3 Misconceptions About Emotional Support Animals

Employee requests to bring emotional support animals to work should not be automatically dismissed.

As if the hospital didn't feel enough like a zoo already, the rising use of emotional support animal (ESA) is forcing some HR departments to re-examine their guidelines on animals.

Unlike service animals, which are defined as animals trained to perform specific tasks for their disabled owners, ESAs receive no standardized training and have just one job: to be constant companions. People who use ESAs typically suffer from a variety of emotional or psychological conditions such as PTSD, depression, or aging-related cognitive decline, and say the consistent presence of the animal is necessary to their emotional well-being.

Given the nature of healthcare environments and professions, one might expect hospital workers with ESAs to have to leave their furry friends at home. But Jacksonville, FL-based attorney Heather Owen, of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, a law firm that specializes in labor and employment law, says her firm has been asked to represent two hospitals in the last year in cases involving accommodation requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for animals in the workplace. One of the cases involved an emotional support animal.

"People are confused about what can and cannot do [with ESAs]… and there's really good reason for that confusion, and a lot of room for abuse," says Owen.

The growing use of ESAs shows little sign of stopping. In 2011 the National Service Animal Registry, a commercial enterprise that sells certificates, vests, and badges for service animals, signed up 2,400 ESAs. In 2013, it reported registering 11,000.

With little case law on the books about ESAs in the workplace, it makes sense to treat them as any other ADA accommodation being requested in the workplace, says Owen, and to determine whether or not the employee's request is reasonable on a case-by-case basis.

But to effectively evaluate these requests, you'll need to avoid three common assumptions.

Misconception #1: It Can't Be Done in a Hospital
"My biggest warning is to not just assume it can't be done," says Owen. "Especially in a hospital setting, many assume that someone will have a problem with allergies or a fear of animals, and that they can't allow the animal in. Those are not necessarily assumptions can be made automatically."

Since ADA lawsuits are most frequently lost when employers don't effectively engage in the interactive process of seeking accommodation for employees' disabilities, it is important to make sure all options have been pursued, says Owen.

Even for clinicians that interact with patients, the answer might not be an automatic "no," she says. "Could the animal sit off to the side? Could it wait directly outside the patient treatment room [while the clinician is seeing patients]? Can it be leashed?"

One of the hospitals Owen's firm represented involved a hospital administration employee that requested the accommodation of a dog that would come to work with her daily. But the employee had a teammate who had a severe phobia of dogs.

Rather than concluding that the situation was a non-starter, HR simply moved one of the employees' cubicles to the other side of the office. The only time the two employees had to interact was during meetings, when the dog could be left with another worker. Six months later, the dog has not been an issue, says Owen, who suggests that similar arrangements could be made if a coworker has allergies.

The test is reasonableness, she says. If the request to take an animal to work turns out to be reasonable, it should be fulfilled. The arrangement should be tried on a provisional basis, and, if it appears that things are not going well for any reason, it should be communicated to the employee that the arrangement is simply not feasible.

Misconception #2: Documentation Will Be Sufficient
Don't take documentation submitted by the employee at face value, says Owen.

The internet is rife with dubious websites that will certify a pet as an ESA in exchange for some cash and checking a few boxes.

"I'm of the opinion that an employer has right to justify the need for an animal," says Owen. "If an employee suffers from a genuine mental health or emotional condition, he or she should be seeing a therapist or physician that can provide documentation explaining why the employee needs this animal. If the employee is going to [a] doctor, it adds validity… It makes it real."

And the animal should be evaluated by a veterinarian, says Owen. "Seeing eye dogs and other service animals go through months of training. When they have that vest on, they know they're working, and people recognize the vest and respect that."

But ESAs receive no standardized training, and even well-behaved animals may panic in public—especially in environments where they are exposed to flashing lights and alarms, such as a hospital, says Owen. A vet can function as a non-partial party that gives the final approval on an animal—or puts the kibosh on an animal ill-suited to the hospital environment.

Misconception #3: There Will be a Backlash
A common concern among employers is that if an accommodation is made for a single employee, others will want that accommodation, too, whether it be a $500 ergonomic chair or a cat that sits at the employee's feet. But Owen says jealous coworkers are rarely an issue.

"In the 20 years I've worked with ADA law, I've not had too many calls over backlash or discrimination claims due to accommodations… employees will typically figure out it's an accommodation situation," says Owen. And most often, employees disclose to their coworkers that they have a health issue that requires them to seek accommodation.

But what if an employee does ask why she can't bring in her pet Burmese python when her coworker is allowed to bring in her emotional support Siberian tiger?

"Tell them that, as an employer, we have to make decisions. We can't always discuss the rationale for these decisions, but we've decided to permit the tiger and not the snake. We can't discuss it with you," says Owen.