Department of Transportation Finds Allegiant Airlines Violated Federal Law When They Denied Woman With Service Dog Despite Her Compliance
The original article regarding the incidents that led to Allegiant Airlines denying me a flight and the official complaint I filed with the Department of Transportation can be found at the end of this article. The original article was published 12/29/2021 and the Department of Transportation made its findings on 04/24/2024. Their findings can be found below.
In October of 2021, I was denied a flight by Allegiant Airlines because they claimed they were unable to verify my service dog was a service dog despite me providing all necessary and required information.
The Department of Transportation sent me a letter detailing their findings following an investigation of my claims. The decision confirms that Allegiant Airlines did in fact violate the Air Carrier Access Act (the ADA version for air travel for lack of a better term), specifically in my case, 382.73(a) and 382.75(a).
A quick summary of these for normal people who don’t memorize laws for fun and don’t care to read extra stuff: 382.73 essentially says an airline may make 2 inquiries to determine whether the animal qualifies as a service animal which also includes them not being able to ask the handler to have the dog perform any of its tasks. They may also observe the behavior of the animal. 382.75 essentially says that if a passenger with a disability seeks to travel with a service animal, the airline can require the handler to complete the U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation form 48 hours prior to departure.
I have typed word for word what the Department of Transportation cited in their decision.
Application Section of 14 CFR Part 382: 382.73(a): “Ms. Snelling states that she attempted to travel with her service animal (SVAN) on Allegiant Air (Allegiant). Ms. Snelling states that her dog was denied transportation as an SVAN. Ms. Snelling states that she went to the check-in desk to verify the documents for her dog. Ms. Snelling states that on June 3, 2021, she booked her October flight and emailed the proper DOT forms to the proper email address of acaa@allegiantair.com. Ms. Snelling states that she never received a response, so she went to the check-in desk and explained to ticketing agents that she never received a response. Ms. Snelling states that the ticketing agent spoke to the highest level of the special assistance department, who stated that Ms. Snelling’s dog was not task trained, so she could not board. Ms. Snelling states that she asked why Allegiant said her dog was not task trained and Allegiant replied that her dog did not come from a service dog program and that the trainer listed was only for obedience training, which Allegiant learned by contacting the trainer and seeing online that he only did obedience training. Ms. Snelling states that she spoke with the trainer who she paid $6,000 for task training, and the trainer stated that Allegiant did not contact him. Ms. Snelling states that the trainer does in fact show up as obedience training on Google, but he does not advertise that he also does task training as much of his clientele looks for obedience. Ms. Snelling states that Allegiant also observed her service animal lying at her feet. Ms. Snelling states that Allegiant denied her animal as a service animal because the dog was not task trained because he did not come from a service dog program and the trainer listed was not a licensed service dog trainer according to the special assistance department. Finally, Ms. Snelling states that Allegiant sent her an email promising a refund, but the amount was not put back on her card, and she was not refunded as promised.
In the carrier’s January 28, 2022, response to Ms. Snelling, Allegiant states that they attempted to validate the service animal training and were not able to, based on multiple attempts via a telephone number and an email given to them by Ms. Snelling’s Department of Transportation Service Animal Transportation for (DOT Form). Allegiant states that in the initial review of Ms. Snelling’s trainer, Mr. Gilbert, his website did not state that service animal training was offered which prompted Allegiant to contact him directly and Allegiant was unable to reach him. Allegiant states that Ms. Snelling arrived at the ticket counter within the 30-minute departure time. Allegiant states that its records indicated Ms. Snelling’s dog was a psychiatric service animal, and performed grounding tasks of deep and/or light pressure therapy and licking her hands and face. Allegiant states that a CRO could hear the crying and screaming over the phone and asked the airport representative to observe the behavior of the service animal, which lay on the ground and took no action. Allegiant states, “Based on the observed behavior, Leo was denied travel as a service animal.” Allegiant notes that as Ms. Snelling departed the ticket counter area, her dog was barking. Allegiant denied violating the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) or its implementing regulation, 14 CFR Part 382.
Ms. Snelling replied to Allegiant on February 2, 2022. Ms. Snelling’s reply states that her trainer confirmed that Allegiant never contacted him. Ms. Snelling states again that the trainer’s online information was not accurate. Ms. Snelling’s reply also states that her dog took no action because she was not experiencing her medical condition when she spoke with the ticket agent. Ms. Snelling states she received a refund after the Department of Transportation complaint was submitted.
Pursuant to the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and its implementing regulation, 14 CRF part 382 (Part 382), carriers must conduct an individual assessment to determine if an animal is a service animal. Carriers may do this by asking what work or task the animal has been trained to perform, or by observing the animal’s behavior. In this instance, it appears Allegiant determined that Ms. Snelling’s dog did not react to her even though Ms. Snelling advised Allegiant numerous times in documentation and verbally, that the service animal’s specific task is to respond to her medical condition, which differed from Ms. Snelling being upset. We also note that it is not the airline’s prerogative to deny a service animal based on its staff’s opinion on whether the animal is properly performing its task.
Allegiant’s inability to reach or confirm the trainer is not a basis for concluding that Ms. Snelling’s service animal form is incomplete if a passenger submitted their service animal forms in advance (more than 48 hours before the flight). Therefore, based on the information provided to the Department, the carrier violated the ACAA and Part 382 when it refused to allow Ms. Snelling’s dog to travel as a service animal.
