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 Eighth Circuit has weighed in over the last several months with discussions in two instances which limit the requested accommodations made by employees.

About the Howard Case

In Howard v. City of Sedalia, Missouri, dba Bothwell Regional Health Center, Ms. Howard was a pharmacist who suffered from Type 1 diabetes. As a result of her condition, she was granted various accommodations at work, such as keeping 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, she requested to be able to bring the dog into the main pharmacy area with her as she worked. This request was subsequently denied because her employer, Bothwell Regional Health Center, was unable to “resolve the potential risks of contamination.”

Notably, her employer, further indicated that they would work with Howard to find a different accommodation, thereby engaging in the interactive process which has become increasingly critical in the assessment of these cases. The parties could not agree on an alternative accommodation and Ms. Howard subsequently resigned. The claim was filed alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The jury eventually awarded her both compensatory and emotional distress damages ($111,548.86 and $18,451.14) resulting in the appeal to the Eighth Circuit.

In assessing the facts of this matter, the Eighth Circuit noted that Ms. Howard had successfully performed her job for a period of time without the utilization of a service animal. Bothwell, the employer, 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 Court further notes 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. The Court notes that “At trial, Howard failed to identify an employer-sponsored benefit or program to which she lacked access.”  Instead, her argument was not that she could not perform the job, but that she could perform the job better with the utilization of an animal. The court ruled in favor of the employer that this was not a required accommodation.

About the Hopman case

Howard cites Hopman v. United Pacific Railroad, which was before the Eighth Circuit on appeal at essentially the same time. In citing Hopman, the Court notes that the benefits and privileges of employment which are assured by the ADA refer only to:

• Employer-provided services;
• Services provided both to non-disabled and disabled employees; and
• Does not include freedom from mental or psychological pain.

In Hopman v. United Pacific Railroad, Mr. Hopman, a military veteran, requested to have his service dog accompany him to work. Like Ms. Howard, Mr. Hopman conceded that he could perform the essential functions of the position without the utilization of his service animal. As noted, Mr. Hopman was a military veteran who suffered from both PTSD and migraines as well as a traumatic brain injury and other issues. Various accommodations were enacted for Mr. Hopman, including job transfer as he was eventually promoted to freight train engineer. Mr. Hopman also focused on his job performance and that he could perform better with the assistance of his service animal because he would have more emotional and mental stability.

The Hopman decision has a fuller discussion of the EEOC statements, including the technical assistance manual, but comes to the same point as the Howard decision. The court goes on to note that Mr. Hopman’s counsel argued that he “should not have to endure physical and emotional pain his episodes bring him at work,” which raised the question of whether or not 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 court states fundamentally that “mitigating pain is not an employer sponsored program or service” and goes on to cite 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 would not need to provide a “prosthetic limb, wheelchair or eyeglasses,” the court uses the assessment more broadly in relation to the benefits of employment.

Big Picture 

For employers trying to determine what is or is not a reasonable accommodation and assessing how far accommodation may impact other workers, it can be a chaotic and complicated process. In both instances, the Eighth Circuit has narrowed the necessity for accommodation to the provision of certain benefits of employment and the ability to actually perform the job. These cases are likely to impact 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, all ADA cases must be individually assessed, and accommodations evaluated with decisions made 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 used. Neither employer refused accommodation in its entirety, only the full accommodation of the animal, further underscoring the importance of a collaborative discussion and the interactive process.