Yes. If the animal was a true ESA, she would have had documentation from a mental health professional, per ADA. Additionally:
“Even though some states have laws defining therapy animals, these animals are not limited to working with people with disabilities and therefore are not covered by federal laws protecting the use of service animals. Therapy animals provide people with therapeutic contact, usually in a clinical setting, to improve their physical, social, emotional, and/or cognitive functioning.” -emphasis mine
The point of this really isn’t about whether a squirrel is an acceptable ESA, but rather that this woman and many, many other people lately have been gaming a system that was created to help people with real needs get through life. It blurs a line that is of critical need for people. You wouldn’t park in a handicapped spot or be surprised if you were ticketed or towed, right? So why should she be allowed an exemption just because she claims that she has a need (I could find no evidence that she provided the very simple documentation required). Hell, I’m a fucking mess without my wife, but I don’t think she should get a free seat on a plane or be allowed to sit on my lap (sigh) because she’s definitely my emotional support animal. We only have these terms because we live in a slightly more humane society now that recognized differing needs. To waste them on belligerent and selfish people only erodes the functionality and intent of the laws.
Oh, forgot the link:
