“Emotional Support Animals” v “Service Animals”

‘Emotional support animals’ Do they have a place at work?

We are a nation of pet lovers – that’s a fact. According to a 2024 survey, dogs were the most commonly owned pet in UK households. The share of households reporting dog ownership stood at 36 percent, with the second most common house pet among UK households being cats, with around 26 percent of respondents stating ownership. Overall, there are an estimated 51 million pets residing in homes across the UK!

Much as we love our animals, which is evident as many businesses have a ‘bring your pet to work day’, it’s important to be clear on the distinctions between “emotional support animals” and “service animals”.

The recent Employment Tribunal case of Ms D Cullingford v The Secretary of State for Justice[2024] drew a distinction between emotional support animals (ESA’s) and service animals, such as guide dogs, when considering whether animals should be allowed to accompany their owner in the course of their employment.

The background of the case involved the claimant, Deborah Cullingford, bringing a claim against the Ministry for Justice for disability discrimination and harassment. Cullingford worked as a County Court bailiff in Leeds and was refused permission to bring her dog, Bella, with her during visits to people’s homes, carried out in the course of her employment. Cullingford protested that her cancer diagnosis meant she was experiencing extreme anxiety, and that having Bella in the car during her house appointments relieved this anxiety.

In February 2022, colleagues noticed Bella in Cullingford’s car. Subsequently Cullingford’s line manager Mr Shakeel, informed Cullingford of the decision to not allow her to continue bringing Bella to work, citing the absence of a legal right to have the dog attending work, ‘unprofessionalism’ and health and safety concerns. Cullingford began an appeal process and continued to work for the company until April 2023, when she resigned and proceeded to bring claims against her employer, asserting that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments to her condition.

Legal basis of the claim

Cullingford argued that being required to carry out home visits, that had the potential to become confrontational, constituted a ‘Provision, Criterion or Practice (PCP) under Section 21 of the Equality Act. To bring a successful claim under the act, the claimant must prove that a strong causal link exists between the PCP applied by the employer, and the ‘substantial disadvantage’ suffered by the employee as a direct result of the PCP. The judge advised that a lack of evidence was presented when it came to proving:

• that her anxiety had worsened as a result of the PCP, and
• that she had made it clear to her employer that she required adjustments to be made.

No report was made to her employer of anxiety or of difficulties in performing her role, until after the issue with the dog arose. Had her employer been aware of Cullingford’s increasing anxiety and challenges in completing her job, then reasonable adjustments could have been made. It was proved by the employer that reasonable adjustments had in fact been offered to the Cullingford, just not the adjustments preferred by herself.

It is important for employers to note when dealing with emotional support animal (ESA) requests from employees, that no legislation directly permitting nor prohibiting ESA’s in the workplace exists. However, employers should deal with such requests on a case-by-case basis. They should remember their obligations to all staff regarding Health and Safety and they should consider whether allowing the employee to bring in an ESA constitutes a ‘reasonable adjustment’ under the Equality Act 2010. Employers should be aware of the risk of a discrimination claim if they fail to do so.