Does Ohio law protect the rights of people who need service animals in places of public accommodation?

Yes. Ohio Administrative Code § 4112-5-06 prohibits a place of public accommodation from discriminating against a person with a disability, including denying him or her "the attendance of an animal assistant" or requiring him or her "to pay an extra charge for the attendance of the animal assistant." In fact, Ohio Administrative Code § 4112-5-02, which defines animal assistants, does not limit protections solely to animal assistants that are dogs. It defines an "animal assistant" as "any animal which aids" a person with a disability, which may include a dog which alerts a person with a hearing impairment to sounds, a dog which guides a person with a visual impairment, or a monkey which collects or retrieves items for a person with a mobility impairment. Thus, if an individual needs a service animal other than a dog in a place of public accommodation, he or she should be protected by this provision of Ohio law.

Another provision of Ohio law causes some confusion because it pertains only to service dogs. Ohio Revised Code § 955.43 covers "assistance dogs" and states that a person who is blind, deaf or hearing impaired, or mobility impaired and who is accompanied by an assistance dog is entitled to the "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all ... hotels, lodging place, all places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, ... and other places to which the general public is invited." The trainer of an assistance dog is entitled to the same rights, and no charge or fee can be charged for the presence of the dog. Furthermore, any dog in training to become an assistance dog must be covered by a liability insurance policy provided by the nonprofit special agency which is training the dog.

An "assistance dog" is narrowly defined under Ohio Revised Code § 955.011 as a guide dog that has been trained or is training to assist a person who is blind; a hearing dog that has been trained or is training to assist a person who is deaf or hearing impaired; or a service dog that has been trained or is in training to assist a person who is mobility-impaired. The dog must also have been trained by a nonprofit special agency. Furthermore, "blind" and "mobility impaired" contain precise definitions, and "mobility impaired" was very recently amended to include a person diagnosed with autism.

Any requirement under the Ohio Revised Code or the Ohio Administrative Code which conflicts with the ADA is very likely preempted by the ADA. Thus, a strict requirement that an assistance dog must be leashed is probably superseded by the ADA's more flexible standard described above. Furthermore, the requirement under Ohio Revised Code § 955.011 that an assistance dog be trained by a nonprofit special agency is also likely superseded by the ADA, which does not require any level of formal training. Also, if a person needs an service animal that is not included within the definition of Ohio Revised Code § 955.011, he or she can simply assert his or her rights under Title III of the ADA or Ohio Administrative Code 4112-5-06.