APR 23 1996 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 487 Russell Senate Office Building Washington

, D.C. 20510-0504 Dear Senator Feinstein: This is in response to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, XX . Ms. XX inquired as to whether her service animal may be allowed into a pool area, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). If the Santa Rosa Junior College, in which the pool is located, is a privately owned and operated entity, it is covered by title III of the ADA. Section 36.302 (c) of the regulation issued by the Department of Justice under title III requires that places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, retail establishments, hotels, places of education and places of recreation modify their "policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability." Section 36.104 defines a "service animal" as an animal that is "individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability ..." A copy of the title III regulation is enclosed. If the Santa Rosa Junior College is an instrumentality of a State or local government, it falls under title II of the ADA. Title II, like title III, requires that a public entity "make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability...." A copy of the title II regulation is enclosed. According to Ms. XX letter, the Santa Rosa Junior College has taken legal action in State court to obtain a permanent restraining order prohibiting her service animal from cc: Records Chrono Wodatch Hill Berger McDowney FOIA N:\UDD\BERGER\CONGRESS\FEINSTEI\secy.johnson 01-04221​ -2-

the pool area. The Department of Justice does not intervene in State court actions. The means for challenging such actions is through the State appellate process. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in responding to your constituent. Sincerely, Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Enclosure 01-04222 ​ United States Senate WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504 March 5, 1996 Assistant To Attorney General Civil Rights Division Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Friend: RE: Francine A.M. Griffiths My office has received the attached correspondence which I believe falls under your jurisdiction. A letter has been sent to XX indicating I have forwarded the correspondence to your office. No response is necessary, but if you have any questions please contact Michael Brandon of my San Francisco office at (415) 536-6862. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator DF:mjb 01-04223 ILLEGIBLE

Help! The Santa Rosa Junior College, which advertises the huge Olympic-size heated indoor pool use to the disabled of our Community, is seeking to eradicate disabled person-dog teams from access to these wonderfully helpful classes. Ordinarily, I can go swim non-stop mile laps three times a week, when my body will co-operate. (I've just had a total hip replacement, so NOW is definitely NOT one of those blessed times - yet!) My surgeons & all doctors prescribe: "SWIM!" For some of us disabled, this is a rare time for socialization and recreation and a little non-weight bearing exercise. Over the recent two years, I have watched the Assistance Dog population go down to just my two-year old service dog, a Border Collie, named Velcro Max. Whereas the pool used to be a friendly & delightsome rendez-vous for these wonderful dogs and their owners; & where typically the dogs would be showered off while class mates helped, now, even after I refused to tie my dog outside "or, lock him in the car," (if I feared he'd be stolen"), & refused to leave, period, The SRJC attorneys HAVE gotten rid of my Max by securing false affidavits rife with hearsay (& FALACIOUS) comments quoted by a new - The new instructor at the pool, & others With this false evidence, they were able to push thru a temporary Restraining Order, which they hope to make permanent on 6 November 95 at 8:30 am. in The Superior Court Anne Dept 10, on Guerneville Road opposite ILLEGIBLE - D. I live on an SSI income & cannot afford an attorney to fight these shameful proceedings against me & (worse!) against all assistance dogs. As I understand the ADA, all accessible private & public entities MUST admit a qualified disabled person & that person's service dog, UNLESS they can prove that the dog would fundamentally alter the nature of the business. Speculation on possible ILLEGIBLE ILLEGIBLE individuals, & all old prejudices & retaliation for 01-04225 ILLEGIBLE ILLEGIBLE to ban us, if I read the ADA law a-right. SRJC asserts that the law banning dogs from Calif. public pools controls, as does their hearsay evidence that Max is dangerous to others, potentially, as does also my refusal (per my legal rights) to accept a flimsy, non-effective endlessly droppable, pick-up device as "an adequate substitute for my service dog"! The ADA supercedes

all these conditions, and the DOJ in Washington, D.C. assures me, via their ADA experts, that SRJC must conform. But they're using staff attornies to snake out of the law. Judge Lloyd Van der Mehden apparently disagrees w/A He granted the TRO, & will judge the case for making that TRO permanent. Too bad I cannot have an attorney! I'd love to file a typewritten response to all of this. I DID hand-print two pages of comments to the Judge & would have blasted those untruths in the sheaf of affidavit handed me that day at Dept 10 by SRJC's attorney, but I "blew" my opportunity by saying I thought I'd provided sufficient date in my documents submitted; and yet & wham! He interrupted & granted the TRO! He said I'd had my chance! He silenced my attempts to interject on objection & addition. I felt rude, having to try & insist. Of course, it did me no good. Done is DONE. I offered to relent & agree to leashing & tying my utterly obedience-trained & reliable dog where he'd otherwise plant himself, anyway - at the foot of the lane where I do my endless nonstop laps. Max's eyes are on me the whole time, & should I get a cramp or heart problem, HE'D KNOW, & get help a-coming! SRJC doesn't want possible dog hairs for students to walk upon. (My dog has zero fuzzy undercoat. His hairs are 2" to 2 1/2" long - far shorter than human styles today. I ceased bathing Max at the SRJC pool in 1994 after being told by the multiply-degreed Director of Sonoma County Health Dept. that there is virtually NO danger to health in bathing the dog a 01-04225 ​Because, in speaking again with ILLEGIBLE Washington D.C., I learned that "no public or private entity shall be required to provide supervision, goods or services (I believe it says) to any service dog" - "goods" includes WATER, from the showers, I believe. Right? So, there & then, I decided I couldn't bathe Max in the absense of specific permission, & never have, since - That's a loss of great convenience to the disabled. So many people helped - It was fun! & very useful, saving us not only another disrobing & re-robing but also much difficulty in rinsing off all soap, as SRJC has flexible long-hose shower heads in the 3/4 private handicapped shower booths. Max is admitted to all hospitals with me. Mark Costielney, the multiply-degreed Director of Public Health for Sonoma County SAYS the dog represents no significant health hazzard, even if bathed at SRJC. The DOJ in DC assures me that when local laws are more stringent then Federal laws reaccess, the Government's law

has precedence. [28 CFR, Part 36 Section 36.103(a)]. As I cannot afford a real attorney to assist me in ILLEGIBLE this matter, I am appealing to you to champion the cause of dignity & freedom of access for disabled persons who rely upon their 24-hour-a-day, life-sacrificing, canine assistants. Are there any TEETH in Federal laws??? Do you care that powerful people with prejudices can seize our rights & manipulate the court system to serve their own ends? I HOPE SO! I hope you will help me gain legal access to the only place where I can move freely on a more-or-less equal basis with others in my community. With 40 feet, to go around my down-stayed dog (at the foot of "my" lane), on a little-used access route for students - how dangerous can a curled up 50# dog BE??? At poolside, how many will trip over him? It is unrealistic to suppose ANYONE would walk that close to the water! Help! Thank you, sincerely, XX 01-04226