[il-talk] Interesting service animal case

[Andrew Webb]

Thought some folks might find this article of interest.  

 

Cheers,

Andrew

 

 

 

Cabbie Loses ADA Suit After Refusing Ride to Service Dog Jay Stapleton, The
Connecticut Law Tribune February 20, 2015 As a taxi driver recently
learned, being afraid of dogs is not a legally valid excuse for refusing to
pick up a disabled person with a service animal.

Mansoor Ahmad was fired from his job in 2011 for doing just that.  In
response, in a pair of lawsuits in both state and federal court, Ahmad
claimed he was discriminated against because of his own disability: a fear
of dogs.

On June 10, 2011, Ahmad was in his taxi waiting in line to pick up
passengers at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks.  When it was
his turn to pick up a fare, Ahmad pulled up to the curb and saw the
passenger was a person with a service dog.  As he had previously been
bitten by a dog, he refused to allow the passenger into his cab.

An airport taxi dispatcher who worked for the Connecticut Department of
Transportation called the police.  Ahmad and his father, who was driving a
separate taxi for the company and who had come to his son's defense, were
both detained by police and subsequently fired.

In 2012, Ahmad filed separate lawsuits against the Yellow Cab Co.  of New
London Inc.  and the Department of Transportation, which took Ahmad's taxi
license.  Judges who were called on to review those lawsuits­one in state
and the other in federal court­came to the same conclusions and dismissed
all claims.

On Feb.  6, Superior Court Judge Nina Elgo agreed that a fear of dogs is a
recognized mental disability under the DSM-5 diagnostic manual of standards
used by the courts.  However, she stated, it does not protect someone who
refuses services to­or who denies access to­another person with a
disability.  Under state and federal law, the judge wrote, Ahmad's
employment prohibited him from refusing to provide taxi service to
individuals with service dogs.

Ahmad's lawyer, John Williams of New Haven, said he was not surprised at
the ruling.  "I saw it coming," he said, referring to a series of court
decisions that have found that workers cannot claim employment
discrimination if their disability stops them from performing the
"essential functions of the job."

In 2004, the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Siederbaum
v.  New York, found that a man with bipolar disorder could not sue the city
for discrimination after it rejected his application to be a transit bus
driver.  The panel concluded that "a lack of bipolar disorder was an
essential part of the job.."

In the Ahmad case, Elgo wrote, "under state and federal law, taxicab
drivers are required to provide transportation to disabled individuals and
their service animals, which constitutes an essential function of their job.

" The plaintiff, she said, provided no authority to support "his ultimate
claim, that in order to accommodate his disability, the defendant should be
forced to violate state and federal laws which prohibit discrimination of
another individual based on disability."

Late last year, U.S.  District Judge Alvin Thompson made a similar ruling
in the federal lawsuit, which alleged Ahmad's rights were violated under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

While neither outcome was surprising, it did appear to be the first time
that a fear of dogs came up in an employment discrimination lawsuit in
Connecticut.  Because of that novelty, Williams said he thinks the decision
will be of interest to employers who hire employment lawyers to draft
policies about adhering to ADA regulations.

Similar issues have arisen from time to time, he said.  For instance, he
handled a case matter many years ago where a man claimed he could not
provide a urine sample for employment drug testing because he had "lazy
bladder syndrome."

Daniel Schwartz, a Shipman & Goodwin employment law partner, has been
following the case since 2012.  He even wrote about the legal issues in his
Connecticut Employment Law Blog.  Of particular interest to Schwartz is the
idea that a growing list of phobias that are recognized as disabilities
could give rise to claims from workers seeking protection from
discrimination.

The taxi driver, he noted, was successful in showing that fear of dogs was
a disability.

"Under the ADA, the definition of a disability is much broader than it was
before," he said.  For instance, he said, many anxiety disorders are now
recognized disabilities.  Schwartz said this is one of the first cases, if
not the first case, in which a Connecticut court held that "a phobia is a
mental disorder in Connecticut."

But, Schwartz said, in the taxi case, the public interest in making sure
those with disabilities are treated fairly in the workplace ran up against
the public interest in making sure people with disabilities who use service
dogs have access to reliable transportation.  The decision "came down to
the fact that the government has a rule that cabbies need to pick up
service animals," he said.  "I think it's interesting from that perspective.

"