A tribunal has ruled against a county court bailiff who brought her miniature Yorkshire Terrier to work with her, saying that it was her ‘emotional support dog.’ The bailiff lost her claim for disability discrimination against the Ministry of Justice.
Ms Cullingford Brought Bella to work with her when she enforced court orders. She would ‘talk it through’ with the pooch when she felt anxious.
Other bailiffs noticed in February 2022 that the dog was in Ms Cullingfords car and she was told to stop bringing the dog to work with her as it was not a guide dog.
The tribunal in Manchester learned that Ms Cullingford acquired her dog in 2020, and it provided companionship for her as she lived alone. This was particularly helpful during the Covid pandemic lockdowns.
Ms Cullingford was diagnosed with cancer for the third time in 2021 and underwent surgery. Upon returning to work she was able to carry out her clerking duties from home, although she returned to the Leeds office in January 2022.
The tribunal learned that when she returned to work Ms Cullingford was the only bailiff who was required to move desks, and that this was followed by several run-ins with managers and colleagues.
After the dog was seen in the car, Ms Cullingford was told that she could not bring her into work. Mr Shakeel, her line manager said that he had safety concerns in that the dog could potentially jump out of the car.
Ms Cullingford informed him that her dog was always securely strapped in, although Mr Shakeel felt it was unprofessional for the dog to be at work. Ms Cullignford replied that in her opinion it was unprofessional for him to wear a baseball cap at work.
Mr Shakeel informed her that he would be referring the matter to senior management and she was not to bring Bella into work with her. HR also advised at the time that they were seeking advice on the issue.
Ms Cullingford was informed by HR that she would need to make other arrangements for her dog while she was on her routes or at work, because she did not have a legal right to bring the dog to work. They were also concerned for the safety of the dog.
The tribunal were shown emails of discussions about Ms Cullingfords anxiety and recommendations that disciplining her may not be the best action to take.
Although Ms Cullingford attended several consultations with a mental health resource Healthy Minds, she admitted to her manager that she felt her anxiety was worsening.
She then consulted with her department’s Disability Forum, which advised that there was a difference between a registered assistance dog such as a guide dog and an emotional support dog. It offered guidance on the considerations and training needed to bring a therapy dog into work.
The tribunal judgement said that “this would have been a very good starting place for addressing the issue”, but this email was not shared with decision-makers.
In March, Cullingford obtained a letter from her GP supporting her application for the dog to be registered as an emotional support animal. She did not follow up on registering the dog, however, as she was unsure whether this would make a difference to her employer’s decision.
HR and occupational health teams looked into whether the dog’s presence at work could be part of a workplace adjustment for Cullingford’s anxiety, but the final decision, taken in April 2023, was that HM Courts and Tribunals Service was rejecting her request.
She challenged the decision, noting that she was experiencing anxiety and distress due to her cancer diagnosis and that she had not insisted the dog come into the office, only her car.
Cullingford commenced early conciliation with Acas and handed in her resignation.
In rejecting her claim for disability discrimination, the tribunal said that HMCTS had “legitimate concerns” in terms of confidentiality, security of her vehicle, health and safety, risk of the dog escaping and its interactions with the public.
For it to be considered a reasonable adjustment to allow her to have the dog with her, the adjustment would have to alleviate her disadvantage. The view of the tribunal was that this was not the case, so her reasonable adjustments claim also failed.
A further claim of harassment related to her disability was dismissed.
© 2024 EJOBBOARD LTD. All Rights Reserved.