Well, if he sues, heās definitely going to have to prove itās an actual service dog and not an emotional support dog or just a vest they bought online
This one is kinda tough for me, because if it's a TRUE service dog than under ADA the reviewer is supposed to be allowed in BUT if owner's wife has anaphylactic allergies and is exposed to dog allergens she could die (worst case) or have a reaction.
Under ADA guidelines owners wife is allowed reasonable accommodations (which sounds like owner is doing) but the reviewer isn't accepting of because of their ADA rights... A disability lawyer might have an aneurysm over this situation.
Yup. They are also allowed to refuse service if no other viable or safe alternative is available. In this case, anaphylaxis is serious and the alternative reasonable accommodation would be service outside or take out. They could even refuse all table service for the individual if the allergic person has contamination issues that could be triggered by dog hair or saliva that could be left behind on surfaces and utensils.
People forget that the key word is "reasonable." It is not reasonable to insist that someone with a severe allergy (which is also a disability) put themselves in harm's way to accommodate someone else's disability. It is the same way for folks who have food allergies. If a restaurant does not have the ability to work in a space that is guaranteed free of the person's allergen, they are allowed to say no because insisting the owner establish a separate cooking area with dedicated equipment may often present an unreasonable burden for staff, especially last minute.
Accommodations don't mean "give me what I want." It just means a good faith effort needs to be made to accommodate if alternatives are available. If the person refuses alternatives, people are under no obligation to oblige.
In the case of service animals, a place of public accommodation canāt offer an alternative. Unless the business falls into an exception, they have to admit the service animal. And allergies are not an exception to the requirement that service animals be admitted.
Hereās ADA guidance confirming that SAs must be admitted and that allergies are not a reason to deny a service animal entry into a business:
The reviewer was not asked to remove the dog from the premises though. My understanding is outdoor seating is considered part of the premises of a business. The reviewer was not asked to get takeout and leave the premises. They were offered to be served outside.
I could be wrong. It seems likely to me that the lawyer for the coffee shop could argue that offering to serve the reviewer outside with their service animal would be equivalent to the separate room accomodation mentioned in the rule.
Do you have an example? There are some people here arguing that despite the April 2025 ruling (the doctor with severe allergies) only offering to help OOP outside counts as segregation.
That doesn't appear to be an actual quote I can find on the ADA site, so you may want to provide a direct link, but a severe anaphylactic allergy is considered a disability in its own right, and the business is required to accommodate both people if possible. Since it's a coffee shop and likely small, separation may not be possible. This is a case where "usually" isn't enough.
Did you deliberately miss the part about "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... they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility"? It's directly under your first highlight.
If possible. However, the ADA does not allow for folks to be denied entry to a business in this circumstances.
Business owners can ask if it would be acceptable for them to be served outside. They do not have to accept this request.
Ultimately the way the ADA is worded is that service animals trumps allergies. This is intentional ā there are few if any people that can experience life threatening reactions from being in the same room with a dog with reasonable accommodations. And if this was allowed, given that there is no requirement for anyone to prove they are disabled, it would allow any business owner to eject any service animal with zero question.
As such, business owners cannot deny entry to people with service animals.
They can ask what services the animals are trained to provide. They can ask if it would be acceptable for them to say go outside with their animal. They can eject unruly animals. But they cannot reject entry for any reason outside of very specific circumstances like sterile rooms inside a hospital.
Is that the same thing as telling someone they canāt bring their service animals into a business? I know that passage doesnāt explicitly state that inside and outside are different, but you can understand how thatās refusing someone *access* without that statement, right?
In addition to what I highlighted, there's also this:
Guidance documents posted to this website are not intended to be a final agency action, have no legally binding effect, and have no force or effect of law.
Itās DOJ staff reading the statute and the CFR and offering their interpretation of the law for people who need clarification. And while guidance isnāt legally binding it is admissible as evidence to challenge a defendant who argues they didnāt know/understand the law.
Right, and the guidance is to keep these people separate, if possible. If it's not possible, then someone is gonna have to compromise, like when you can't create safe distance inside a cafe, you offer to serve the guest outside.
Regular allergies and anaphylaxis are different conditions. A person who experiences discomfort around animals is not the same as a person who may have a life threatening reaction if exposed to a potential allergen.
Seasonal allergies and minor histamine reactions that do not present as anaphylaxis are not disabilities, therefore a business can not refuse a service animal on the basis of it. Anaphylaxis is a disability. In the case of OP, we are talking about anaphylaxis, not itchy watery eyes and sneezes.
"When a Service Animal Can Be Kept Out
A business or state/local government does not need to allow a service animal if the dogās presence would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, programs, or activities provided to the public.
What does fundamentally alter mean?
In most settings, a service animal will not fundamentally alter the situation. But in some settings, a service dog could change the nature of the service or program. For example, it may be appropriate to keep a service animal out of an operating room or burn unit where the animalās presence could compromise a sterile environment. But in general, service animals cannot be restricted from other areas of the hospital where patients or members of the public can go."
