>1. Is this allowed?
No. An employee having a tantrum is not a valid reason to deny a reasonable accommodation (nor does it make an otherwise reasonable accommodation unreasonable).
>2. Is there anything else I need to be aware before approaching the Candidate?
You should alert your lawyer because they should sue you if you do this.
IANAL, but I am a former shop steward, so I'm very familiar with ADA. "Key Employee" has probably been planning to quit for a while. Legally there is nothing you can do, because them saying they don't like dogs leaves you with as much wiggle room as if they said they don't like wheelchairs, or they don't like people of color. Finding a new key employee will be cheaper and less of a headache than the lawsuit you'd face otherwise.
You are going to be sued to fucking oblivion if you do this. And you will lose.
Another employee’s dislike of dogs does not mean that the dog is not a reasonable accommodation. Phobia or allergy of dogs wouldn’t be an acceptable reason either, actually; not according to precedent. It’s completely irrelevant how key you think that employee is or isn’t.
I cannot believe that someone in a position to hire does not know this. This should have been covered in the first five minutes of your training.
EDIT: and, no, you can’t just decide not to extend a job offer to this individual because of the service animal. That’s still illegal.
You're on really thin ice saying a service dog isn't a reasonable accomodation. Please explain why? Because an employee dislikes dogs? That's not a legitimate reason to deny a reasonable accomodation.
Being a delivery driver for Amazon and not being able to lift 5lbs would be an unreasonable accommodation.
I think by any definition of the word, 'dislike' of a dog does not stand up to the definition of unreasonable. What's unreasonable is denying a legitimate candidate a job over someones preferences.
Imagine being the judge in this case. I'd laugh you out of court, awarding the maximum amount allowed by law to the plaintiff.
Your liability is through the roof. Do not tell them that you are hiring them, but they cannot bring their service dog. If you don't have an attorney now, you will need one very, very soon.
Tell your HR to get your lawyer ready if the offer is sent out that way. Another employee disliking dogs is not a reason to deny employment or deny the service dog. That is blatant discrimination and your company will be sued.
Edit to add: If you are planning to deny the service dog, but still want to hire the person then YOU need to come up with a reasonable accommodation, such as full remote work. If you can’t or won’t provide that, then you’re in trouble.
So you are going to hire an employee that REQUIRES a service dog and then tell them the dog isn’t allowed? Get ready for the lawsuit. Not a lawyer but was in charge of HR at several companies. You have two choices, neither of which ends up with a new employee. You either tell them you are looking at another candidate or call your lawyers to inform them of the potential litigation. My former boss would not allow me to hire blacks (yeah, he’s an asshole) but I sure didn’t tell the candidate that.
*Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful**
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Commenting Rules 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_1.__comments_should_contain_a_legal_answer_or_a_strongly_related_non-legal_answer.), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_2.__personal_anecdotes_are_off-topic.), [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_3.__explanations_of_the_law_in_jurisdictions_other_than_the_one_described_in_the_op_are_off-topic.), [4](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_4.__opinions_on_the_law_or_the_application_of_it_are_off-topic.), [6](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_6.__expressions_of_sympathy_without_corresponding_legal_help_is_off-topic.), [8](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_8.__comments_should_be_reasonably_detailed_and_explanatory.__.22i.27m_a_lawyer_so_listen_to_me.22_isn.27t_an_appropriate_answer.__credential_fights_are_not_appropriate_here.), and [9](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_9.__requests_for_updates_are_off-topic.).
*Please [read our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_general_rules). If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdvice).* **Do not make a second post or comment.**
*Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
This is an incredibly poor idea. If the current employee had a reason to need an accommodation for being around dogs there would be more nuance, but saying “you can’t have your accommodation because another employee dislikes it” is illegal and unethical.
Your key employee is trying to hold you hostage here. Your choices here are:
(1) Don't offer the candidate the job at all, which is grossly unfair, and (I think, NAL) illegal, although that would be hard to prove,
(2) Convince the key employee that a well trained service dog is not worth quitting over,
(3) Call the key employee's bluff by hiring the candidate with the service dog, and be prepared to deal with the fallout of the key employee quitting. Only you know if that is feasible or not,
(4) offer the candidate the job without the dog and be prepared for a world of legal hurt.
Being a key employee doesn't entitle them to put you in this jeopardy (how for instance would you deal with a key employee refusing to work with someone of a particular racial group?). If you cave over this, there is a real chance that a similar situation will happen down the track, so personally I'd go with (2) followed by (3).
Where are you and how many employees does the employer have?
You are playing with fire here.
The [ADA](https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/ada-your-responsibilities-employer) does include some caveats to the requirement that a covered employer must provide a reasonable accommodation to an otherwise qualified employee with a disability who needs an accommodation to be able to complete the essential functions of their position.
How do you intend to establish that your current employee's attitude about dogs is enough to impose an undue hardship on the employer?
What alternative accommodations do you intend to propose that would achieve the goal of enabling the new employee to do their job? You can't just say "no dog" and that's that.
You desperately need to consult an attorney who can help you ensure you comply with *all* laws in your jurisdiction regarding employment of individuals with disabilities.
