“Ex-Worker Sues City Over Service Dog For Paprika Allergy”

by Walter Olson on April 19, 2012

“A former city worker is suing Indianapolis after she claims the city failed to accommodate the service dog she needs due to her severe allergy to paprika.” The city had already removed certain foods from its vending machines but declined to accept a service dog as reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because a co-worker was allergic to dogs. [WRTV]

{ 1 trackback }

Saturday Links | The Agitator
04.28.12 at 11:46 am

{ 7 comments }

1 Scott Jacobs 04.19.12 at 4:21 am

Were I this gal, I would have kept my mouth shut…

I mean, the only way the business justified declining “to accept a service dog as reasonable accommodation” is if they valued the other person more as an employee.

I wouldn’t announce that.

2 boblipton 04.19.12 at 6:56 am

A co-worker whose other disability requires the constant presence of paprika.

Bob

3 captnhal 04.19.12 at 7:40 am

Indianapolis is guaranteed to lose either way on the paprika allergy vs. dog allergy suit.

Lawyers are guaranteed to win either way on the paprika allergy vs. dog allergy suit.

4 Jamie R 04.19.12 at 8:10 am

Maybe the city shouldn’t have told her about the dog, told her she could have the dog, and waited for her to buy the dog for $10,000 before telling her she couldn’t have the dog. If the facts as reported in the story are true, it’s almost like the Indianapolis Department of Code Enforcement was trying to get sued.

5 wfjag 04.19.12 at 1:40 pm

@boblipton:
“A co-worker whose other disability requires the constant presence of paprika.”

Bob, are you saying after the end of Seinfeld, that the Soup Nazi moved to Indianapolis?

6 LisaMarie 04.19.12 at 7:57 pm

I wonder two things:
Will they lose because they told her a dog was ok and then backpedaled?
A lot of people are scoffing at the allergy idea. How on earth would this employer have handled a blind person with a service dog? Fired them?

7 Jesse Spurway 04.20.12 at 1:23 pm

an employer needs to pre-screen potential employees for allergies?
this whole thing is a catch-22.
i would recommend what happened at our office. instead of telling a woman she was using enough “perfume” to kill a herd of elephants, and causing another lady breathing problems, they decided to install air cleaners. Then some folks complained that the constant noise of the air cleaners impeded their ability to do their work.
Solution, the lady with the breathing problems was moved into a private office (with one of the air cleaners) even though her ranking did not rate a private office.
the moral is – everyone was happy when the perfumed lady got another job on another floor.

Comments on this entry are closed.