November 19, 2002

United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability rights Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530

Messrs,

Guide Dog Users, Inc., (GDUI) a support and advocacy organization of and for guide dog handlers, whose membership numbers over 1,100, and who is an affiliate of the American Council of the Blind (ACB) submits the following complaint on behalf of a citizen who is blind, in order to remedy a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This complaint is filed on behalf of Ms. Stephanie Dohman who was denied participation in a training program of the Iowa Department for the blind on the basis of the presence of a guide dog. Supporting documentation demonstrates that Ms. Dohman has not only been denied access to training for which she is qualified, but has been unlawfully denied the training as a member of a protected class which class is the object of methods of administration by a public entity aimed at prejudicially discouraging the use of a guide dog through the unlawful imposition of a biased philosophy implemented as state policy without an appropriate basis to justify it's creation or enforcement.

Based on input from our membership regarding similar policies in other states, GDUI asks that the following complaint be investigated rather than referred to mediation given the national implications of allowing the unlawful policy herein complained against, to continue in other states wherein either this policy or similar ones have been adopted. Moreover, due to the fact that the Attorney General of Iowa defends the position of the Iowa Department for the Blind, mediation would appear impossible. There is an even greater and more compelling need to resolve this issue not only in the state of Iowa, but wherever it exist elsewhere in the United States.

The facts:

1. Ms. Stephanie Dohman is a woman who is blind and has applied for and successfully completed training with a guide dog duly trained to perform guiding service by a long established school that trains dogs for this purpose. The school does business as Leader Dogs for the Blind, Inc. in the state of Michigan.

2. Ms Dohman resides at 6009 Tonka Avenue in the City of Des moines Iowa 50312 and can be reached at that address or telephone 515-274-0792.

3. Ms Dohman is an active client of the Iowa Department for the Blind.

4. Ms. Dohman participated in the Department's orientation and adjustment to blindness program at their center, located at (give exact address), where she learned orientation and mobility skills using a cane and other skills taught at the program. This training took place between September 2000 and January 2001.

5. Ms. Dohman successfully completed training at the campus of Leader Dogs for the Blind, Inc. In Michigan and returned to des Moines, Iowa with her guide dog in February 2002.

6. Ms Dohman desired to re-enter training at the Iowa Department for the Blind’s center, with course work focused on computers. She applied to enter the training program in may of 2002.

7. Ms. Dohman reentered the training program on June 5, 2002 and was refused entry and told to meet with the Department Director the next day.

8. On June 6, 2002 the Department Director, (include full name), refused to allow Ms. Dohman entry to the program based upon her being accompanied by a guide dog which would violate the policy of the Department.

9. The Iowa Department for the Blind does not allow people participating in the adult orientation and adjustment to blindness training offered by the Department to be accompanied by or to otherwise utilize guide dogs or other service animals during program activities, under the authority of Administrative rule 9 as attached.

10. The Iowa Department for the Blind holds that participants in their orientation and adjustment to blindness program must learn to be self-reliant and independent and that the presence of guide dogs would frustrate the purpose and fundamentally alter the nature of the program by in part providing opportunity for students new with canes to start considering getting a dog. See attached Attorney General's letter to Iowa Human Rights Commission in defense of the Department for the Blind. See also video tape of Channel 17 news report.

11. The Iowa Department for the Blind has offered Ms. Dohman the opportunity to attend another training program of her choice out of state. As she commutes to the Center each day, and as she is primarily interested in computer training only, she has chosen to refuse this accommodation. .

Considerations:

1. The ADA prohibits public entities under Title II from discriminating against persons with disabilities in the provision of services of the type described herein.

2. The ADA specifically prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities on the basis of their use of a service animal.

3. The ADA prohibits methods of administration which have the effect of discriminating against classes of persons with disabilities who in this case are guide dog users.

4. The ADA creates an affirmative duty for public entities to design policies and programs free of stereotipic and patronizing attitudes, but rather based upon fact.

5. The ADA prohibits separate or special program access for persons with disabilities and only allows such as an option subject to the choice of such persons.

