the ada is surprisingly simple, which can in itself be confusing. people can ask two questions: is it a service dog, and what service does it perform. you are not required to disclose anything about anything else, including additional treatments or devices, and wearing a cgm doesn’t have anything to do with access. if the dog behaves in public and alerts to a blood sugar change, she’s covered by the ada. there are no additional ifs ands or buts, that does it. it doesn’t matter if someone has a redundant device/treatment, the law doesn’t include exceptions for that. do i want more from her? sure. is it legally required? nope, not at all! other treatments or options that might be in play are just not covered by the ada, meaning they have no bearing on its application here. you don’t have to prove that you have no alternative to the dog, just that the dog is there to do a job of some kind.
state laws may vary, but ultimately federal law always overrules. so any state law that could be interpreted to run afoul or impose restrictions not part of the ada, would be overridden by the federal ada statute, returning us to the above-stated textually unambiguous square 1. and in addition, anyone getting to the level of asking about a cgm IS definitely violating the law. a big point of the ada was to make it so this stuff isn’t subject to argument or negotiation based on case-by-case factors like an alternative alert device…i really hate that sometimes the simplicity of the system leaves those of us in it a bit adrift, and not quite sure what’s required of us (you’ll have to forgive me, i literally just accepted an offer from my top choice law school and i have an obvious interest in disability law…i can build up a real head of steam on this, my apologies!)