Tag: WAC 162-22

by Gregory Williams, Esq. | Under Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) Employment–Handicapped Persons Regulations, what are the rules concerning dog guides and service animals? Here’s my point of view (NOTE: please read our DISCLAIMER before proceeding).

THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY (RCW)

RCW 49.60.120(3) is the statutory authority enabling the WSHRC to adopt rules concerning the dog guides and service animals. See WAC 162-22-100, WA State Legislature Website (bottom of page body). The statute declares that the WSHRC has “the function[], power[], and dut[y] … [t]o adopt, amend, and rescind suitable rules to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and the policies and practices of the commission in connection therewith.” RCW 49.60.120(3) (hyperlinks added).

DOG GUIDES & SERVICE ANIMALS

WAC 162-22-100 is the relevant regulation, and it addresses dog guides and service animals as follows:

(1) General rule. It is an unfair practice for an employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to request that a trained dog guide or service animal be removed from the workplace, unless that employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person can show that the presence, behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal constitutes an unreasonable risk to property or other persons.

It is an unfair practice to remove a trained dog guide or service animal from the entire workplace because the animal presents a risk of injury or harm when in part of the workplace.

(2) Assessing risk of injury or harm.

(a) Risk to property or other persons must be immediate or reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances, not remote or speculative. Risk to persons may be given more weight than risk to property. Risk of severe injury or harm may be given more weight than risk of slight injury or harm. For example, a principal excludes a teacher’s dog guide because; “A neighborhood dog bit one of our kids last year, so I don’t allow any dogs at school.” This is not “reasonably foreseeable risk” justifying removal of the dog guide.

(b) Annoyance on the part of staff or other customers of the workplace at the presence of the dog guide or service animal is not an unreasonable “risk to property or other persons” justifying the removal of the dog guide or service animal.

(c) Risk of injury or harm to the dog guide or service animal is not a reason for an employer to remove or exclude the animal. The decision whether to bring the animal to the worksite under such conditions most properly rests with the person with a disability using the dog guide or service animal.

(3) Reasonable accommodation. When risk justifies the removal of a dog guide or service animal from the workplace, efforts must be made to reasonably accommodate the person with the disability.

(4) Liability. Law other than the law against discrimination governs liability for injury or harm. Generally, a person with a disability using a dog guide or service animal is responsible for the animal and may be held liable for the behavior and actions of the animal.

WAC 162-22-100 (emphasis added) (hyperlinks added).

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced Washington State Employment Discrimination Attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case. Please note: the information contained in this article is not offered as legal advice and will not form an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, P.S., Inc.; Williams Law Group, PS; or the author of this article. Please see our DISCLAIMER.

–gw