Bringing emotional support dog to work was not a reasonable adjustment

The case of Cullingford v Secretary of State for Justice surrounds the claimant’s request to keep their dog in their car when they are working. The Employment Tribunal (ET) had to consider whether this request triggered the employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The claimant worked for the respondent as a County Court Bailiff and their role involved going out to people’s homes to enforce court orders. The claimant was diagnosed with cancer on three separate occasions and experienced anxiety.

After the claimant’s dog was spotted in their car by three other bailiffs, they were told that they could not bring their dog into work. The manager claimed that it was unsafe, and that the dog could potentially jump out of the car. The claimant maintained that the dog was always strapped in, but their manager continued to say that they could not have the dog in the car. The claimant asserted that their dog was acting as an emotional support animal to help them to manage their anxiety. They found their job was quite lonely and talking issues through with their dog helped them to process things that were going on and helped them to relax. The claimant emailed their manager outlining the reasons for their request to bring their dog with them to work, but the request was ultimately rejected.

The claimant brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment. They later resigned from their employment.

Check out BrAInbox for instant answers to questions like:

What is an example of a reasonable adjustment?

What areas can reasonable adjustments cover for disabled employees?

What's the legal test a tribunal will use to assess a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability?

Employment Tribunal:

The ET found that there was a relevant link between the claimant’s anxiety and their cancer so went on to consider whether there was any exacerbation or difficulty with anxiety caused by the respondent’s decision to not allow the claimant to bring their dog to work. The ET found that there was insufficient evidence of a substantial disadvantage. The claimant, for example, did not bring their dog with them on eviction days, which was the most stressful part of their role. The duty to make reasonable adjustments was not triggered and the claim failed. 

In relation to the harassment claim, the claimant alleged that their manager had shared information about their request with colleagues. The claimant also referred to comments made by their colleague about senior members of staff being permitted to bring dogs into work and stated that they perceived that this was mocking them. However, the ET could not see any connection between what was said and the claimant’s disability. The harassment claim, therefore, also failed.

Takeaway Points:

Although the claims failed, the ET was critical about the lack of notes taken by the respondent during any discussions with the claimant. It was concerned by this because it was difficult to see the claimant’s own explanation of their needs to the respondent. The ET said that this was exacerbated by the absence of a “sit-down meeting” with the claimant to discuss what could or could not be accommodated in the job to help them. This meant that the claimant was left on the outside of the decision-making process, and they perhaps became more entrenched in their position.

Effectively communicating with employees and ensuring that their needs are fully discussed and understood can help to avoid conflict from escalating in the workplace. Reach out to our HR Advisory Team who are here to support you with queries you may have about reasonable adjustments.