6. Many of the standards incorporated in the ADA have their genesis in Title V of the Rehabilitation Act. This is highly material as seen in Sullivan v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist., 731 F.Supp. 947, 958 ( E.D.Cal. 1990):

"Defendants maintain that plaintiff cannot ... establish a prima facie case, arguing that they have excluded only plaintiff's service dog from the school premises and not plaintiff herself... Defendants' attempt to distinguish between plaintiff and her service dog for purposes of admission to the school premises cannot be reconciled with either the letter or the spirit of the Rehabilitation Act. ... Because a central purpose of the Act is to prevent discrimination based on public perception of a person's handicap, deference must be shown to the manner in which a handicapped person chooses to overcome the limitations created by her disabling condition. Put simply, the statute requires accommodation to the plaintiff's handicap; it does not require that she accommodate to the views of the public about her condition. In sum, as long as the choices the handicapped person makes concerning how to effectively address her circumstances are reasonable, the Rehabilitation Act both protects those choices from scrutiny, and prohibits discrimination against the disabled person on the basis of those choices."

GDUI conclusions:

GDUI firmly rejects and repudiates the notion that self reliance and independence are only achieved in sufficient measure to justify public expense as defined by the Iowa Department for the Blind through the successful learning of long cane travel skills and use of only the long cane throughout all phases of its orientation and adjustment to blindness program. This standard used to deny guide dog users access to the program is arbitrary, subjective, patronizing and based upon a prejudicial stereotype of guide dog handlers having it's foundation in philosophical speculation that is irrelevant to the choice of consumers using guide dogs in the conduct of daily travel needs. Certainly GDUI upholds the right of any blind person to choose to use a cane for mobility; but our organization rejects any attempt to make such a situation mandatory by public agency refusal of guide dog handlers to participate in and benefit from the same rehabilitation programming afforded other blind persons.

GDUI believes that if a threshold question of demonstrated capacity to travel independently is at issue, then a guide dog handler should be provided the opportunity to demonstrate his/her ability to travel in equal measure to the expectation of the public program for it's cane travel participants. In this way, only the effective means of mobility is measured rather than simply holding guide dog handlers hostage to a philosophical set of assumptions that effectively deny consumer freedom of choice in their rehabilitation training. If, however, no measurement exists but a general policy applies to all programs regarding orientation and mobility, such general policy must be modified to reflect freedom of choice in mobility device across programs.

GDUI further condemns the denial of access for guide dog handlers to an entire range of training based upon a cane training and use requirement. Not only is there no absolute need for a person already successfully using a dog guide to go through a course of cane travel instruction, but the denial of all other needed training in areas irrelevant to cane travel in the same setting as other students is unconscionable on it's face.

Finally, the negative impact of the establishment of an arbitrary state policy that presumes the use of guide dogs to be inferior to cane travel clearly is the consequence of a policy that outright discriminates against guide dog handlers with no more justification than philosophical opinion and the heavy hand of a state agency. Blind people face the risk of intimidation, denial of services and retaliation, not to mention impingement on their freedom of choice in mobility aids as a direct result of this policy.

Remedy:

GDUI and Ms Dohman request that the Department of Justice enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act to: 1) require the State of Iowa Department for the blind to immediately bring it's policies into compliance with the civil rights of all blind persons within it's jurisdiction, 2) allow Ms. Dohman to enter the program immediately using her guide dog as her mobility aid of choice without any encumbrance or restriction not otherwise required of others, 3) enforce a standard of demonstrated capacity with respect to travel skills whether using a cane or dog, and 4) we further ask that the Department of Justice alert the U. S. Department of Education to this issue in order that they through the Rehabilitation Services Administration insure all recipients of federal financial assistance also comply with the civil rights of guide dog handlers with respect to the conduct of their programs in compliance with the ADA as well as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Sincerely,
Debbie Grubb, President
Guide Dog Users, Inc.

Attachments:
1. Complaint of Ms Dohman to Desmoines Human Rights Commission.
2. Letter from Ms. Jean M. Davis Assistant Attorney General to Mr. Wayne L. Pelkey, Human Relations specialist at the Desmoines Human Rights Commission in defense of the Iowa Department for the blind.
3. Letter from Dr. Fred Shotz, President of the Association of Disability Advocates to Mr. John Lundquist, Assistant Attorney General at the Iowa Department of Justice in defining the ADA application to the case.
4. Letter from Mr. John Lundquist, Assistant Attorney General in response to Dr. Fred Shotz defending the Iowa Department for the Blind.
5. Video tape of news report from Channel 17 in which representatives of the Iowa Department for the blind defend their position.

For more information about this case, please direct inquiries to:

Sheila Styron,
Public relations Officer
Guide Dog Users, Inc.
pr@gdui.org

1-888-858-1008