Abstract
Service dogs and emotional support animals provide crucial assistance to people with disabilities in many areas of life. As the number of these assistance animals continues to grow, however, so does public suspicion about abuse of law and faking the need for such accommodations. Legislators have been directly reactive to this moral panic, and the majority of states have passed laws to combat the misrepresentation of pets as assistance animals. Consequently, people with disabilities who use service dogs feel the need to signal compliance to avoid harassment, questioning, or exclusion from spaces that do not allow pets. Taking an empirical law and psychology approach, this Article concerns itself with the possible sources of the phenomenon of misrepresentation, which I term “assistance-animal disability con.” The Article also discusses the stigmatizing consequences of the suspicion surrounding faking the need to use assistance animals for the disability community. The Article shows that 1) people with disabilities who use service dogs signal their protected status using extra-legal norms that did not originally appear in federal legislation. They use accessories that indicate legality such as vests and choose breeds of dogs that have traditionally been associated with service; 2) the public has been most trusting of these visible signs of compliance in the form of vests indicating the authenticity of a service dog; 3) in return, the legal system at the state level has adopted those extra-legal norms and translated them into black letter law through a reciprocal model of rulemaking; and 4) the psychological mechanism of “bounded ethicality”can explain people’s engagement with assistance-animal disability con. People who misrepresent their pets as assistance animals seem to not see their acts as unethical or illegal because the victims in the situation, peoplewith disabilities, remain unrecognized in these people’s eyes. Based on these original findings, this Article argues for legal reform and for the use of tools from the field of behavioral psychology to restore trust in the practice of employing assistance animals to support the needs of millions of Americans with disabilities. The suggested analysis extends beyond disability law, offering a deeper understanding of the relationship between social norms, new laws, and ethical decision-making.
Share with your community
About the Author
Doron Dorfman is a widely cited scholar of torts, health law, disability law, employment law, and family law. In addition to his tenured appointment at Seton Hall Law, Dorfman is also an Affiliate at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School. His work has won multiple writing awards, was cited by federal courts and the Israeli Supreme Court, and was featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Professor Dorfman’s research was published or is forthcoming in leading law reviews such as the Michigan Law Review, Cornell Law Review, and University of Pennsylvania Law Review. He also published in top peer-reviewed journals including the New England Journal of Medicine, Law & Society Review, Law & Social Inquiry, and the Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law. Professor Dorfman earned a B.A. in communication (2009), an LL.B. (J.D. equivalent, 2009) and an LL.M. (2010), all from the University of Haifa. He later earned a J.S.M. (2014) and J.S.D. (2019) from Stanford Law School. Before arriving at Stanford, he was a litigator in private practice in Israel and was actively involved in NGOs such as Kav La’Oved-Worker’s Hotline, where he gave legal advice to disadvantaged workers and asylum seekers.
Leave a Reply