German Shepherd Dog Forums - View Single Post - Discrimination at the BMV by examiners.
View Single Post
Old 05-06-2014, 04:02 PM   #1 (permalink)
DogGone
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cincinnati Ohio USA
Posts: 411
Default Discrimination at the BMV by examiners.

(Just before I made the post, I received a call allegedly from a higher up in the state. I was assured from now on that their staff will be better trained on ADA rules and that employees will be instructed to give the name and contact information of their superior if it is requested. Though I tentatively consider the matter dropped, I reserve the right to make issue of it again and I feel that there should be a public record of it so the abuses are less likely to happen again.)
 
Quote:
To whom it may concern.
 
I was discriminated against, at the Ohio State BMV drivers license examination office @ 1720B S. Erie Hwy Hamilton Ohio on Friday 05-02-14. At first they discriminated against me by forbidding my service dog to be in the vehicle while doing the drivers test. I told them they were discriminating against me and I pulled out copies of summaries of the federal and Ohio ADA law out of my fanny/belly pack. The examiner asked what my disability was. Even though I offered to show them a copy of the summary of the ADA laws on service dogs, they didn't look at them, but they did do a 180 and then said that she could come, but they lied by denying that they had discriminated against me. They put me on the phone to someone they said was their supervisor. Their supervisor lied, claiming that they had not discriminated against me. I tried to explain, but she was a bigoted ignorant bully that would not listen to the facts. The stress of the discrimination and harassment made it more difficult to pass the exam.
 
After I finished the process of getting my license, I went back and repeatedly asked the name of the man that discriminated against me and repeatedly asked for the name their supervisor. They repeatedly refused to give me the name of their supervisor. The blonde female examiner, repeatedly refused to give me the name of the male examiner that discriminated against me. Instead they asked for my phone number. I was not going to give my phone number to bullies that have discriminated against me and have lied to me. Besides I didn't have my phone number on me, and it's only a temporary phone number. The examiner that had discriminated against me, came back from giving a road test, so I asked his name and he reluctantly gave it to me, but repeatedly refused to give me the name of his supervisor. Authorities should not be untouchables. They should be transparent and have integrity.
 
By repeatedly refusing to give me the name of their supervisor, examiner A***** and the blonde woman examiner were obstructing justice (immorally, perhaps illegally). The female blonde examiner that repeatedly refused to give me her coworker's name was also obstructing justice (immorally, perhaps illegally).
 
In my opinion the BMV violated three counts of the ADA.
 
1: At first examiner A***** discriminated against me by forbidding my service dog from going along on the drivers test.
 
2: Then examiner A***** discriminated against me by asking what my disability was.
 
3: Then the female examiner, discriminated against me by asking for papers on my service dog.
 
Below is a quote from the ADA that I handed to the female examiner. She looked at it and held it in her hand as she asked for papers on my dog. She violated the very ADA rules that she was holding in her hand.
 
American Disabilities Act, Quote:
 
"When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the personís disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.
 
A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animalís presence.
"
 
 
Source
Revised ADA Requirements: Service Animals

 
I suspect that one or more of the examiners has a phobia or hatred of dogs. Examiner A**** claimed they had called their supervisor because they feared it would be a safety hazard to have the dog in the vehicle during the test. Even though my dog has a better temperament, is less hateful, fearful and violent than the examiners. I think the examiners are sociopaths. The female examiner was even smirking as she was discriminating. She seems to enjoy discriminating and hurting people (bullying). I think it is ironic how ignorant and bigoted authorities discriminate and jeopardize public safety; claiming that they are doing their job. My service dog normally rides in the back which is a separate compartment, so she will not interfere with the controls doesn't block as much of my vision. I think it is paranoid for examiners to fear a docile friendly service dog that is in a separate compartment. This dog has been to churches, grocery stores, hardware stores, the Beach water Park, East Fork beach, dog parks, sporting goods stores, etc...
 
I walk with a limp, stagger and cane; so I have an obvious physical disability. The dog sometimes assists me if I need help getting up off the ground, or crossing rough terrain, etc.
 
My blood sugar after the bullying by the BMV, dangerously increased 30 points. I suspect the pain and other stress from the BMV bureaucracy and discrimination aggravated my diabetes. The BMV authorities that discriminated against me, allegedly are a division of the Ohio Highway Patrol.
 
I feel that the examiner supervisors are derelict of their duty, for not educating their employees on ADA rules. I feel that some of the supervisors are complicit with the discrimination, because they have been making up excuses and enabling the rule violations, instead of taking corrective actions.
 
If the examiners that discriminated against me really felt deep down that what they were doing was right, they should have been willing to give me the name of their supervisor.
 
I don't know if the BMV & Ohio Highway Patrol is bound by federal and state ADA laws. Many abusive entities choose to discriminate because they are exempt and or the laws have little or no teeth. I feel Ohio should lose its federal funding for discriminating against disabled. I find it frustrating that law-enforcement officers and other government officials often consider themselves above the law.
 
PS
 
My service dog is a 10-year-old GSD that is mellowed out and very well behaved. She is starting to feel her age. She has had G.I. bleeding for several years, just got a diagnosis a few weeks ago. She has polyps and cysts/tumors. I don't know the difference between cysts and tumors and can't remember which one the vet said, but he said for as long as she has been bleeding that it's had a chance to spread, so surgery would probably make things worse and might kill her. She still is in good spirits and is not in pain but she often seems weak and tired probably from old age and bleeding.
 
I know many people may think that some of the ADA rules are silly and unreasonable. Like not allowing for authorities/businesses to demand certification to prove a dog is a service dog. Put yourself in the position of the disabled. If you are severely disabled there is a higher chance that you are under employed, or unemployed. IE living on social security. There is a good chance that you can't afford to spend $5k-$30K on a service dog that has "certification". There is a good chance that if you have a disability that you don't have the skills to work through the bureaucracy to get a formal certification. Requiring a formal certification process can be cost prohibitive to the poor disabled and overwhelm the abilities of some of the disabled. So requiring formal certification can prevent those that need service dogs the most, from having them. Spending $5k-$30k on a service dog when you are on Social Security is an unreasonable hurdle.
DogGone is offline   Reply With Quote