Unleashing Compliance: Navigating Emotional Support Animals and ADA Challenges in the Modern Workplace
A Maryland car dealership has agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit centered on an employee’s use of an emotional support animal. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against the dealership, alleging its actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying a veteran employee with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) the ability to bring his dog to work. The lawsuit highlights the critical importance of understanding and implementing ADA accommodations for both trained service and emotional support animals in the workplace.
A Cautionary Tale
The EEOC’s lawsuit against the car dealership serves as a significant reminder for employers nationwide. The veteran, who relied on his emotional support dog as a reasonable accommodation for his PTSD, alleged his employer left him with no choice but to resign after the dealership denied his request. This case underscores the necessity for employers to engage in the interactive process required under the ADA to explore reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. It also serves as a stark reminder that in the employment context, the ADA does not address, qualify, or define the term “service animal” or “support animal.”
Understanding ADA Accommodations for Service Animals in the Workplace
Title I of the ADA covers employment and applies to private employers with 15 or more employees, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions. It requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate qualified individuals with a disability if they can do so without causing the business an undue hardship.
At the national level, ADA accommodations, including those for service and support animals, are more prevalent than many employers realize. According to Sarah DeCosse, Assistant Legal Counsel for the EEOC, approximately one-third of ADA allegations relate to mental health conditions, with 6% involving PTSD.
One common misconception when it comes to service and support animals in the workplace is that the law treats the two kinds of animals differently. There is, however, a difference when it comes to public accommodations, governed by Titles II and III of the ADA. Unlike the requirement that a public accommodation allow a service animal onto the premises, an employee has no automatic right to bring an animal into the workplace, even if that animal that qualifies as a “service animal.”
Employers should treat the request to bring an animal into the workplace as a request for an accommodation under the ADA. Often, allowing an individual with a disability to bring a service or support animal to work is a reasonable accommodation that typically incurs no cost to the employer.
Best Practices for Employers
When faced with a request to bring an emotional support or service animal into the workplace, employers should treat it as a request for accommodation under the ADA. This involves engaging in an interactive process to determine the necessity and feasibility of the accommodation. Key steps include:
- Documentation and Verification: Gather relevant information from the employee and their medical provider to understand the necessity of the service animal and its role in assisting the employee. This includes determining whether the employee can perform the essential functions of her or his job without the animal and what the employee needs the animal to assist with.
- Interactive Process: Engage in a dialogue with the employee to explore potential accommodations, whether it involves allowing the service animal or considering alternatives if the presence of the animal poses an undue hardship.
- Assessing Impact: Evaluate any potential issues the service animal might create, such as health, safety and logistical concerns, and determine whether these issues constitute an undue hardship.
What if a Co-Worker is Allergic to the Service Animal?
Separating the service or support animal from employees with allergies is one possible, straightforward solution. Typically, a mild allergy does not justify denying a reasonable accommodation for a service or support animal. But an employee with a severe allergy may present a more complex situation requiring a more creative solution.
Conclusion
Whether to allow a service or other animal in the workplace is a fact-intensive inquiry, and an employer’s immediate rejection of an emotional support animal may violate the law. The case of the Maryland car dealership serves as a pivotal example of the importance of ADA compliance and the need for employers to approach accommodation requests—including requests to bring a service animal to work—with an open mind and a willingness to engage in the interactive process. By focusing on objective evidence and maintaining open communication with employees, employers can create an inclusive work environment that accommodates the needs of individuals with disabilities while minimizing potential legal risks.
Please contact Stephanie Poucher, Sarah Smith-Clevenger or any member of the Phelps Labor and Employment team if you have any questions or need guidance.
