Jury Awards Pharmacist Over $100,000 in ADA Service Dog Case

A jury has recently awarded a pharmacist $134,000 in damages after finding that her employer, a regional medical center, discriminated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The pharmacist had type 1 diabetes, which was diagnosed when she was 14 months of age. When she was in pharmacy school, between 2014 and 2018, she was also diagnosed with hypoglycemic unawareness, meaning she was unaware of her blood glucose levels dropping dangerously low. After this diagnosis, she requested a service animal to assist her in managing her diabetes, and she was put on a waiting list.

She began working as a pharmacist for the defendant medical center in 2019 and informed her supervisor about her diabetes. The hospital granted her an informal accommodation to have food and drink at her desk while she was working alone. In 2020, the pharmacist was told a service dog was available. She sent the hospital a letter from her physician and requested the hospital allow her to bring the dog into the hospital pharmacy (but not into the pharmacy’s anteroom or clean room).

The hospital’s initial response was that concerns of sterility prevented them from allowing a service dog. From June of 2020 through mid-August 2020, the hospital attempted to find a solution that would not involve having a dog in the pharmacy, as they believed it would cause an issue with the state Board of Pharmacy. Instead, the hospital offered the pharmacist positions in other areas of the hospital or suggested other ways she could monitor her blood glucose (such as continuous monitoring).

The pharmacist sued the health center, alleging that she was being discriminated against. She alleged she had a disability and had requested an accommodation to be able to work and the hospital had failed to reasonably accommodate her. The hospital moved to dismiss the case, claiming it had offered the pharmacist other comparable positions where the service dog wouldn’t be an issue, and having the dog in the pharmacy created a potential sterility problem. The judge refused to dismiss the case and instead held there were issues of material fact that needed to be heard by a jury.

The case went to trial. Ultimately, the jury faulted the hospital for not allowing the service dog in the pharmacy and awarded the pharmacist $134,000. Note that by the time the trial occurred, the pharmacist had found a position in another hospital pharmacy which did allow her service dog to accompany her to work.