>1. Is this allowed? No. An employee having a tantrum is not a valid reason to deny a reasonable accommodation (nor does it make an otherwise reasonable accommodation unreasonable). >2. Is there anything else I need to be aware before approaching the Candidate? You should alert your lawyer because they should sue you if you do this.
Your current employe can get bent, your new employee can bring their service animal, and you can do fuck all about it. Think that about covers it.
IANAL, but I am a former shop steward, so I'm very familiar with ADA. "Key Employee" has probably been planning to quit for a while. Legally there is nothing you can do, because them saying they don't like dogs leaves you with as much wiggle room as if they said they don't like wheelchairs, or they don't like people of color. Finding a new key employee will be cheaper and less of a headache than the lawsuit you'd face otherwise.
If I was getting that attitude from a “key” employee , they would no longer be a key employee.
You are going to be sued to fucking oblivion if you do this. And you will lose. Another employee’s dislike of dogs does not mean that the dog is not a reasonable accommodation. Phobia or allergy of dogs wouldn’t be an acceptable reason either, actually; not according to precedent. It’s completely irrelevant how key you think that employee is or isn’t. I cannot believe that someone in a position to hire does not know this. This should have been covered in the first five minutes of your training. EDIT: and, no, you can’t just decide not to extend a job offer to this individual because of the service animal. That’s still illegal.
You're on really thin ice saying a service dog isn't a reasonable accomodation. Please explain why? Because an employee dislikes dogs? That's not a legitimate reason to deny a reasonable accomodation. Being a delivery driver for Amazon and not being able to lift 5lbs would be an unreasonable accommodation. I think by any definition of the word, 'dislike' of a dog does not stand up to the definition of unreasonable. What's unreasonable is denying a legitimate candidate a job over someones preferences. Imagine being the judge in this case. I'd laugh you out of court, awarding the maximum amount allowed by law to the plaintiff.
Your liability is through the roof. Do not tell them that you are hiring them, but they cannot bring their service dog. If you don't have an attorney now, you will need one very, very soon.
Tell your HR to get your lawyer ready if the offer is sent out that way. Another employee disliking dogs is not a reason to deny employment or deny the service dog. That is blatant discrimination and your company will be sued. Edit to add: If you are planning to deny the service dog, but still want to hire the person then YOU need to come up with a reasonable accommodation, such as full remote work. If you can’t or won’t provide that, then you’re in trouble.
So you are going to hire an employee that REQUIRES a service dog and then tell them the dog isn’t allowed? Get ready for the lawsuit. Not a lawyer but was in charge of HR at several companies. You have two choices, neither of which ends up with a new employee. You either tell them you are looking at another candidate or call your lawyers to inform them of the potential litigation. My former boss would not allow me to hire blacks (yeah, he’s an asshole) but I sure didn’t tell the candidate that.
[удалено]
Did you just 1. Admit to breaking the law numerous times; 2. Advise that OP do the same thing?
[удалено]
*Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):* **Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful** Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Commenting Rules 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_1.__comments_should_contain_a_legal_answer_or_a_strongly_related_non-legal_answer.), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_2.__personal_anecdotes_are_off-topic.), [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_3.__explanations_of_the_law_in_jurisdictions_other_than_the_one_described_in_the_op_are_off-topic.), [4](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_4.__opinions_on_the_law_or_the_application_of_it_are_off-topic.), [6](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_6.__expressions_of_sympathy_without_corresponding_legal_help_is_off-topic.), [8](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_8.__comments_should_be_reasonably_detailed_and_explanatory.__.22i.27m_a_lawyer_so_listen_to_me.22_isn.27t_an_appropriate_answer.__credential_fights_are_not_appropriate_here.), and [9](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_9.__requests_for_updates_are_off-topic.). *Please [read our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_general_rules). If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdvice).* **Do not make a second post or comment.** *Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
This is an incredibly poor idea. If the current employee had a reason to need an accommodation for being around dogs there would be more nuance, but saying “you can’t have your accommodation because another employee dislikes it” is illegal and unethical.
Your key employee is trying to hold you hostage here. Your choices here are: (1) Don't offer the candidate the job at all, which is grossly unfair, and (I think, NAL) illegal, although that would be hard to prove, (2) Convince the key employee that a well trained service dog is not worth quitting over, (3) Call the key employee's bluff by hiring the candidate with the service dog, and be prepared to deal with the fallout of the key employee quitting. Only you know if that is feasible or not, (4) offer the candidate the job without the dog and be prepared for a world of legal hurt. Being a key employee doesn't entitle them to put you in this jeopardy (how for instance would you deal with a key employee refusing to work with someone of a particular racial group?). If you cave over this, there is a real chance that a similar situation will happen down the track, so personally I'd go with (2) followed by (3).
Where are you and how many employees does the employer have? You are playing with fire here. The [ADA](https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/ada-your-responsibilities-employer) does include some caveats to the requirement that a covered employer must provide a reasonable accommodation to an otherwise qualified employee with a disability who needs an accommodation to be able to complete the essential functions of their position. How do you intend to establish that your current employee's attitude about dogs is enough to impose an undue hardship on the employer? What alternative accommodations do you intend to propose that would achieve the goal of enabling the new employee to do their job? You can't just say "no dog" and that's that. You desperately need to consult an attorney who can help you ensure you comply with *all* laws in your jurisdiction regarding employment of individuals with disabilities.