• corsicanguppy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Last time I checked (PADS, 2001), all assistance dogs get to go anywhere their homies do, because to limit based on purpose and job function would be to ask the person what their particular malfunction is, and that’s a human rights violation (for which there is no upper limit on the lawsuit, FYI).

    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again, that we just an example I made up, not based on anything.

      However, the Canadian Forces has University of Service, which does allow it to limit employment based on employment limitations. For example, if you can’t pass the fitness test, you can’t stay in. Specific jobs also have further medical requirements (i.e. pilots need pretty good eyesight, infantrees need to be able to walk far with weight, submariners can’t be claustrophobic, etc). So they can’t ask what particular malfunctions are, but they can release you for having them.

      • corsicanguppy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I forgot to explicitly agree it was contrived.

        And you make an excellent point about limiting employment. I’m not sure how the private sector runs that and I don’t wanna touch it, but in the forces we did have a guy bounced out on medical because his was a field position and it turned out he was allergic to like everything green in ontario. ‘heli-evac with breathing issues’ kind of allergic. So I’ve seen that precedent on that side of the fence, at least.