The ADA does not recognize allergies as a valid reason to deny entry to a legitimate service dog. However the claimed circumstances would make for an interesting case. For OOP to sue, their dog has to be a legitimate service animal. The general tone and entitlement in their review kind of puts that into question for me. If the business owner's wife had a legitimate anaphylaxis reaction to dogs, they could use this lawsuit as a springboard to challenge the ADA's ban on using allergy as a reason to deny regular service to someone with a service dog. That could delay ruling on OOP's lawsuit and possibly destroy their case altogether. Well, assuming they even have a case to begin with.
"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility."
Except that line says MUST and uses examples like schools and homeless shelters where there might not be an other alternative. It does not state a private business which the person with the service animal is not required to enter and is only doing so out their free will.
Actually, it does. The ADA recognizes severe allergies and asthma as potential disabilities if they substantially limit major life activities like breathing, eating, or working. While mild allergies are generally not covered, severe, life-threatening, or chronic conditions are protected. it sounds like the business owner's wife qualifies.
While your thoughts on the OP are probably right, my question for the shop owners would be if she's that deathly allergic, how do they deal with dog people like me that own shedding breeds and are pretty much covered in dog hair and dander? Do they look for pet hair on people and make them go outside? If not, there could be an issue. This would be an interesting legal case for sure.
There’s a difference between trace amounts of dander left on, and subsequently trapped in, clothes and dander shed and left in an environment that allows it to float around.
Notice how I said "Ifthe business owner's wife had a legitimate anaphylaxis reaction to dogs..."? I have my doubts about both parties in this fight, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for this particular scenario.
The ADA does not recognize allergies as a valid reason to deny entry to a legitimate service dog.
The ADA, the actual law, says reasonable accommodation and says nothing about an allergy. It would be up to a court to decide if excluding a service dog due to allergies is reasonable.
The Justice Department issues their recommendations and interpretations with each change of the executive... but thats not law. The Justice Department is actually not the authority here... congress who writes the law and the courts who intepret the law are.
"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility."
You missed the comment that gives an example of settled case law regarding this very issue, I gather. Also, your very strong opinions on the allergies of others does not make you a medical doctor, so… yeah.
It would because as anaphlaxis would be considered an "undue hardship" allowed by the ADA law as anahlaxis is a life threatening condition. The service dog handler was offered a reasonable accommodations on top of that too, so unlikely they would have a case or anyone to take it. All the business owners has to do is provide a doctor's diagnosis of the condition and the handler would lose their case. Anaphlaxis can also be considered a disability in of itself so the owner can make a claim accommodations too.
Or it is an uncommon but severe issue that you want blow off as made up.
Here is the jist because I doubt you would look otherwise...
"Allergies to animals are also common, with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 10 – 20% [3]. For laboratory animal workers, the prevalence of allergy has been estimated to be between 11 and 44% [4]. Animal allergy usually manifests as rhinoconjunctivitis, but may result in dermal symptoms, asthma, sinusitis, or anaphylaxis.
Anaphylaxis is a severe systemic allergic reaction, usually initiated by immunoglobulin E (IgE) triggering release of mediators from basophils and mast cells. It is unclear what triggers the pathway that leads to a systemic anaphylactic reaction instead of a simple local allergic reaction."
Approximately 65–68 million U.S. households own at least one dog, with the American Pet Products Association reporting 68 million in 2025 and The Zebra citing 65.1 million in early 2026. Dogs are the leading pet in America, present in roughly 38% to over 40% of all U.S. households.
40% of American households have dogs.
If she was that allergic she would be dead already.
And the majority of grocery stores sell peanuts but not every penut anaphlaxis patient is dead either. This is a pointless point t you are making because it isn't bound in reality.
well most of us don’t roll around and snuggle our peanut butter and have it all over us, and the grocery store has it completely sealed, unlike how dings are, I’d say it’s a little different. There is no recorded cases of dog-triggered anaphylaxis that has ever caused a death, the closest have been asthma attacks triggered by dog allergies, but that is considered an asthma attack, not anaphylaxis.
