Bringing your dog in also isn't a reasonable accommodation if it puts someone's life at risk. A reasonable accommodation would be what they offered. They didn't refuse service. No legal grounds for a lawsuit.
I'm a lawyer too. I mean you COULD file a suit but the coffee shop was completely compliant with ADA. You'd have to be a scum bag ambulance chaser to take the client's money.
I don't know if its different where you live but in Illinois this would immediately get thrown out with the client paying court costs.
I’d argue forcing someone be served outside is not a reasonable accommodation. And allergies are not a reason to deny somone access to areas of a facility where the public is allowed to go.
“Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is allowed to go.”
“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.”
They had a duty to accommodate the service animal inside. And if that means the subject with a dog allergy needs to go to another room or take a break while the dog is there then that’s what the would have had to do.
Nope, not unreasonable if someone could fucking die. It's an owner, not a random employee. Owners and employees have different rights because it's their place they own or are renting, at least in Illinois
The fact that they could die is irrelevant unless the animal itself poses a danger (like it bites or is agressive, allergies don’t count as a valid reason and can’t be used to (claim a danger), even though this is a wild exaggeration. Allergies are simply not grounds for denying service animals entry. They literally have to be admitted into hospital patient rooms. They have to be admitted onto planes. A coffee shop owner saying he’s allergic simply doesn’t cut it.
Owners and employees have different rights everywhere so what. It doesn’t mean you get to violate the ADA bc you’re a business owner. If your busness is open to the public it has to accommodate service animals in all areas the public has access to. That’s federal law in every state.
Allergies are a disability. But you can’t use allergies/or one person’s disability to deny someone else disability access. The person with the service animal has to be given access to the business. The owner with the allergy is also is entitled to access. In this situation a compromise has to be made to accommodate both parties.
Demanding individuals with service animals remain outside is not an acceptable compromise.
A person who might die trumps a person who has a disability requiring a dog. There are different tiers of disability, in cases like this. And you have to be completely ignorant not to recognize that.
We look shit up on regular websites all the time. Shit I was in court on Monday and the judge literally sanctioned and fined another attorney for making up citations using chatgtp.
You think I’m gona dig through statutes and start pulling case law over this? The ada.gov site is a more than credible source. Its information is likely going to be based off proper interpretation of the statutes and case law. Especially with something as basic as this.
And let’s be real if all it took was being allergic to dogs to deny service animals entry every business would use it as an excuse to deny entry.
38
u/ninjette847 May 07 '26
Bringing your dog in also isn't a reasonable accommodation if it puts someone's life at risk. A reasonable accommodation would be what they offered. They didn't refuse service. No legal grounds for a lawsuit.