A female bailiff sued for discrimination after bosses stopped her taking her miniature Yorkshire terrier out on jobs with her as an emotional support dog.
Deborah Cullingford took her pet Bella, who was a reassuring and calming presence, with her to visit peoples homes because she found her line of work so stressful, an employment tribunal heard.
She claimed she would talk it through with the pet if she had a particularly bad visit, adding at one point in the hearing that Bella was the reason she did not end her life when she felt depressed and could barely face the day.
However, after colleagues spotted the terrier in her car, Ms Cullingford was told that as Bella wasnt a guide dog, they couldnt allow her to continue taking her into work.
Ms Cullingford, who had recovered from three bouts of cancer and suffered from anxiety as a result, eventually quit and accused her employers of disability discrimination by failing to make reasonable adjustments.
Deborah Cullingford took her pet Bella, who was a reassuring and calming presence, with her to visit peoples homes because she found her line of work so stressful (stock)
She claimed she would talk it through with the pet if she had a particularly bad visit, adding at one point in the hearing that Bella was the reason she did not end her life when she felt depressed and could barely face the day. Pictured: The tribunal
However, she has now lost her discrimination case after a judge ruled bosses had legitimate concerns about allowing a dog in the workplace.
The Manchester hearing was told she started work as a County Court Bailiff in Leeds in December 2010, before getting her new dog in September 2020.
The hearing was told Ms Cullingford lived alone and Bella provided companionship and support before becoming her emotional support animal to help manage her anxiety.
Sadly, in February 2021, she received her third diagnosis of cancer and was off work from May 2021 until July 2021.
Having originally worked from home in her return, by January 2022 she had gone back to full bailiff duties.
The tribunal heard that as a bailiff, Ms Cullingfords work involved stressful and tense jobs.
However, in February 2022 Bella was spotted in her vehicle by one of her colleagues and she was told she couldnt bring her dog into work.
The hearing was told bosses took advice about the difference between a registered assistance dog - like guide dogs and other service dogs - and an emotional support dog and examined the legal recognition status of the two categories of animal under the Equality Act.
In a mental health consultation, Ms Cullingford told how shed been taking her dog to work, which she found reassuring and calming before her boss told her she couldnt.
It was heard how she talked it through with Bella if she had had a bad visit and was even able to take it for a walk when her anxiety got particularly bad.
In a letter asking to register it as an emotional support dog, she said: My dog enables me to work more effectively and focus more easily. She helps me with my anxiety and is able to help me feel more calm and relaxed.
In February 2022 Bella was spotted in her vehicle by one of her colleagues and she was told she couldnt bring her dog into work (stock)
I would like to be able to take my dog in the car with me when going between calls, my job is quite lonely and having my dog as support keeps my mind focused and enables me to manage my stress much better.
However, in April 2022, it was confirmed she would not be allowed to bring Bella to work.
She was told: If your request was for an assistance dog we would of course put the necessary process in place to allow them into the workplace.
However emotional support dogs and therapy dogs are not protected in law and it is down to each organisation to decide.
Ms Cullingford appealed the decision, accompanied by a letter from her GP and a statement which said she would pour out her feelings to her dog.
By April 2023 she was unable to continue at work and resigned.
However, Employment Judge Rebecca Eeley dismissed her claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments to her disability by allowing her to bring Bella to work.
She said: It was clearly a very difficult and distressing time for Ms Cullingford and we were concerned that in some parts the evidence presented by [Secretary of State for Justice] perhaps did not evidence the kind of care and compassion that the Tribunal might have expected to see in a case of this sort
The only adjustment contended for was allowing [Ms Cullingford] to bring her dog with her in the car during the working day.
In this case the difficulty was that she went to work and did all aspects of her job and even when she was taking her dog with her (i.e. before it was discovered) she did not take the dog with her on the days when the most stressful or tense jobs were to be undertaken (e.g. evictions on Thursdays).
It is difficult to say, therefore, that an adjustment to alleviate the anxiety would have involved bringing the dog with her.
Added to which, although it may have been possible to accommodate the dog coming with her in the car, there are other issues that [bosses] had to consider.
Whilst (all other things being equal) these might not have been sufficient to outweigh any requirement to make the adjustment, [bosses] did have legitimate concerns to look at in terms of confidentiality, security of the vehicle, health and safety, risk of escape or interaction with the public and the like.
The proposed adjustment would not have a prospect of alleviating the disadvantage resulting from the [provision] (if it had been established) and therefore, unfortunately, the reasonable adjustments claim must fail.
She also lost a harassment claim regarding colleagues talking about bringing dogs to work, which she claimed were mocking her.