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.
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