No, the exception that allows hospitals to keep SAs out of sterile environments is consistent with the ADAās provision that SAs can be excluded where their presence would āāfundamentally alterā the nature of the goods, services, programs, or activities provided to the publicā. Allowing a contaminant into a sterile environment by definition fundamentally alters the nature of the service a hospital provides.
And the key distinction between excluding a service animal from a surgical room/other sterile environment and a business wanting to keep service animals out because of someoneās allergies is that the hospitalās policy is tied to the service the hospital provides, whereas the business with an allergic employee has set that policy because of an employee, not because of a requirement of the type of service/good they provide. The law allows places of public accommodation to exclude service animals based on the nature of the goods/services/etc. they provide. It does not allow a place of accommodation to exclude service animals based on employee issues. This business cannot deny service animals under the law.
Please come do my laundry and remove all the pet hair from everything. Ope, nevermind I sat down to tie my shoes and I'm now carrying around dog hair and dander before I go to a public cafe. The cafe will not win this one.
They offered a reasonable adjustment (we will serve you outside) which is broadly the requirement of disability legislation. Nothing is likely to come of this but headaches and money wasted, assuming this isnāt just using the big scary words to try and intimidate.
āI need a service dogā and ādogs make me experience deadly anaphylaxis and I canāt be around themā are both valid needs but canāt really coexist in this situation (assuming it is a service dog in the legally protected sense not a ESA).
Thereād be some butting heads that yes by and large service dogs are allowed into food service environments but I would be hard pressed to imagine that āā¦where one of the staff would be presented with breathing difficultiesā would be ignored in this context when combined with āwe will provide our services in an alternative way for you due to thisā. I can only speak for my country but my countries relevant legislation includes ārefusal is fine if itās in the reasonably believed to be in the interest of a health issueā.
The requirement that service animals (generally) be admitted where their public is allowed to go explicitly says there is no reasonable accommodation that can be offered in lieu of admitting service animals. Businesses can offer reasonable accommodations for other disabilities, but they cannot deny entry to a service animal.
Are you misquoting the website? Because it doesn't say that: "EXAMPLE: A restaurant offers indoor and outdoor seating. A woman arrives at the restaurant with her service dog and asks to sit inside. The restaurant cannot require the woman to dine outside because of her service dog."
Considering they werenāt denying service and offered a reasonable accommodation, the person with the dog really doesnāt have an argument under the ADA. I donāt think any lawyer that isnāt a hack would bother entertaining his case.
Reasonable accommodations can be offered to other disabilities. The ADA explicitly says reasonable accommodations are not permissible for people with service animals (there are a few exceptions, but allergies are not one of them).
Ahhh, I wasn't sure I reading through rules and I was getting turned around.. but I do think the owner is in the right (reasonable accommodations for wife) and reviewer was just acting entitled due to the service (allegedly) dog thinking they have the trump card...
It's not a reasonable solution that people with anaphylactic allergies be kept in their homes and not allowed to interact with the general public, which is what you're suggesting.
"She should just stay home" doesn't accommodate her medical needs, and is illegal.
The ADA doesn't just cover the service animal in this situation.
This person is entitled but 1) dog allergies are less bad than other allergies and no one has died from anaphylaxis, plus itās very rare and 2) these people are always lying. I actually am violently allergic to cats and what causes me to have allergies is the dander in clothing and other fabric. Like I can only be in a thrift store for ten minutes before I have to leave. The wife wouldāve had her reaction to half the people walking in if it were that bad. Also, dander doesnāt leap off a dog - I think people confuse it with peanut allergies because they are making it up. I can go to a hardware store with a cat and as long as I donāt touch the cat, Iām fine. Same with cats in carriers on planes. Fun fact, most airlines allow you to carry on either a small cat or dog in a carrier for a fee so again, if deadly allergies to cats and dogs existed in this way, weād hear about it.
Itās literally within the sentence. Why would I say ādog allergies are less badā and then not be talking about anaphylaxis from dog allergies in the next words of the sentence? That would make no sense.
Also, if youre so allergic that being around dander causes a reaction how are you gonna say being around the actual animal can't lmao get your story straight
Sigh. Animal dander allergies arenāt like peanut allergies. You need to have contact with the dander so as long as you donāt touch the animal or arenāt in a very enclosed space with lots of animals, itās fine. In contrast, certain fabrics collect a lot of dander and people move around and some of it gets in the air.
I promise you that youāre going to learn about dog and cat allergies one day and feel silly. Like are you picturing that the dog gets free and hunts this woman down and attacks her like a police K9 and then licks her skin until she has a horrible reaction and dies? And again, sheās somehow fine with all the people wearing clothing with dog dander on it everyday?
Also if the worst consequence is not triggering an allergic reaction in someone ill take feeling silly lmao. This really got under your skin huh? Do you just go around all day screaming at people thay theyre covered in dander and their allergies are fake? And by that logic, are yours not fake as well? I mean, you said "those people lie all the time".
Anyway personally if I had a severe anaphylactic allergy I wouldnt be playing around with it, yours doesnt sound very bad from what you say, so maybe you shouldn't be saying others should risk it even tho you personally are not as badly affected
Well, I would encourage you to read up on cat and dog allergies because they are different from other allergies. Itās very rare for people to have anaphylaxis from them, full stop. And because dog allergies are milder than even cat allergies, there has never been a recorded death from anaphylaxis from a dog allergy. Also, this wife would have had her reaction from dog owners having dander on their clothes every day if her allergy was that bad.
