Title I of the ADA requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate qualified individuals with a disability if they can do so without causing an undue hardship on the business (see Practice Note, Disability Accommodation Under the ADA: Employers Covered Under the ADA). A reasonable accommodation is any change in the work environment or in the way things are customarily done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)). An undue hardship is a significant difficulty or expense, considering various factors, including:

(29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p).)

The first step in addressing an accommodation request requires an employer to determine whether:

(See Practice Note, Disability Accommodation Under the ADA: Overview of Accommodation Under the ADA.)

To be a qualified individual under the ADA, an individual must:

(29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).)

For more on these threshold requirements, see Practice Note, Disability Accommodation Under the ADA:

If these requirements are met, the employer must engage in the interactive process. The interactive process is an informal practice in which the employee and the employer determine the precise limitations created by the disability and how best to respond to the need for accommodation (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). The employee must provide the employer with enough information about the disability to determine whether a reasonable accommodation exists. The employer must then explore potential accommodations that meet the employee's needs, and provide the employee with an appropriate reasonable accommodation, but need not necessarily grant the employee's specific accommodation request if another reasonable alternative is available. Both the employer and the employee must participate in the interactive process in good faith.

For more information on addressing accommodation requests generally, see Practice Notes, Disability Accommodation Under the ADA: Overview of Accommodation Under the ADA and Interactive Process Under the ADA: Steps for Engaging in the Interactive Process.

Most employees of the US government are covered under Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act) (29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794a). The protections under the Rehab Act are mostly the same as the protections under the ADA (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(b)). For more on the Rehab Act, see Practice Note, Discrimination Under the Rehab Act: Basics.

Employers should be aware that state or local law may have a broader definition of disability or provide more generous employee protections than under the ADA (see, for example, ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL Disability Comparison Chart (NY) and Anti-Discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

Under USERRA, employees are entitled to take protected leave from employment to engage in military service, subject to certain conditions. Employers generally are required to reemploy service members on their return from military service, subject to certain conditions. For more on service members' rights under USERRA generally, see Practice Notes, Military Leave Law and Military Service Discrimination Under USERRA.

Employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate an employee's disabilities that were incurred or aggravated during military service, and help returning employees become qualified to perform the essential duties of their reemployment position (20 C.F.R. §§ 1002.225, 1002.226). Disability under USERRA is not specifically defined, therefore, includes any disabling condition incurred in or aggravated during an employee's period of military service preceding reemployment, regardless of whether the condition substantially limits a major life activity (as is required under the ADA) (38 U.S.C. § 4313(a)(3)). An employer's obligation to reasonably accommodate a returning employee under USERRA therefore may be broader than its obligations under the ADA.

Similar to the ADA, an employer may be required to grant an employee's request to bring a service animal to the workplace as a reasonable accommodation under USERRA unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation creates an undue hardship (38 U.S.C. § 4303(10)). Undue hardship under USERRA is an action requiring significant difficulty or expense considered in light of:

(38 U.S.C. § 4303(16).)

Service animals are not specifically addressed in Title I of the ADA. However, service animals are defined in the regulations pertaining to Titles II and III of the ADA, which prohibit disability discrimination by public entities and in public accommodations, respectively. For the purposes of Titles II and III, a service animal is defined as "any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability" (28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 36.104). Other animals do not fall within this definition (see, for example, Rose v. Springfield-Greene Cnty. Health Dept., 668 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1214 (W.D. Mo. 2009) (plaintiff's monkey that provided comfort was not a service animal under the ADA)). However, under Department of Justice (DOJ) rulemaking, public entities covered by Title II and III of the ADA may be required to accommodate miniature horses if they meet certain requirements (28 C.F.R. §§ 35.136(i), 36.302(c)(9)).

The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability. Service animal tasks do not include:

(28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 36.104; see Animals in the Workplace as a Reasonable Accommodation.)

Some animals are colloquially described as emotional support animals, comfort animals, or therapy animals. These animals may provide therapeutic or companionship benefits to individuals, but they generally are not trained to perform any specific task and therefore do not fall within the ADA's definition of service animal. However, the ADA recognizes the distinction between an emotional support animal and a psychiatric service animal that is trained, for example, to detect if its owner is about to have an anxiety attack and take specific action to avoid the attack or lessen its impact (see DOJ Civil Rights Division: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Service Animals and the ADA).

Though not directed at employers, the Department of Transportation issued a Final Rule in 2020 which expressly excludes emotional support animals from the definition of service animals (85 Fed. Reg. 79742 (Dec. 10, 2020)). As a result, US airlines no longer are required to accept emotional support animals for in-cabin air travel.

