By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In Fisher v. City of Lansing, the court dismissed an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit brought by a firefighter who was denied the opportunity to bring his dog “Chet” to the fire station as an emotional support animal.
Aaron Fisher was a firefighter who has worked at the City of Lansing Fire Department since 2004. Fisher began to suffer from PTSD in 2010, which became aggravated by an emergency call at work. As his PTSD mainly affected him in his work at the fire station, Fisher’s doctor prescribed him an emotional support dog to help manage his symptoms.
In March 2020, Fisher made a request to his Battalion Chief to bring the service dog to work as an emotional support animal. Fisher’s proposed “plan” was to allow the dog at the firehouse for up to “three to six months.” The Battalion Chief approved of this arrangement, but did not properly notify the chiefs above him or communicate with city administrators.
In June 2020, the City became aware of the dog and issued a notice to all fire department employees that they were not allowed to bring pets to work, unless they were approved as service animals by the City’s Human Resources Department. Fisher then submitted a formal request to the City for a service animal, including a letter from a licensed psychologist in favor of his application. However, the City denied Fisher’s requests for an emotional support animal accommodation.
Fisher brought a claim under the ADA, arguing that his employer refused his request for a “reasonable accommodation.” The City argued that Fisher could not show that the dog was medically necessary for him to perform the essential functions of his job. Additionally, the city argued that having a service animal actually interfered with Fisher’s job performance, as Fisher had to put the dog in a crate before leaving the station, creating a delay when responding to calls. The City noted that firefighters had to leave the station within 80 seconds for fire calls and 60 seconds for medical calls.
The Court ruled in favor of the City, ruling that Fisher could not demonstrate a genuine issue of medical necessity in this case. Although the ADA authorizes the use of service animals, it does not authorize the use of emotional support animals that are used only to provide emotional support, comfort, or companionship. The Court also noted that there was no evidence that Fisher could not perform his job without the dog. In fact, after his request for the dog was denied, Fisher received a positive performance review, worked more overtime, and was using less sick leave than before. The Court’s ruling is best summarized by this quote:
“While the record demonstrates that Plaintiff benefitted from the presence of his dog, that evidence does not support an ADA claim for a failure to accommodate.”
Without a valid claim under the ADA, the Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgement.
This case provides a number of lessons as to how the ADA “reasonable accommodation” standard is applied. First, it involves a very fact-specific inquiry. Each situation must be evaluated in the context of the employee’s specific medical situation and the particular requested accommodation.
Second, to be required the reasonable accommodation must relate to the need to fulfill the requirements of the job. In this case, the presence of the emotional support dog might have assisted the individual’s general well-being, but the court examined whether the requested accommodation was “necessary” in order to fulfill the essential functions of the job.
Third, this case is another example of how courts might balance a first responder’s desired accommodation with the imperative to respond effectively and consistently with public safety. Even where an accommodation may otherwise be feasible and effective, it may be denied to public safety employees as an “unreasonable” accommodation if it interferes with the public safety function.
** Visit our Premium Website for more information on General Obligations of Employers and Mental Health Issues**
