The appellant filed a formal complaint alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability (hearing impairment) when the agency denied her request to have a hearing ear dog come with her to work, and remain at her worksite. An EEOC AJ issued a recommended decision finding discrimination after concluding that the agency was obligated to reasonably accommodate the appellant by allowing her to use the hearing ear dog at work because it would alert her in the event of an emergency.
The agency rejected the AJ's recommendation and issued a final decision finding no discrimination. It determined that the hearing ear dog was not necessary to the appellant's performance of her job and stated that it had implemented a system to ensure that other employees would assist the appellant in case of an emergency building evacuation of which the appellant was unaware due to her hearing disability. The agency also argued that allowing the dog in the facility would be an undue hardship because of space concerns and the need to train other employees about the appellant's use the dog. The Commission reversed the agency's decision on appeal. It first found that the appellant was a qualified individual with a disability who had worked for the agency for approximately 20 years. It then found that the appellant articulated a nexus between the requested accommodation and her employment when she stated that her view of emergency warning lights was blocked and some areas of her facility do not have such lights. She further noted that the dog would allow her to travel to and from work with greater safety. Finally, the Commission found that the agency improperly rejected the appellant's request out of hand when the evidence established that, in fact, allowing the dog to accompany the appellant would not create an undue hardship. Noting that another employee failed to assist the appellant at least once during an emergency drill, the Commission ordered the agency to allow the appellant to bring her hearing ear dog to work. It also ordered the agency to provide appropriate training about the dog to other agency employees.
Kathleen Andolino v. Runyon, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, 96 FEOR 3162 (EEOC Comm. 05/09/96)