Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Mich.: Firefighter with PTSD fails to show firehouse dog was reasonable accommodation, (May 2, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The evidence showed that the firefighter was using less sick time than before the denial of his request for a service animal and had consistently increased his amount of overtime.

Granting summary judgment against the ADA failure to accommodate claim asserted by a firefighter with PTSD who sought to bring his dog with him to the fire station, a federal district court in Michigan determined that he could perform his duties at the fire station without a service animal. A clinical psychologist had recommended that the firefighter have access to an emotional support animal, not a service animal, and such animals are not covered under the ADA. Further, the psychologist did not conclude that the firefighter could not perform his duties without the presence of his dog, and the record indicated that the firefighter had no issues carrying out the functions of his job in the absence of his dog (Fisher v. City of Lansing, No. 1:23-cv-1173 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2025)).

The firefighter began working for the Lansing Fire Department in 2004. He began suffering from PTSD around 2010, which primarily affected his work at the fire station.

Dog request. In March 2020, the firefighter requested that he be allowed to bring his dog, Chet, to work. After an initial conversation with his battalion chief, he sent the chief a text stating that the “plan is for 3 to 6 months with the emotional support animal.” The chief approved the request but did not involve any other higher-ups lest the city administration become aware of the arrangement.

Transferred shifts. The firefighter began bringing his dog to the fire station in March and continued to do so for about four months. At some point, he transferred shifts, and the city learned of the dog in July after one of his new coworkers told the city about it. The city issued a notice to all fire personnel stating that employees were prohibited from bringing pets of any kind to work, although service animals may be allowed with prior HR approval.

Accommodation request. In mid-August, the firefighter submitted a request for a service animal. He also submitted a letter from a licensed clinical psychologist who concluded that the firefighter needed an emotional support animal during work hours at the fire station. The request was denied. Subsequently, the firefighter filed this lawsuit alleging failure to accommodate.

Ability to respond. First, the city argued that a service dog interfered with an essential requirement of the firefighter’s job—the need to respond to calls as quickly as possible. As the engineer, the firefighter was responsible for driving a fire apparatus on calls, and the group could not leave until he was ready. When a call came in, the dog would have to be crated before the firefighter could leave the station. The firefighter demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the dog interfered with his ability to respond quickly to calls.

According to the firefighter, the additional time needed to crate the dog was “negligible.” He had less gear to put on than his coworkers and typically had to wait for others to get ready before he could leave. He also testified that there was never a time when he was the last one on the apparatus and the group was waiting for him.

Control. Next, the city contended that the request for a service animal was inconsistent with ADA regulations because there would be times during a shift when the dog was not with the firefighter and was not under his control. The court was not moved.

Although the relevant provision in the Code of Federal Regulations requires control of a service animal, the courts have not considered, in any meaningful way, the proper interpretation of the word “control” in these regulations.

“While the dog would be unattended for the duration of the call, Defendant has not even suggested why placing the service dog in a crate or kennel would preclude the conclusion that the service animal was kept under control,” said the court.

Essential functions. Finally, the city argued that the firefighter could not show that he needed a service animal to enable him to perform the essential functions of his job. Here, the court agreed.

The firefighter did not allege that his PTSD interfered with his ability to drive a fire apparatus or with his other duties. He only stated that his PTSD caused problems for him at the station during the time between calls. When asked about his ability to perform his duties, he testified that he “wouldn’t say completely unable to perform. It was just impacted, it wasn’t optimal.”

Necessary accommodation? In light of this testimony, the firefighter needed to point to evidence that his requested accommodations were necessary to accommodate his PTSD. The court found that he had failed to do so.

As previously noted, the evidence did not establish that the requested accommodation was a necessity for the firefighter to perform the essential functions of his job. Further, the letter from his psychologist recommended that the firefighter be allowed an emotional support animal, not a service animal, based on the dog’s calming effect. Such a conclusion could not support a claim under the ADA, explained the court, as the ADA only authorizes the use of service animals, not emotional support animals.

In addition, other evidence supported an inference that the firefighter could perform his fire station duties without a service animal. He had received a positive performance review following the denial of his request, had used less sick time than he was using before his request was denied, and had consistently increased the amount of overtime he worked. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against his failure to accommodate claim.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-1173.

Judge: Maloney, P.

Attorneys: Scott Preston Batey (Law Offices of Scott Preston Batey) for Aaron Fisher. Amanda Kathryn O'Boyle, Office of the City Attorney, for City of Lansing.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PublicEmployees MichiganNews