If we decide to seek enforcement action against the airline with respect to this issue, this complaint will be among those considered, which may lead to the issuance of a cease and desist order and to the assessment of civil penalties. By copy of this letter, the carrier will be warned in this instance.”
Applicable Section of 14 CFR Part 382: 382.151(c): “In her complaint to the Department, Ms. Snelling states that the ticketing agent spoke to the highest level of the special assistance department who stated that Ms. Snelling’s dog was not task trained, so she could not board. Ms. Snelling states that she begged the ticketing agent to let her speak to the special assistance desk agent directly in order to explain the tasks that her animal provides, but the agent refused. She states that she was never informed of her right to speak to a CRO and one was not made available to her.
Allegiant states that Ms. Snelling spoke to one CRO, and the first CRO contacted another CRO for assistance.
In her reply to Allegiant, Ms. Snelling stated that Allegiant denied her request to speak with a CRO multiple times, including begging the ticket agents to let her speak with one.
Pursuant to the Air Carrier Access Act, (ACAA) and its implementing regulation, 14 CFR part 382, a carrier must make a passenger with a disability aware of the availability of a CRO and how to contact a CRO in any situation where a person raises a concern about an accommodation.
Here, Allegiant seems to deny a violation because the in-person agent was a CRO, and because this agent spoke to another CRO. Neither of those facts reflects compliance with Part 382. Even if the in-person agent was actually a CRO, it does not appear from the record that the agent informed Ms. Snelling of that fact. Moreover, it appears undisputed that the agent refused to allow Ms. Snelling to speak to a CRO or anyone else on the phone. It is also clear from the record that this is an instance in carrier personnel did not immediately resolve the issue to the customer’s satisfaction or provide a requested accommodation. We find that Allegiant violated section 382.151. If we decide to seek enforcement action against the airline with respect to this issue, this complaint will be among those considered, which may lead to the issuance of a cease and desist order and to the assessment of civil penalties. By copy of this letter, the carrier will be warned in this instance.”
For clarification, a CRO is a Complaint Resolution Official. Each airline is required to have these officials, and the DOT states, “a CRO is the airline’s expert in disability related issues in air travel and has the authority to resolve complaints on behalf of the airline.” They also state that, “airlines must make available a Complaint Resolution Official (CRO) in a timely manner, this may be by phone.” Additionally, “the CRO should be trained as an expert in resolving disability-related issues and be able to resolve disability-related issues on the spot.” DOT requires that, “passengers with disabilities who have pressing questions about their rights should ask to speak with the airline’s CRO. Airlines must have a CRO available at each airport they serve during all times the airline is operating at that airport.”
Despite being very educated on the applicable laws that protect my civil rights, there are still many things I do not know and am still learning, and will likely continue to learn throughout my lifetime. I was completely unaware of what a CRO was, and that the DOT requires airlines to “make passengers with a disability aware of the availability of a CRO and how to contact the CRO.” When I begged to speak to the disability agent on the phone, I was unaware that if it was in fact a CRO, that I was denied that right by the airline until I researched all of this in preparing my DOT complaint. I learned of this when I read through the Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights and section 382 of the ACAA.
The only disappointing aspect of the findings that the DOT made, is that the airline may not even receive more than just a notification from the DOT that they violated the cited rules. I would like to see the DOT enter a cease and desist order. By definition, “a cease and desist order is a command from an administrative agency that demands that the recipient immediately stop the activity to avoid potential legal action being taken.” “It's often issued in the form of a temporary injunction that remains in place until the issue is resolved legally, but can also be permanent.” While Allegiant has been notified that they violated the cited rules, there is no order in place. Next best thing would be a fine, but for corporate companies like this, fines really don’t mean much which is why I don’t think it’s even effective in this instance.
Here’s the thing - people hate when we speak up about our rights being violated because we are “complaining” or “whining about it.” But if that same person wanted to board a flight that they booked and were told they couldn’t because of the color of their skin or their choice of attire based on their religion, they would also be speaking up because it’s THEIR RIGHT that is being violated. If that same person was open carrying a firearm in a state that allowed them to do so, and they were denied access or entry to a public establishment because of that firearm, they would also be speaking up because it’s THEIR RIGHT that is being violated. It’s not about whining, it’s not about complaining. It’s not about what you think is right or wrong, it’s about what THE LAW SAYS and that someone VIOLATED that law which results in someone’s CIVIL RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED. I don’t want or need special treatment. The only thing I need is for businesses and corporations to follow the federal laws that are in place so that I can go about my life with my medical lifeline that happens to be a dog instead of a wheelchair. When businesses and corporations violate those federal laws, I’m going to do something about it, because the next person with a legitimate service dog with similar circumstances is going to be denied a flight.
AND THEY HAVE. Since the original published article, I have had countless people reach out to me by email stating they were also denied a flight with their task-trained service dog. Some individuals were denied by Allegiant, others experienced it with other airlines. If we don’t speak up, if we don’t file complaints with the implementing agency when we KNOW for a FACT that our rights are being violated because we know what the law says, it’s going to keep happening.
Fuck around with my civil rights and find out.
(sorry mom)