There is no universal accreditation program to have an animal certified or licensed as a service, emotional support, comfort, or therapy animal. Certain websites provide vests, certificates, identification cards, and other documents without requiring that the animal meet any minimum standards of behavior. For example, an employee could get a certificate indicating that a dog is a service dog without providing any proof that the dog is individually trained to do anything.

Importantly, these terms are not legally significant under Title I of the ADA, which applies to private employers, or under Sections 501 or 505 of the Rehab Act, which apply to federal government employers. An employer's obligation to offer reasonable accommodations to qualified, disabled employees applies irrespective of the definition of service animal. Whether an animal meets the Title II or III definition of service animal, or is merely an emotional support, comfort, or therapy animal, does not determine whether allowing an animal in the workplace is a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee. Similarly, accommodation requests are not limited to dogs or miniature horses and may extend to other species, such as cats, monkeys, or pigs.

An employer therefore cannot refuse a disabled employee's request to use an animal in the workplace solely because the animal does not meet the ADA's inapplicable definition of a service animal under Title II or III. For example, in EEOC v. CRST Int'l, Inc., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency responsible for enforcing the ADA in the employment context, filed a complaint alleging that an emotional support animal would be a reasonable accommodation for an employee's disability (351 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1167-68 (N.D. Iowa 2018)); see Employer May Be Required to Allow an Animal).

Conversely, if an employee's animal meets the ADA's definition of a service animal, an employer is not automatically obligated to allow the employee to use it in the workplace. The parties must engage in the interactive process to determine whether allowing the animal is a reasonable accommodation that assists a disabled employee in performing an essential job function (see Employer Not Required to Allow an Animal).

If the employer is a place of public accommodation, such as a hotel or restaurant, it generally must allow disabled individuals to use service animals in the facility under Title III of the ADA (with limited exceptions) (28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)). While Title III addresses rights of the general public and not employees specifically, in some circumstances it may be more difficult for employers that operate public accommodations to demonstrate that it is an undue hardship to allow employees to bring service animals to the workplace when they otherwise allow service animals for their disabled patrons.

For more about reasonable accommodations under the ADA generally, see Practice Note, Disability Accommodation Under the ADA: Definition of Reasonable Accommodation and ADA Reasonable Accommodations Chart.

A comprehensive summary of state laws on the issue of service animals as an accommodation is beyond the scope of this Practice Note. However, employers should be aware that the state or states where they operate or employ workers may have more specific statutes or regulations regarding the use of service or emotional support animals in the workplace than their federal counterparts or more broadly define what constitutes a disability.

For example, Maryland regulations provide that waiving a no-pet requirement to allow a disabled employee to use a service animal is an example of a reasonable accommodation (COMAR 14.03.02.05(B)(9)). The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) prohibits discrimination against a disabled person because the person is accompanied by a dog trained to work or perform specific tasks for the person (N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(14)).

California regulations allow an employer to require an employee requesting an assistive animal to provide:

(Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, §§ 11065(a)(2), 11069(e).)

Additionally, the California regulations define an assistive animal as an animal that is necessary as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability, including:

(Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 11065(a)(1).)

California law requires any person or business that sells emotional support animals or emotional support animal identification to provide certain information to the consumer. It also restricts physicians' ability to certify an individual's need for an emotional support animal and provides penalties for violations of these provisions. (Cal. Health & Safety Code, §§ 122317 to 122319.5.)

Washington law prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities for their use of a trained dog guide or service animal and includes these individuals as a protected class in its anti-discrimination laws (RCW 49.60.030(1) and 49.60.180(1), (2)). Washington law also makes it civil infraction for any person to misrepresent an animal as a service animal, with penalties up to $500 for a violation (RCW 7.80.120(1)(a)). The law defines service animal similarly to the ADA and includes "any dog or miniature horse . . .that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability…" (RCW 49.60.040(25). The work or tasks performed must be directly related to the disability. Like the ADA, the Washington law excludes animals required for:

Many other states have laws similarly making it a civil or criminal violation to misrepresent an animal as a service or an emotional support animal, such as Tennessee, Colorado, and Arkansas (T.C.A. § 39-16-304; Colo. Rev. St. Ann § 18-13-107.3; Ark. Code Ann. § 20-14-310).

Common uses for an animal in the workplace include, but are not limited to:

(28 C.F.R. § 36.104; see also DOJ Civil Rights Division: FAQs About Service Animals and the ADA).

