A company can be sued if it doesn’t accommodate disabled employees, but is it also responsible to provide workplace changes for employees’ service animals?
The facts:
The case centered around a dog that a disabled employee needed to perform her daily tasks. The employee suffered from a permanent leg injury and had trouble navigating through certain areas. The dog provided assistance with that impairment, as well as an unrelated psychological disorder the employee also suffered from. The company allowed the employee to bring the dog to work.
The problem? She complained that the dog was falling on the slippery tiled surfaces in the office. She requested that her employer put non-skid surfaces down to protect her dog. When her company did not comply, she tried alternative solutions, such as having the dog practice walking on tile floors, and even getting dog booties to help with its grip. Nonetheless, the dog continued to fall on the slippery surface.
The employer said:
The employee sued the company, saying it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate her disability. But her employer countered that while it would accommodate her disability, it had no duty to accommodate her service animal.
Who won the case?
Answer: The employee
Why: The court ruled that any accommodation made to assist an employee’s service device helps the employee, not the device. In other words, “When an employer (provides a ramp for a wheelchair), it is an accommodation to the employee using the wheelchair, not the wheelchair itself.” Similarly, making accommodations for a service animal is the same as assisting its disabled owner.
Employers are on the hook to honor — as reasonably as possible — requests for accommodation from disabled workers, including those regarding their service animals.
Cite: McDonald v. Dept. of Environmental Quality
