A state employee with a walking impairment had a specially trained dog that assisted her in getting around the workplace. The slick linoleum flooring in her office, however, caused her dog to slip and fall. The employee tried to use dog booties, but that resulted in paw infections. So she requested that the employer accommodate by installing non-skid floor coverings for areas she needed to traverse. The employer sat on the request for several months, with no action or response. In the meantime, the dog fell several more times, requiring veterinary treatment, and the agency that provided the service animal to the employee decided to withdraw the dog because of safety conditions.
In McDonald v. Mont. Dept. of Environmental Quality, the employee sued her employer for failure to engage in the interactive process and to accommodate under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA). The employer defended the case by claiming that the ADA and MHRA require the accommodation of people with disabilities but do not require accommodation of a service animal. The court disagreed.
The service dog, in this case, is no different than any other mobility device such as a wheelchair. Allowing an employee to bring a wheelchair into the building but failing to provide internal ramps for its use, for example, would nullify the accommodation. The ADA (28 C.F.R. ยง36.304) specifically mentions modifying floor surfaces for wheelchairs as part of the accommodation requirements, and there should be no difference for other types of mobility aids, such as a service animal. The court found that failure to consider and implement the floor coverings was a failure to accommodate the employee, not the mobility device. The award: $30,000, plus attorneys’ fees. (Half of the damage award was for vet bills and replacement of the original service animal, which had to be retired because of the repeated injuries.) In addition, the employer had to spend significant legal fees and costs to defend the case; the non-skid floor covering would have cost $1,500 (Montana Sup. Ct., 2009).
