Search
 
 

Practices

 

Search

FILTERS

  • Please search to find attorneys
Close Btn

Publications

12/03/2021

Employee's Claim That Allowing His Dog In The Workplace Would Be A Reasonable Accommodation Is Rejected

A recent decision by a federal court in Montana rejected an employee's demand that he be allowed to bring his dog into the workplace as an accommodation for his alleged disability. The decision describes several practical responses to a request for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which employers should take note of.

The Plaintiff in Conlan v. Costco Wholesale provided a note from a Nurse Practitioner stating that he would "benefit" from a companion dog in the workplace because of mental health reasons. First, the Court noted that a service dog and a companion dog differ in a significant way. More specifically, a service dog is an animal trained to perform a specific task or service to assist its handler with a disability. A companion dog, on the other hand, is not trained to perform a specific task or service. A companion dog provides emotional support only.

To back up his request, the Plaintiff stated that he, himself, had trained the dog to alert others when he was about to have an anxiety attack. Costco's first approach was to inform Plaintiff that it needed to know (1) his functional limitations and (2) work restrictions. However, the Plaintiff refused or neglected to provide further documentation on those issues. As a result, Costco followed up and sent the Plaintiff a letter which described in detail the information that it needed to properly evaluate his request for an accommodation. Costco asked Plaintiff to provide the following information:

  • A description of the functional limitations that affected his ability to work;
  • A description of his work restrictions;
  • A list of the accommodations, other than a "service dog," that would ameliorate his work restrictions;
  • The tasks that his dog was trained to perform; and
  • Whether the Plaintiff could work safely without the use of his dog.

Costco included a job analysis summary and a work restrictions form related to Plaintiff's job with its letter. It also submitted a medical authorization form that Plaintiff could sign to allow direct contact with his healthcare provider by the Company.

In response, Plaintiff's healthcare provider wrote that Plaintiff had no restrictions but that the work accommodation of a service animal was requested. Plaintiff refused to allow Costco to directly contact his doctor. When his request for an accommodation was rejected and he was informed that he must return to work on a specific date, he informed Costco that he would not return to work without his dog.

After some back and forth between the parties, Costco sent a second letter reminding Plaintiff that he needed to complete the previously-provided healthcare provider form and informing him that if he did not do so, his employment may be terminated for failing to comply with Costco's leave of absence policy. He did not respond or return the form and was terminated.

For the purposes of its legal analysis, the Court found that Plaintiff had a mental disability and that he was a "qualified individual" for purposes of the ADA.

The Court noted all the steps that Costco had taken to request information, to grant an extension to the Plaintiff to present the evidence requested, and recounted the number of communications between Costco and the Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff's requests/demands. It pointed out that while an employer who fails to engage in the interactive discussion process in good faith would face liability if a reasonable accommodation would have been possible, if the employee causes a breakdown in the interactive process, the employer faces no liability.

It is clear from the written opinion that the Court was impressed by the communications from Costco to Plaintiff to solicit further information about Plaintiff's condition, his demand for the presence of his dog on premises during work hours, and with Costco's continued communications, even in the face of Plaintiff's unexplained refusal to cooperate. As noted above, it found that the Plaintiff had caused a breakdown in the interactive process, and had not sustained his claims against Costco.

The lessons of the Conlan decision for employers are clear: In situations such as the above, an employer cannot simply make assumptions about a plaintiff's situation and demands, and must engage in continued communications in an effort to elicit relevant information. Here, when the Plaintiff initially refused to provide the information, Costco continued to communicate and offered the Plaintiff additional opportunities to comply. In the face of that refusal to comply and his healthcare provider's failure to provide a clear statement of his work restrictions and the necessity of an accommodation, the Plaintiff's claim was rejected.