A county court bailiff who wanted to bring her miniature Yorkshire terrier with her to work as an emotional support animal has had her complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disability dismissed by the employment tribunal.
Allegations of harassment related to disability were also not well-founded and dismissed.
Ms D Cullingford, as she is referred to in the tribunal judgment, requested ‘reasonable adjustments’ to enable her to bring her miniature Yorkshire terrier Bella in her car with her when she was out making visits to homes as part of her work. She said having the dog with her ‘enabled her to work more effectively and could only be a benefit to her mental health and wellbeing and her ability to work at her fullest capacity’. Her request was refused.
The judgment said: ‘She asserted that her dog was acting as an emotional support animal to help her manage her anxiety’.
Employment judge Eeley, in written reasons, acknowledged Cullingford’s ‘profoundly difficult circumstances’ who ‘managed to overcome three successive diagnoses of cancer’. She added: ‘It was clearly a very difficult and distressing time for the claimant and we were concerned that in some parts the evidence presented by the respondent perhaps did not evidence the kind of care and compassion that the tribunal might have expected to see in a case of this sort.’
Dismissing the claims, the judge said the provision criterion or practice (PCP) relied upon by Cullingford was ‘clearly set out in the list of issues but was not established by the evidence that was before the tribunal’.
‘The PCP in this case was not the blanket refusal of permission for dogs in bailiffs’ cars. Rather, it was the refusal of dogs, other than assistance dogs, in bailiffs’ cars,’ the judge said.
‘Given that that is not the way that the case has been put or presented, we have to conclude that this provision, criterion or practice was not proven as pleaded and asserted by the claimant. That PCP does not, therefore, assist her in establishing a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.’
The judgment said Cullingford did not explain how her symptoms relating to anxiety worsened because of the confrontational elements of her job.
It added: ‘No report was made to the respondent of anxiety or difficulties in doing the job until after the issue with the dog arose. This would tend to suggest that it was not the confrontational elements of the job (the relevant PCP) which were the problem but the absence of the dog (which is not the relevant PCP). That undermines the causal link that the tribunal would need to find.’
Dismissing the claim, the judge said: ‘There was nothing to "flag up" to the respondent that, aside from the issue of having Bella in the car, the job itself was exacerbating the claimant’s anxiety. Given that lack of actual or constructive knowledge, the reasonable adjustments claim would have to fail for that reason also.’
