A special Senate Study Committee tasked with looking at the state’s certification process for service animals in Georgia is recommending lawmakers consider legislation that shields good Samaritans from liability in cases where an animal is found to be in a “hot car,” and an individual may damage property to save the animal.
This was one of several recommendations submitted by the committee on Service Animals for Physically or Mentally Impaired Persons — which was created through Senate Resolution 467 during the 2018 Legislative Session. Sen. Renee Unterman (R–Buford) chaired the committee, which was composed of five members of the Senate. The committee was tasked with looking at laws related to the certification process for service animals to determine if there is a need for “a uniform certification process or the issuance of information cards” in Georgia. Additionally, the committee was studying the issue of “fake service animals.”
The Committee also recommends legislation that implements and makes available educational resources to increase awareness and inform the public and other interested parties on the difference between a “service animal” and “emotional support animal,” as well as the fraudulent misrepresentation of such terms and meanings.
This would be made available through a state department for guidance in restaurants, grocery stores, rental offices and their residences.
According to the report, the Committee intends to examine the findings and suggestions submitted by one of the working groups that presented testimony during the public hearings. The report states that a number of inconsistencies in terminology in Georgia law are highlighted in the summary, along with specific examples and references to Code sections. The Committee requests that the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Senate Research Office review the suggestions and follow up with any necessary research that could aid members in determining whether revisions to the state code are necessary to clarify the use of terms and definitions for service animals, emotional support animals, and assistance animals.
The report goes on to say that the committee heard testimony on a number of federal laws in an effort to better understand various requirements specific to animals accompanying persons with disabilities in different contexts including the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Air Carrier Access Act. In addition, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued guidance to clarify that the Fair Housing Act and HUD regulations allow housing providers to ask for a physician or a medical professional’s documentation stating that an animal is necessary for an individual to alleviate some symptom of a disability when their disability or need for the animal is not readily apparent.
According to the report, as a result of this information, members are recommending that any legislation drafted as a result of this study should not only “be approached with an abundance of caution to avoid any unintended consequences but also to ensure compliance with such federal laws and regulations mentioned in this section.”
The report states that the committee examined options to deter individuals from fraudulently misrepresenting the need for an assistance animal including requiring in-state physician certification, third-party verification, and monetary fines. “Although other states have passed similar laws to cut down on misrepresentation, the Committee finds the approaches in other states to be a strong point of contention between lawyers and advocates, especially in the housing industry. Therefore, the Committee recommends that further research be done to avoid introducing legislation that could violate the ADA.”