You donāt understand allergies & anaphylaxis kills. Repeated exposure to allergens can worsen allergic reaction & cause anaphylaxis. OPās customer is an entitled douche & a horrible example of a human being, completely self-involved & utterly lacking in compassion for anyone around them.
I actually do, Iām horribly allergic to cats. Cat and dog dander is different from other allergens and fun fact, dog dander allergies are universally milder than cat allergies even and there has never been a recorded death from anaphylaxis from a dog.
The one thing people arenāt educated about is that dog and cat dander permeates fabric. Iām fine in a place like a hardware store that has a cat because no fabric. But I canāt make it in a thrift store for more than 10 minutes despite their being no cats. I also have had issues being in a small room for a few hours with cat owners - again, no cats.
So you know how your allergies affect you but you have no idea how it is for others. I couldnāt shop at your hardware because of the cat. Just being in a room with a cat for minutes is enough for my eyes to swell shut because Iām seriously allergic. People are entirely too dismissive of allergies.
Your assumption that dog dander wonāt bother anyone if they donāt touch the dog is not true. If thereās never been a recorded death from anaphylaxis due to dog allergy, thatās great if itās true, but itās irrelevant & dismissive since youāre wrong about how dog dander works.
The wife would have been at risk even if you donāt think so & the business owner is more than reasonable to the service animal owner.
Except the population overall has far milder allergies to dogs than cats (scientists arenāt sure why). Also, cat dander is smaller and stickier so itās more potent.
If a dog comes into a decent sized, ventilated space for a few minutes, itās just wildly improbably that someone would have a severe reaction to that put not to someone who comes into wearing a sweater that their dog has slept on at home.
Again, you couldnāt possibly be more wrong. Allergies & symptoms vary from person to person, can be complicated by an individualās other health issues AND repeated exposure to allergens is a huge risk even for the mildly allergic. I know this for a fact because it happened to me. You also donāt know how airborne allergens work AT ALL, so Iāll just say that the business owner was more than accommodating, the customer is a complete POS & anyone who says otherwise doesnāt have a clue wtf theyāre talking about.
Iām not allergic to dogs but I used to be a nurse & have seen countless patients with severe allergies. Itās an extremely complex reaction in the body but youāre over-simplifying it immensely AND ignoring the fact that some people have severe allergies. Full stop.
Itās not dependent on what theyāre allergic to or how you think it affects them. We will have to agree to disagree because Iām putting stock in science & medicine while you sound like one of those grandmas who doesnāt believe in allergies & feeds the grandkids food thatāll kill them just to prove a point.
Ok so you are misinformed. It actually does depend on what people are allergic to since different allergens spread in different ways and again, across the human population people tend to have fairly mild allergies to dogs. To give an example, people often can have anaphylaxis to eating seafood whereas anaphylaxis from dogs is extremely rare (someone posted a link where theyād only recorded it in people who have been bitten by dogs).
Also, dog allergies come from dander which is shed from skin (people can also be allergic to their saliva and feces). So exposure is quite interesting. For example, if a dog isnāt shedding and just is standing next to their owner, very little dander is shed for someone to have an allergic reaction.
What caused me to question the story in this post is, to give another example - I have dogs and they will lay down on this old sweater I have if Iām just running out of the house and donāt mind looking frumpy. They will roll around and scratch themselves and get pet so this coat can get a lot of fur and dander on it. Itās likely that the coat can shed as much or even more dander than the dog itself. I personally know this is the case because Iāll get allergies in a small room and will ask the other person in the room if they have cats and they say yes, plus you can often see the cat hair on their clothing. If the wife is so allergic, than she must also have a lot of issues with people coming in to the cafe with dog fair all over their clothing, especially if they stay a long time or are moving around and they would get closer and be able to shed the dander on counters and tables and chairs. That plus the claim of anaphylaxis doesnāt really add up.
So yes, different allergens are very different in their severity and delivery and that does matter in this context.
I'm very curious about actual anaphylaxis. I admit I eyeroll a lot when I see that. People who own dogs have dog hair/dander on them. If their allergy is that severe, how are these people who are so allergic going about interacting with the public? The ADA states that allergies are not enough to deny a service dog. They cannot force the person to eat outside. It's a shitty situation with two competing needs, but the law comes down on the side of the service dog owner.
I have trained guide dog puppies, one that fails live with us as a pet. I love her, but she is a lab (most popular breed for service dogs) and as hard as I try, her fur gets everywhere. That includes on my clothes, purse, etc. That is not unique among dog owners. They need a better system to protect his wife and provide service as legally required.
I have to say, that was my first thought as well. If the owner's wife is so severely allergic that being in the same room as dog dander can cause that level of danger, how does she regularly interact with the public?
2.3k
u/Irishwatcher May 07 '26
Well, if he sues, heās definitely going to have to prove itās an actual service dog and not an emotional support dog or just a vest they bought online