The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Eighth Circuit”) recently held in Howard v. City of Sedalia (“Howard“) that a hospital was not required to accommodate a pharmacist’s request to keep a service dog in the workplace because such accommodation was considered a “personal item,” providing assistance to her both on and off the job.
Case Background
The plaintiff in this case was a pharmacist with Type I diabetes. She was diagnosed with hypoglycemic unawareness, which prevented her from knowing when her blood sugar had dropped to a dangerously low level. When the plaintiff was hired by the defendant hospital (the “Hospital”) to serve as a pharmacist, she informed her supervisor of her diabetic condition. The Hospital granted the plaintiff’s request to keep food and drink with her while working alone.
In June 2020, the plaintiff requested the Hospital permit that she bring her diabetic-alert service dog to the pharmacy for six months to train him to detect impending blood sugar drops. The Hospital denied the plaintiff’s request to bring her service dog, citing contamination risks. In its denial of the plaintiff’s accommodation request, the Hospital advised the plaintiff that it intended to work with her to find an alternative accommodation.
When the Hospital and the plaintiff could not agree on alternative accommodation, the plaintiff resigned and subsequently filed suit against the Hospital, alleging that the Hospital violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for failure to make a reasonable accommodation. After a four-day trial, a jury verdict was returned for the plaintiff, awarding her $134,000 in damages. The Hospital appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Eighth Circuit’s Decision in Hopman v. Union Pac. R.R. on Employee’s Service Animal Accommodation Request
While the case proceeded to trial, another federal district court in the Eighth Circuit ruled in Hopman v. Union Pac. R.R. (“Hopman“) that the ADA permitted an employee’s request for an accommodation to bring a service dog/animal “to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed in Hopman the federal district court’s judgment in favor of the employer, finding that “[p]roviding a service dog at work so that an employee with a disability has the same assistance the service dog provides away from work is not a cognizable benefit or privilege of employment.”
Analysis
In Howard, the Eighth Circuit reversed the jury verdict and remanded the matter for entry of judgment in the Hospital’s favor. The Eighth Circuit found the plaintiff could not prove her claim that her accommodation request to bring her service dog to the Hospital violated the ADA. According to the Eighth Circuit, such a claim was problematic for the plaintiff to prove because she was performing her job to the Hospital’s satisfaction well before she made the accommodation request.
In relying on Hopman, the Eighth Circuit also agreed with the Hospital that the plaintiff failed to identify any employer-sponsored benefit or program for which she lacked access. Instead, the plaintiff contended that her service dog assisted in managing her medical condition. The Eighth Circuit rejected such argument, finding – like in Hopman – her service dog would provide her the same assistance at work away from work, and thus the Hospital had no duty to accommodate.
Practical Takeaways
This case reminds employers that a reasonable accommodation (pursuant to the ADA) is a modification or assistance to an employee with a disability to enable them to perform their job duties. Employers are not required under the ADA to provide an accommodation that provides the same assistance to an individual with a disability throughout his or her daily activities both at and away from the workplace.
If you have any questions on issues discussed in or related to this post, please contact:
- Kathryn Jones at (248) 457-7846 or kejones@hallrender.com; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Special thanks to Julia Derzay, Summer Associate, for her assistance in preparing this article.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
