So my client, the owner-operator of a Sacramento hotel, gets a phone call from a woman who says, "I'm disabled. Can you rent me a room for a few months?" He asks her if her disability means she needs a special bathtub (hand rails, that sort of thing). Eventually she says that she is blind and has a guide cat (no kidding.) He tells her that he normally charges guests an extra $30/week if they have a pet, but will waive the fee if she has some kind of certification of the animal as a service animal that is truly with her because of her disability.
Later we find out that the caller was a "tester" for the Sacramento Regional Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission who intentionally lied in order to trick him into saying something that might conceivably violate the Americans With Disabilities Act or related statutes (my interpretation of what they did).
The Commission filed a complaint with itself (cozy, no?), and demanded that my client sign a "settlement agreement," effectively admitting that he had been violating the law and agreeing to pay the Commission $250 in order to take their training in how to deal with disabled customers.
After a lengthy conversation with the attorney for the Commission, I'm not much closer to understanding what exactly my client did that was unlawful. Counsel seemed to think that *any* question about the nature of the caller's disability was inappropriate. She said the hotel person, once he hears the word "disabled," must list whatever features the hotel has that relate to disabilities without asking about or even mentioning anything about what the caller's disability might be. Further, any requirement that a potential guest show any kind of certification in order to have the hotel waive the pet fee (which otherwise applies equally to everyone) was also unlawful.
After getting fed up with this do-gooder, I told her (1) my client might be willing to sign an agreement to obey the law as long as it is clear that he has *always* obeyed the law, and (2) I *might* be able to convince my client to take the Commission's training if they waive the fee for it. She told me they don't generally waive the fee. I managed not to call her an extortionist, but did indicate that I didn't care what they generally did, that her case against my client was very thin, and she should get back to me on my question (she needed to talk to her boss about waiving the class fee).
Your thoughts?
4 comments:
I love this case!
Yeah. Nice! It all boils down to your client. I bet $250 to the commission is less than it'll cost to fight. What does the client want to do?
I think this is a sneaky (and stinky) entrapment attempt. I'm in favor of accommodation for folks with various disabilities, esp. when it comes to accommodations! And, although I have never seen a guide cat, I LOVE guidepets. However, I don't think our government agencies should be working in the manner described above. They should respond to complaints and inspect facilities. Unfortunately, we have arrived at a time in our history when it seems that one must take a state exam in order to run a motel. Regulating doctors, lawyers and pharmacists, for instance, might help to protect the public. I'm not sure. Certified public inn-keepers? CPIs! Sounds great: no bedbugs and no inappropriate questions.
We CAN build a bigger bureaucracy.
(BTW - Is there a spell-checker on this blog for these darned weird French-derived words?)
I should probably add what my client thinks may have started this story: A few months ago a couple checked into his hotel, a blind guy with a seeing-eye dog and a woman with no apparent disabilities. My client didn't charge the extra $30/week because of the dog, since it was clearly a service animal. He later discovered that the blind guy had left, but the woman stayed in the rented room, and she had a cat with her. My client told her she could stay with the cat if she paid the $30/ week. She left in a huff, and likely was the one that complained to the Fair Housing Commission, but didn't choose to file a formal complaint. (Wonder why?) This set the Commission onto its "testing" procedure.
Post a Comment