Generally speaking, public accommodations must allow service animals accompanying individuals with disabilities onto their premises. A recent Florida federal court’s decision provides insight on how to handle a situation where allowing service animals places others with severe allergies at risk.
In the Florida federal court case, the plaintiff had a service dog which was trained to perform tasks to alert plaintiff to, and mitigate, self-harming behavior caused by post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The plaintiff brought the service dog to an appointment with a new doctor who, upon seeing the dog, informed her employee that she was severely allergic to dogs and could not see the plaintiff with the dog. The employee then informed the plaintiff of possible modifications to her visit with the doctor, explaining that the plaintiff could either see the doctor while the service dog waited outside, or she could see a different doctor. The plaintiff then accused the medical practice of violating the ADA.
In analyzing the facts of the case and the law, the court noted the Department of Justice’s guidance that “allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals” and “when a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.” However, the court held that “despite this rule, a service animal may nonetheless be excluded if it poses a direct threat to the health and safety of persons providing or receiving services from an accommodation.” Per the court, the medical practice had properly conducted “an individualized assessment” of the direct threat to the doctor and considered “reasonable modifications” to mitigate those risks, and its conclusion was objectively reasonable. The court emphasized that the regulation (28 C.F.R. § 36.208(b)) requires only a “reasonable judgment,” not a perfect one.
Employers should ensure that they have practices in place to ensure that assessment of a situation posing a direct threat to someone else as a public accommodation aligns with the court’s reasonableness test, and that accommodations are made while simultaneously mitigating the risk to the health and safety of others. If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.