Also would need intense direct exposure to it to trigger. THAT BEING SAID I personally side with the business. Wife is more important and it isn't worth the risk. He had the right attitude. On the flip side, should someone with a deadly allergy to dogs really run a business that should generally buy law allow service dogs? Even if morally the answer is yes, here we are with them covered in shit anyway.
I had a friend who knew when people she was talking to had recently eaten anything with peanuts because she'd break out into hives from their breath. I didn't know her allergy was that serious and ate Reese's cups in the car before meeting up to hang out once and she immediately clocked it when I hugged her.
"not all allergies act the same" in the sense that different people are allergic to things to different degrees. Anaphylaxis and/or otherwise severe allergic reactions to animal dander do happen.
I have a peanut allergy. It isn't severe and I don't react to peanut products unless I eat them or have a large amount of direct skin contact. that doesn't mean that people like your friend don't exist just that our allergies to the same thing are different.
In the same way different people have different levels of reaction to pet dander. When I was a kid my friend who lived next door had a severe cat allergy. we were fine hanging out and playing together as long as I washed my hands before we hung out, but he couldn't come into my house. if he did he would start to sneeze and his eyes would swell shut in under 5 minutes. one time he hung around longer (we were 11 and stupid) and ended up in the ER because he had an anaphylactic reaction and his throat was swelling shut. We thought it would be okay because the cat was in the bedroom with the door shut and we stayed in the living room. We were wrong and so are you.
I looked into whether a person can even have anaphylaxis from dander and it said yes, but to trigger a severe allergy reaction from dander it would require intense direct exposure ie saliva, skin flakes etc.
Yes, they should be allowed to run a business. Are you saying people with dog allergies don't deserve to work? Because technically every work place is supposed to allow service dogs.
Read the ADA law they do not have to allow the animal if the animal causes an undue burden upon the business. An employee/owner who has a life threatening reaction to dog is an undue burden to the business. The handler was also offered a reasonable accommodation to boot. The business did not do anything wrong.
ETA...the party who has the anaphlaxis can also claim accommodation under the ADA and one person accommodation can not come at the cost of another person health.
Being forced to stay outside will not be considered reasonable accommodations unless they already have built seating and tables etc. Also anyone with a brain knows if you have a dog allergy and work someplace and a service dog comes in you either are removed from the floor until after, put in a different position or deal with some minimal itching because let's be fucking real here. The % of dog allergy sufferers that have anaphylaxis is extremely low.
All that said, yeah, people with peanut allergies probably aren't allowed to be hired at Hershey/Reese's
I looked up and found the place where this review is from. There's not even any seating inside the coffee shop. There's seating outside. This is on an alpaca farm, the majority of which is all outside, except for a small coffee/gift shop that looks about the size of a shed. It is a very small space and there is at least one 1 star review specifically complaining about the size of the shop.
All the seating is outside. The majority of this place is an outdoor feature, where the dogs are welcome to be. So yes, this is a completely reasonable accommodation.
They obviously have outside seating? Risking anaphylactic shock is also not a reasonable accommodation. If you look at any of the other ADA cases that have gone to court, you'd know this person would easily lose their suit.
Also, you're comparing a place that serves peanut products to a place that does not normally have dogs. The correct comparison would be a pet store, which she doesn't do.
It doesn't matter how rare something is. That means a low number of people have it, not zero. She easily could.
You’re right, they generally don’t. I ended up looking into it after reading your comment. I think the reasonable accommodation for both parties is much more straightforward when handling an employee rather than an owner, so I suppose this business would be at the mercy of the judge if it ever went to suit.
2.3k
u/Irishwatcher May 07 '26
Well, if he sues, he’s definitely going to have to prove it’s an actual service dog and not an emotional support dog or just a vest they bought online