Given how the COVID-19 pandemic changed the workplace, including the proliferation of hybrid and remote work arrangements, employers should be prepared to respond to an increase in employee requests to bring an emotional support animals or other pet to the workplace, especially if they have changed the requirements for in-person work. This may be due to circumstances spawned by the pandemic, including:

Employees who did not previously need or request any accommodation may be entitled to one given the changed circumstances arising from the pandemic. Employers should engage in the interactive process regarding these requests like any other accommodation request (see Responding to Accommodation Requests and the Interactive Process).

Employers may initially object to allowing an animal in the workplace. Common concerns that employers must address include:

Despite these concerns, employers must not rush to judgment or immediately assume that the employee's request cannot be accommodated or is unreasonable. Instead, employers should analyze each request on a case-by-case basis (see Responding to Accommodation Requests and the Interactive Process). For other employer considerations when allowing animals in the workplace generally, see Pet-Friendly Workplaces.

Employees do not have to use specific language to request an accommodation under the ADA. Some employers have implemented formal procedures or use written forms for accommodation requests (see, for example, Standard Document, Request for Accommodation Under the ADA Form). Other times an employee may make a verbal or informal request without referencing a specific disability or the ADA.

Employers generally should treat requests to bring a service or emotional support animal to work as a request for an accommodation. Following the accommodation request, the employer must promptly engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine whether allowing the requested animal is a reasonable accommodation or whether another available accommodation meets the employee's need.

As part of the interactive process, an employer should:

Examples of possible accommodations include:

While employees typically raise an initial accommodation request with their supervisor or manager, the employer's human resources (HR) department (if it has one) generally gets involved in and often manages any follow-up, including the interactive process. Some employers outsource accommodation requests to third-party providers, such as a professional employer organization (PEO) (for a sample PEO agreement, see Standard Document, PEO Client Service Agreement). However, the employer remains ultimately responsible for ensuring that accommodation requests are handled in compliance with applicable law.

For additional steps an employer should take during the interactive process that do not specifically relate to an animal accommodation, see Practice Notes, Disability Accommodation Under the ADA: Engaging in the Interactive Process and Interactive Process Under the ADA: Steps for Engaging in the Interactive Process.

For more on the scope and determination of employee coverage under the ADA, see Practice Note, Disability Accommodation Under the ADA. For a chart discussing common accommodation requests, see ADA Reasonable Accommodations Chart. For a sample accommodations policy, see Standard Document, Disability Accommodations Policy. For more on disabilities generally, see Employee Disability Toolkit and State Anti-Discrimination Toolkit.

In July 2023, the EEOC issued updated guidance on addressing visual disabilities in the workplace (EEOC Technical Assistance Guidance: Visual Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (July 26, 2023) (EEOC Guidance)). It includes some specific guidance about the use of service animals for visually impaired employees and applicants, using scenarios to explain what might constitute an ADA violation. Among other things, the EEOC explains that employers may be required to:

Because of the fact-specific nature of the reasonable accommodation issue, employers face an uphill battle on summary judgment motions. Although many summary judgment denials do not ultimately determine whether an employer is required to allow an animal at work, they highlight some issues that often influence the court's analysis.

For example, in Clark v. School District Five, the court concluded that fact issues precluded summary judgment for the employer. The employee's pet Chihuahua initially accompanied the employee to the school for two school years as part of a program that used therapy dogs to assist special needs children. The school announced that it would no longer allow dogs after a location change. The employee told the employer that she needed her dog as a service dog to help with her PTSD, and the employer gave inconsistent reasons why her dog would not be allowed. The employee had trained the dog to:

The employee arguably needed an accommodation because she still experienced anxiety, weight loss, and panic attacks even after being excused from monitoring and attending events with large crowds. The employee's psychiatrist recommended her use of the dog and stated that a weighted vest would be insufficient to address the employee's symptoms. The dog had been in the employee's classroom for two years as a therapy dog, during which time the employee did not suffer a panic attack and there were no reports of the dog causing problems. The court found that there were material issues of fact regarding, among other things, whether:

(Clark, 247 F. Supp. 3d 734, 749-51 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2017) (rejecting magistrate's report and recommendation that summary judgment be granted).)

In EEOC v. CRST Int'l, Inc., the district court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The EEOC filed a complaint on behalf of a truck driver who requested to have an emotional support dog accompany him on his trucking routes as an accommodation for his PTSD. The company claimed it had a no pet policy and ultimately rescinded the employment offer. The court found issues of fact precluded summary judgment for either party on the plaintiff's ADA claims for discrimination, interference, and retaliation. (351 F. Supp. 3d at 1182-82). The EEOC has since reported that it has entered into a negotiated settlement that requires the company to provide the applicant with back pay and compensatory damages totaling $47,500, and other nonmonetary remedies (EEOC Press Release, March 6, 2019).

