376 and AA719).

There were more than 200 animal-related bills introduced last session in the New Jersey legislature according to Tom Leach who tracks bills as the Executive Director of the New Jersey Association of Biomedical Research.

There is no reason to expect this to change.

Carolyn D. Richmond, Ernest E. Badway and Jason B. Jendrewski write:

Blind man and a guide dog in role of service animalBeware: service dog fraud will not be tolerated in New York State, which recently passed a law prohibiting the misrepresentation of service dogs. The law, effective December 18, 2017, makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly affix to any dog any false or improper tag identifying the dog as a guide, service, therapy or hearing dog. Violations of the law could result in a fine of up to $100 and up to 15 days in jail.

Many persons with disabilities use service animals (typically trained dogs) to assist them in performing important tasks that enable them to fully participate in everyday life. Service animals play an increasingly important role in our society, and the tasks these animals are trained to perform are broad and not necessarily obvious, such as guiding persons who are blind. For example, service animals may alert a person with diabetes that his or her blood sugar has reached high or low levels or detect the onset of a seizure for a person who has epilepsy.

Under federal, state and local laws, persons with disabilities are permitted to be accompanied by service animals in all public areas of places of public accommodation, such as restaurants and retail stores, at no additional charge or condition (even if animals are prohibited by state or local health codes). However, there are concerns that people are taking advantage of these important laws and abusing their protections. The intent of New York State’s new law is to curb such abuse and to deter individuals from engaging in service dog fraud.

While this law is an important and positive development, businesses should be mindful that it does not broaden the scope of permissible questions that their employees may ask of patrons. Employees may ask only a limited number of questions to assess whether they are required to allow an alleged service animal to enter the premises. For example, if it is not obvious what service an animal provides, an employee may ask a patron if the service animal is required because of a disability. An employee may also inquire about the work or task that the service animal has been trained to perform. Employees should ask these questions only if necessary and should not ask any other questions. Importantly, employees should not inquire about the patron’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the service animal or ask that the service animal demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

While the new state legislation prohibits persons from applying false or improper identification tags, under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, service animals are not required to wear an identification tag, or any vest, patch or harness identifying the animal as a service animal. Accordingly, businesses should not deny any service animal entry based on any lack of identification, as it is not required under the law. Only in very limited circumstances may a service animal be excluded, such as if the service animal is out of control (and the handler is unable to control it) or the service animal is not housebroken. In these events, businesses should offer alternative methods for providing their goods and services to the patron with a disability.

The new law should serve as an important reminder for businesses to ensure that they have comprehensive policies and procedures in place for dealing with service animals and for accommodating persons with disabilities. We suggest that businesses review those policies and procedures with counsel and train their employees regarding these issues, including the proper manner for determining whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. Additionally, while not necessarily required by law, businesses may want to consider installing signs stating that service animals are permitted to enter their establishments.

Carolyn D. Richmond is a partner and chair of Fox’s Hospitality Practice Group, and former co-chair of its Labor and Employment Department. She is based in the New York office.

Ernest E. Badway is a partner and co-chair of the firm’s Securities Industry Practice, based in New York.

Jason B. Jendrewski is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department, resident in New York.