Pharmacist Denied Diabetic-Alert Service Dog for Safety Reasons Loses ADA Claim

Takeaway: Providing alternative accommodation options after denying an initial request can demonstrate an employer’s commitment to supporting employees with disabilities. This approach not only mitigates potential legal repercussions but also fosters an inclusive workplace culture.

A pharmacist with diabetes lost an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim over a medical center’s denial of the presence at work of a diabetic-alert service dog due to safety reasons.

The plaintiff alleged that, in rejecting her request for an accommodation to have a service dog in the workplace, the defendant violated the ADA. However, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that the pharmacist performed well without a reasonable accommodation, said she failed to prove an ADA claim. Furthermore, under regulations implementing the ADA, if the proposed accommodation benefits the employee both on and off the job, it will be considered a personal item that the employer is not required to provide, the court noted.

The plaintiff had lived with Type 1 diabetes since infancy. While in school to be a pharmacist, she was diagnosed with a condition called hypoglycemic unawareness, which prevented her from knowing when her blood sugar had dropped to a dangerously low level.

After graduating in March 2019, she got a job as a pharmacist with Bothwell Regional Health Center, a facility operated by the city of Sedalia, Mo. The pharmacy had a main pharmacy as well as a sterile room in the back where employees conducted certain activities.

The plaintiff notified her supervisor about her chronic health condition, and he agreed to let her eat and drink at her desk when working alone. A year later, in June 2020, the plaintiff learned that a diabetic-alert service dog would be available to her in August. After it was fully trained, the service dog would be able to detect an impending blood sugar drop, which could help a diabetic prevent and mitigate hypoglycemic emergencies. The plaintiff asked her supervisor and HR department to allow the service dog in the workplace for six months to complete its training.

She argued that this accommodation would allow her to carry out her essential job responsibilities. A committee unanimously determined the service dog represented a safety risk of contamination to patients and should not be allowed in any area of the pharmacy.

When her request was rejected, the plaintiff refused suggestions to have a third party conduct a neutral risk assessment, nor would she accept any other accommodation besides having her dog onsite. When negotiations broke down by September 2020, she resigned. In 2021, the plaintiff sued.

After a jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant failed not only to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff but also to demonstrate that allowing the service dog in nonsterile areas of the pharmacy created an undue burden for the medical center under the ADA. The court awarded the plaintiff $111,549 in compensatory damages and $18,451 in emotional damages.

On appeal, the 8th Circuit said there was a flaw in the plaintiff’s position. While she requested an accommodation of a service dog onsite to enable her to perform essential job functions, she had already been doing her job without the accommodation for more than a year to her employer’s satisfaction, receiving high performance ratings. Thus, she failed to show discrimination, the court held.

The court also held that the service dog helped her not only on the job but also in her daily life. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s implementing regulations of the ADA state that “if an adjustment or modification assists the individual throughout his or her daily activities, on and off the job, it will be considered a personal item that the employer is not required to provide.”

The plaintiff failed to identify any employer-sponsored benefit or privilege of employment that her proposed accommodation would enable her to access, the 8th Circuit stated. It reversed the lower court judgment and ordered the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the defendant.

Howard v. City of Sedalia, Mo. (Bothwell Regional Health Center), 8th Cir., No. 23-1068 (June 4, 2024).

Anne Woodworth, J.D., is a freelance writer in Laurel, Md.