Generally speaking, public accommodations must allow service animals accompanying individuals with disabilities onto their premises. \u00a0A recent Florida federal court\u2019s decision provides insight on how to handle a situation where allowing service animals places others with severe allergies at risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 (\u201cPTSD\u201d), 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. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0\u00a0The plaintiff then accused the medical practice of violating the ADA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In analyzing the facts of the case and the law, the court noted the Department of Justice\u2019s guidance that \u201callergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals\u201d and \u201cwhen 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.\u201d\u00a0 However, the court held that \u201cdespite 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.\u201d \u00a0Per the court, the medical practice had properly conducted \u201can individualized assessment\u201d of the direct threat to the doctor and considered \u201creasonable modifications\u201d to mitigate those risks, and its conclusion was objectively reasonable. \u00a0The court emphasized that the regulation (28 C.F.R. \u00a7 36.208(b)) requires only a \u201creasonable judgment,\u201d not a perfect one. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019s reasonableness test, and that accommodations are made while simultaneously mitigating the risk to the health and safety of others.\u00a0 If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Generally speaking, public accommodations must allow service animals accompanying individuals with disabilities onto their premises. \u00a0A recent Florida federal court\u2019s 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 …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2381,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","content-type":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-employment-articles"],"yoast_head":"\n