Esta ley pretende regular y promover el uso de perros guía para discapacitados visuales, incluyendo la atención veterinaria a los perros, la certificación y registro de su condición de perro guía, el adiestramiento y las condiciones de uso.
This law aims to further regulate and promote the use of guide dogs for the visually impaired, including veterinary care for the dogs, certification and registration of their guide dog status, training, and conditions of use.
Esta ley se propone promover y regular el uso de perros guía para invidentes tanto en espacios públicos como privados. Establece que las personas con discapacidad visual pueden tener sus perros de servicio en lugares privados y públicos, incluidos el transporte público y los lugares de trabajo, así como normas para el entrenamiento y el cuidado general de los perros.
This law aims to promote and regulate the use of guide dogs for the blind in both public and private spaces. It provides that people with sight disabilities are permitted to keep their service dogs in private and public places, including public transportation and places of work, as well as regulations for the training and general care for the dogs.
Esta ley modifica la Ley 29830, que tiene por objeto promover y regular el uso de perros guía para personas con discapacidad visual. La modificación describe sanciones en caso de incumplimiento de la legislación aplicable. Dichas repercusiones incluyen multas estrictas por negar a la persona con discapacidad visual el acceso al inmueble, al servicio de que se trate, o a su lugar de trabajo y beneficios relacionados.
This law amends Law 29830, which aims to promote and regulate the use of guide dogs for the visually impaired. The modification describes sanctions if the applicable legislation is not followed. Such impacts include strict fines for denying the visually impaired person access to the property, amenity in question, or their workplace and related benefits.
Summary: This is an appeal of a complaint filed by the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Division (ULAD) seeking review of the determination that an HOA violated members' request for reasonable accommodation by denying homeowner's the ability to keep chickens on their property. The chickens were intended to be assistance animals for the homeowner's daughter, who has anxiety and PTSD. The district court found that the HOA constructively denied the homeowner's request for reasonable accommodation by delaying their response to the request for three months. This court reversed the decision of the lower court, finding that there was no constructive denial of the request since the HOA allowed the homeowners to keep the chickens during the interim period, did not punish them for keeping the chickens, and ultimately granted the request to keep the chickens.
Summary: Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against several defendants for adopting his service animal out to new owners while he was hospitalized. The court dismissed several claims, including those against the hospital defendants, and determined that the Clark County Animal Ordinance governed the hold of the dog. Plaintiff argues that the court misapplied the law, overlooked facts, and that there was new evidence. The court claimed that the animal ordinance applied because the dog was impounded under the vehicle confinement provision, as the dog was found while she was contained in plaintiff's car. Plaintiff argues that the dog was left in the car with the air conditioning on, that the dog had not been left in the car unattended for more than 15-17 minutes, and that hospital staff were supervising the car while the dog was in it. Therefore, the dog was not in danger enough to trigger the vehicle containment provision of the animal ordinance. However, the court found that there was no error in applying the animal ordinance, since plaintiff would be checking into the hospital for an unforeseen amount of time.
Summary: This case concerns the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Division's (UALD) determination that a homeowner's association's three-month delay in responding to a member's request for reasonable accommodation to keep chickens on their property as assistance animals for a child with anxiety and PTSD violated the Utah Fair Housing Act. The trial court found that this three month delay was a constructive denial of the request, because under the Utah Fair Housing Act a housing provider must participate in an interactive process to evaluate and discuss the request for accommodation, and no such interactive dialogue or interactive process took place. On appeal, the court found that the three month delay in responding to the request was not unreasonably long, especially considering that the HOA had to review the status of chickens as support animals, chicken waste runoff, and possibility of rodent complaints during this time. The court of appeals also found that the members were not harmed by the HOA's alleged delay, since they were still allowed to keep the chickens at this time. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court's holding granting the members damages, fees, and other relief.
Summary: A child under 16 years old may bring a comfort item or comfort animal shall be allowed to remain in the courtroom with the child during the child's testimony unless the court finds that the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial will be unduly prejudiced.
