Great Lakes Wire

Employers are increasingly facing requests from employees to bring service and emotional support animals to work. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability in employment but does not explicitly address service or emotional support animals.

In 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) clarified regulations for service animals under Titles II and III of the ADA. A service animal is defined as a dog trained to perform tasks directly related to an individual's disability. Examples include guide dogs for those who are blind, hearing dogs for the deaf, psychiatric service dogs for mental health issues, SSigDOGs for autism, and seizure response dogs.

The DOJ differentiates between service animals and emotional support animals, stating that the latter do not qualify as they are not trained for specific tasks. Some state or local laws may permit emotional support animals in public spaces.

Michigan law aligns with the DOJ's definition and does not require public accommodations to allow emotional support animals, only service animals.

When an employee requests to bring a service or emotional support animal to work, it should be treated like any accommodation request. Employers should engage in discussions about the request and may require medical documentation supporting it. The animal must be trained for workplace environments. Consistency with past practices is important; employers must determine if having a service animal poses a hardship.

Employers might allow trial periods for these animals at work but can end them if the animal creates undue hardship or behaves aggressively. In such cases, other accommodations may be explored.

A recent case involved Lansing firefighter Fisher, who requested a service dog due to PTSD. Although initially approved by his battalion chief without proper documentation submission to HR, Lansing denied his request after further review. The city argued Fisher did not demonstrate medical necessity or how a service dog was essential for his job functions. The court sided with Lansing, noting insufficient evidence from Fisher regarding the necessity of a service dog.

By Anthony Kaylin