Background:

The claimant was employed as a County Court Bailiff by the respondent. The claimant wished to have a reasonable adjustment to bring her miniature Yorkshire Terrier in her car with her when she was out in the course of her work, including making visits to people’s homes. The basis for this was to manage her anxiety which was a feature of her cancer diagnosis and disability. It was agreed that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the legislation.

The claimant had three consecutive periods of cancer and in relation to the third she had been referred to Occupational health relating to mental health difficulties experience as a result of the situation she had faced. Occupational Health’s report did refer to the mental health difficulties but made no mention of the dog being present during work. In March 2022 she had a medical consultation stating that she worked on her own a lot and was feeling low.  She stated that she had been taking her dog for emotional support but was told by her manager she could no longer do it. Healthy Minds and her GP both stated they could not register or state that her dog was an emotional support animal. She also took it up with Emotional Support Animals UK but later she did receive a letter of support from her GP about the registration of the dog. The claimant did inform the respondent of the benefits of the dog in relation to soothing her and allowing her to pour out her feelings to the dog. It was noted that the claimant would not bring the dog with her on the most difficult days, when evictions were taking place.

The claimant was informed that she could not have the dog in work or in her car. The claimant was told that as she mainly worked from her car it was an extension of the workplace.  Her line manager said having the dog was unprofessional to which the claimant said it was unprofessional that he was wearing a baseball cap in the workplace. The claimant was informed that only trained assistance dogs were able to attend sites/work. The claimant felt let down and could not understand what the issue was with the dog. She felt that those without any medical background were making the decision against her having the dog. The claimant was informed that there was no policy on the matter and that a local decision had to be made. The advice from HR also outlined the steps to be taken to ensure there was compliance with the need to make reasonable adjustments. This also included matters relating to health and safety in relation to having a dog on site. The local decision was that the dog could not attend with the claimant with the line manager stating that there was no legal protection for emotional support dogs, when compared to assistance dogs for those who are blind.

The issue was compounded for the claimant by a work colleague talking to another loudly in earshot of the claimant stating about how his wife and her manager were bringing dogs into work. This was not the case but considered by the claimant to be aimed at her.

Outcome:

The Tribunal had to consider whether the suggested adjustment, of having the dog, was reasonable.  Such reasonableness had to be considered on whether it would have alleviated the disadvantage suffered by the claimant in relation to her disability. The Tribunal stated that the most difficult days for the claimant’s anxiety related to evictions and she did not take her dog on those days. As a result, it is difficult to say that that the adjustment would alleviate the anxiety and disadvantage suffered.  There were other considerations relating to health and safety, security of the vehicle and risk of escape that had to be considered.  However, the overarching point was that the adjustment would not have had a prospect of alleviating the claimant from the disadvantage from the provision, criterion or practice.

The claimant also brought a claim relating to harassment considering the comments made by a colleague about bringing a dog to work.  Whilst the Tribunal found that it was unwanted conduct there was nothing to suggest that it had a relationship with a protected characteristic, such as disability.  Therefore, the claimant’s claim was dismissed.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

This case provides useful guidance in terms of determining whether a reasonable adjustment is required.  The Tribunal makes a focus on whether the suggested step would be such that it alleviates the disadvantage suffered by the claimant vis-à-vis their disability.   In this case, it was found that it would not especially considering the context of the claimant’s work and that the dog did not attend on what were regarded as the most stressful days.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/670e50aae84ae1fd8592f369/Ms_D_Cullingford_v_The_Secretary_of_State_for_Justice_-_1803055_2022.....pdf