You Make The Call: Did organization have to let woman bring a dog to work?

“I can tell you that no one here was jumping for joy at the idea of having a service dog wandering all around the workplace,” said Supervisor Margie Brunton.

“Ann Marie contends that she needed the service animal because it alerted her to low blood sugar levels,” said HR Manager Alan Frankel. “As you know, she’s diabetic and she suffers from a condition that prevents her from recognizing when her blood sugar levels have dropped. She said she had to have the service dog with her all the time, so the dog could let her know when she had low blood sugar levels.”

“I’m sympathetic to Ann Marie’s situation,” said Margie. “However, she performed the job without a service animal for 17 months, so I’m not sure how she can now claim that she needed the dog in order to handle her job’s essential functions.”

“Ann Marie says the dog would’ve helped her do her work more efficiently because she wouldn’t have been constantly worrying about her blood sugar levels,” said Alan. “She’s suing us, claiming that we violated the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, when we denied her request for a service animal.”

“Her accommodation would’ve created an undue hardship for us because we require a sterile workplace due to the nature of our business,” said Margie. “That wouldn’t have been possible with a service dog frolicking around the place.”

“That’s a good point,” said Alan. “We were justified in denying Ann Marie’s accommodation request. We’ll challenge her lawsuit.”

Did the company win?

Yes. The employer won. The court dismissed the disability discrimination lawsuit. The judge said the woman failed to prove that she required the service dog in order to perform the essential functions of her job, which is the legal bar she needed to meet if she wanted to prevail in her lawsuit.

According to the court, the woman performed the job without the service animal for 17 months. Under those circumstances, it was hard for her to successfully argue that she had to have the service dog in order to handle the essential functions of her job. While the animal might have helped her perform her job with less stress, the employer wasn’t obligated to provide an accommodation on that basis only.

Furthermore, the employer demonstrated that the service dog might have created an undue hardship because the workplace had to be kept sterile.

What it means: Better job performance not covered

Remember that you don’t have to provide a disabled crew member with an accommodation if it’ll only help the person perform the job more efficiently, or if it’ll only improve the person’s state of mind while working.

Rather, the accommodation must be required in order for the staff member to handle the so-called essential functions of his or her job. If the work can still be done without the accommodation, you don’t have to agree to it.

Based on Howard v. City of Sedalia, MO.

(From the August 9, 2024, issue of HR Managers Legal Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here.)