In attempting to assess the complicated balance between an individual employee’s need for a service animal and the requirements of clients, customers, patients, and the workplace as a whole, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to all Iowa employers) has weighed in over the last several months with discussions in two instances that limit the requested accommodations made by employees.
Better with a Dog
Samantha Howard was a pharmacist at Bothwell Regional Health Center who suffered from Type 1 diabetes. As a result of her condition, she was granted various accommodations at work, such as being able to keep food and drink at her desk. Eventually, she also obtained a diabetic alert service dog who could detect impending blood sugar drops to help manage her condition.
As a pharmacist, Howard requested to be able to bring the dog into the main pharmacy area with her as she worked. Her request was subsequently denied because her employer was unable to “resolve the potential risks of contamination.” Notably, it further indicated it would work with her to find a different accommodation, thereby engaging in the interactive process that has become increasingly critical in the assessment of accommodation cases.
Ultimately, Howard and Bothwell couldn’t agree on an alternative accommodation, and she resigned. She filed a claim alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The jury eventually awarded her both compensatory and emotional distress damages ($111,548.86 and $18,451.14), which Bothwell appealed to the 8th Circuit.
In assessing the facts, the 8th Circuit noted that Howard had successfully performed her job for a period without a service animal. Bothwell argued in the original trial that “Howard failed to establish if she required the accommodation either to perform the essential functions of the job or to access the benefits and privileges of employment.” The appeals court further noted that because she was able to perform her job without the assistance of a diabetic service animal, her arguments were those of job performance rather than an allegation she was being denied an essential privilege or benefit of employment.
According to the 8th Circuit, “At trial, Howard failed to identify an employer-sponsored benefit or program to which she lacked access.” Instead, her argument wasn’t that she couldn’t perform the job, but that she could perform the job better with the use of an animal. The court ruled in favor of the employer that this was not a required accommodation. Howard v. City of Sedalia, Missouri, dba Bothwell Regional Health Center.
Accommodation Request Goes Off the Rails
In its Howard decision, the 8th Circuit cited another case that was before the court on appeal at essentially the same time. In that case, the court noted that the benefits and privileges of employment assured by the ADA refer only to:
- Employer-provided services;
- Services provided both to non-disabled and disabled employees; and
- Do not include freedom from mental or psychological pain.
Perry Hopman was a military veteran who requested to have his service dog accompany him to work at United Pacific Railroad. He suffered from both post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and migraines, as well as a traumatic brain injury and other issues. Like Howard, he conceded that he could perform his essential functions without his service animal. His employer made various accommodations for him, including a job transfer, as he was eventually promoted to freight train engineer. He also focused on his job performance and claimed he could perform better with the assistance of his service animal because he would have more emotional and mental stability.
The 8th Circuit’s Hopman decision has a fuller discussion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) statements, including the technical assistance manual, but comes to the same point as the Howard decision. The court notes that Hopman’s counsel argued he “should not have to endure the physical and emotional pain his episodes bring him at work,” which raised the question of whether the ability to work with reduced pain is—as cited in the statute—a “benefit or privilege of employment that is part of the employer’s duty to provide accommodations.”
The appeals court stated fundamentally that “mitigating pain is not an employer-sponsored program or service” and cited the EEOC’s interpretive guidance, which specifically states, “The obligation of a reasonable accommodation . . . does not extend to the provision of adjustments or modifications that are primarily for the personal benefit of the individual with a disability.” While the examples used by the EEOC are a statement that employers wouldn’t need to provide a “prosthetic limb, wheelchair or eyeglasses,” the court used the assessment more broadly in relation to the benefits of employment. Hopman v. United Pacific Railroad.
Big Picture
For employers trying to determine what is or is not a reasonable accommodation and assessing how an accommodation may affect other workers, it can be a chaotic and complicated process. In both Howard and Hopman, the 8th Circuit has narrowed the necessity for accommodation to the provision of certain employment benefits and the ability to actually perform the job. The cases are likely to affect future accommodation requests, particularly in highly regulated workplaces such as the medical field or wherever there are personal safety issues with the use of a service animal.
However, you must individually assess all ADA cases and evaluate accommodations through an interactive process. The employers in both of these cases offered various accommodations, some of which were used and some of which were not. Neither employer refused to accommodate their employees, only the full accommodation of the animal, further underscoring the importance of a collaborative discussion and the interactive process.
Jo Ellen Whitney is an attorney with Dentons Davis Brown in Des Moines. You can reach her at joellen.whitney@dentons.com.