4 ms·

Airlines have a lot of situations where a service dog and an allergic passenger come into conflict. The dog always stays, and allergic passenger is the one to f

Airlines have a lot of situations where a service dog and an allergic passenger come into conflict. The dog always stays, and allergic passenger is the one to forced to deplane.

pmiller2 6y ago
Airlines and workplaces fall under a different set of laws. Federally, workplaces fall under the ADA. Airlines fall under both the ADA (for the allergic individual) and the Air Carrier Access Act (for the person with the dog). In the case of an airline, it is considered a "reasonable accommodation" to allow the allergic individual to take a different flight, which would be similar to having dog-free floors in an office. Start throwing in state law, and you lose me, because I don't know enough to say anything reasonably intelligent.
- kenhwang 6y ago
  Out of curiosity, I pulled up the ADA guidelines, and it says: > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility. So the ADA gives priority to dogs as well.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    That does not actually say the ADA gives priority to dogs. It says "...they should both be assigned, by accommodating them, if possible...." but is silent on what should happen if it is not possible to accommodate both. Both dog allergy and dog phobia can rise to the level of a disability under the ADA, so it's not just a case of some sniffles or just not liking dogs versus the rights of a person with a disability who uses a service dog as an aid. This is extremely complicated, and you can go down some pretty deep rabbit holes trying to understand it all. Believe me, I've tried. I'm starting to suspect that truly understanding how all these laws interact requires a JD and 2 years practicing employment law.
    - kenhwang 6y ago
      Our lawyers thought it was a clear cut case and they were willing to defend a lawsuit in favor of the dogs. I think at the end that's what it comes down to: which side the legal team sides with. Odds are in a pro-dog company, they will side with the dogs.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Yeah, I think that's the practical solution, ultimately. Succeeding at an ADA employment suit is difficult and expensive for most individuals, so I would not be surprised if there was no ADA case in any federal court involving dogs in any way. Even filing an EEOC charge takes a good bit of effort, and that's the minimum to start down the road to an ADA employment discrimination suit. Generally, I wouldn't expect pet dogs to be appearing at a company that already has a severely allergic employee, provided that's known information. The other way around (new employee with a service dog vs already present and highly allergic employee), I would guess comes down to the "undue hardship" test. If both cannot be accommodated, it probably is not considered reasonable to fire the existing employee in favor of the new person and their dog. Unless, of course, it is, because the company believes the new person will provide more value for the company than retaining the old person would. That essentially means that the ambiguity is decided by private companies, which I find distasteful, but I would not be surprised if that's how it actually works out.

Airlines have a lot of situations where a service dog and an allergic passenger come into conflict. The dog always stays, and allergic passenger is the one to forced to deplane.

pmiller2 6y ago

Airlines and workplaces fall under a different set of laws. Federally, workplaces fall under the ADA. Airlines fall under both the ADA (for the allergic individual) and the Air Carrier Access Act (for the person with the dog). In the case of an airline, it is considered a "reasonable accommodation" to allow the allergic individual to take a different flight, which would be similar to having dog-free floors in an office. Start throwing in state law, and you lose me, because I don't know enough to say anything reasonably intelligent.

kenhwang 6y ago
Out of curiosity, I pulled up the ADA guidelines, and it says: > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility. So the ADA gives priority to dogs as well.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  That does not actually say the ADA gives priority to dogs. It says "...they should both be assigned, by accommodating them, if possible...." but is silent on what should happen if it is not possible to accommodate both. Both dog allergy and dog phobia can rise to the level of a disability under the ADA, so it's not just a case of some sniffles or just not liking dogs versus the rights of a person with a disability who uses a service dog as an aid. This is extremely complicated, and you can go down some pretty deep rabbit holes trying to understand it all. Believe me, I've tried. I'm starting to suspect that truly understanding how all these laws interact requires a JD and 2 years practicing employment law.
  - kenhwang 6y ago
    Our lawyers thought it was a clear cut case and they were willing to defend a lawsuit in favor of the dogs. I think at the end that's what it comes down to: which side the legal team sides with. Odds are in a pro-dog company, they will side with the dogs.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Yeah, I think that's the practical solution, ultimately. Succeeding at an ADA employment suit is difficult and expensive for most individuals, so I would not be surprised if there was no ADA case in any federal court involving dogs in any way. Even filing an EEOC charge takes a good bit of effort, and that's the minimum to start down the road to an ADA employment discrimination suit. Generally, I wouldn't expect pet dogs to be appearing at a company that already has a severely allergic employee, provided that's known information. The other way around (new employee with a service dog vs already present and highly allergic employee), I would guess comes down to the "undue hardship" test. If both cannot be accommodated, it probably is not considered reasonable to fire the existing employee in favor of the new person and their dog. Unless, of course, it is, because the company believes the new person will provide more value for the company than retaining the old person would. That essentially means that the ambiguity is decided by private companies, which I find distasteful, but I would not be surprised if that's how it actually works out.