In Miranda v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., the court found genuine issues of fact about whether:

The employee sought to bring a service dog to work to help with the employee's PTSD. The employee provided an accommodation form completed by a physician. The employer requested a form completed by a medical provider that was treating the employee for PTSD. The employee did not provide another form until after the employer denied his request and did not tell his employer that two physicians denied his request to complete the form. The employer eventually granted the request after the EEOC determined that the employee was denied a reasonable accommodation.

The court could not determine on summary judgment motions whether the initial accommodation form was sufficient to require the employer to follow up with any doctors or discuss alternatives with the employee. The court also could not determine whether the employee contributed to the delay in granting the accommodation by failing to obtain a form filled out by the person treating his PTSD. (Miranda, , at *4-6 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2014).)

In Howard v. City of Sedalia, Missouri, the district court similarly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff pharmacist's failure to accommodate claims. The court found that sufficient fact questions regarding "the entire interactive process between Plaintiff and Defendant, including both parties' participation in the discussions of Plaintiff's request to bring a service dog into the pharmacy" needed to be resolved by a jury. (Howard, (W.D. Mo. Apr. 22, 2022) (on appeal); see also Schroeder v. AT&T Mobility Servs., Inc., 568 F. Supp. 3d 889 (M.D. Tenn. 2021) (finding issues of fact about whether plaintiff's accommodation requests regarding his service animal travelling with him were reasonable and whether the defendant sufficiently engaged in the interactive process).)

In Assaturian v. Hertz Corp., a case applying state law analogous to the ADA, the court denied the employer's summary judgment motion because there were disputes of fact about whether:

The employee claimed that the dog helped control the employee's emotions and anger. Coworkers noted that the dog was kept off-leash and urinated on the workplace floor. The court noted that the employee had ordered a service animal card, but when the employer asked for documentation the employee did not provide the card or other documents from medical providers. Despite the employee's lack of response, the court held that disputes of fact remained about who was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process, for example, whether the employer could have followed up with the employee about documents or inquired about alternative accommodations. (Assaturian, , at *8-10 (D. Haw. Sept. 2, 2014).)

In Baker v. Dupnik, fact issues similarly precluded summary judgment for the employer. An emergency call center employee requested to use a service dog. The employee had multiple surgeries on her left knee and she sought to use a service dog that could brace for her and retrieve items. There was evidence that, before an interactive process meeting, the employer had already decided to deny the request. The employer:

The court found that there were issues of fact about whether the employer's proposed alternatives to "alleviate" the employee's concerns, after denying her request to use a service animal, were sufficient. The employer proposed giving the employee the most ideally located work station, rearranging other necessities around the work station, giving the employee a tool to pick up items, and allowing the employee to use crutches or a cane. The alternatives limited the employee's mobility, rather than allowing her to move around as needed like other employees, and the prolonged use of crutches could have prevented muscle development and caused upper-body pain. (Baker, , at *27-34 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2011).)

On July 1, 2022, the EEOC filed suit against Hobby Lobby, Inc. in federal district court, alleging that Hobby Lobby violated the ADA by denying a cashier's request to use a trained service dog at its store and then firing her because of her disabilities (E.E.O.C. v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02258-TC-TJJ (D. Kan. July 1, 2022) (complaint)). According to the complaint, the employer denied the request because of safety concerns, specifically because "someone could be allergic to the dog, someone might trip over the dog, or the dog might break something." The EEOC also alleged that Hobby Lobby allowed customers to bring service dogs and other dogs into the store. Hobby Lobby agreed to a three-year consent decree requiring Hobby Lobby to:

(See EEOC Press Release, May 9, 2023.)

In Branson v. West, a case arising under the Rehab Act, the court found that a physician's request for a service animal was a reasonable accommodation and that the employer failed to sufficiently engage in the interactive process to arrive at a reasonable accommodation. The employee suffered a spinal cord injury that required her to use a wheelchair. She sought to use a service dog after developing overuse symptoms in her upper body. The dog was trained to pull her manual wheelchair, pick up and retrieve items, and provide a brace for transferring out of the wheelchair. The manual chair provided more independence than a power chair would have, and, because the employee purchased the service dog, the employer did not need to expend any money to accommodate the employee.

The employer engaged in a process that lasted for a year and a half without any progress before denying the employee's request. The employer also sent multiple requests for information, and refused to accept the employee's and their physician's responses. Notably, the court refused to hold as a matter of law, without consideration of the facts, that all disabled employees are permitted to be accompanied by service dogs in federal facilities. (, at *10-15 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 1999).)

In a later opinion, the Branson court granted a permanent injunction allowing the employee to use the service dog at work. The court rejected the employer's testimony that a service dog would present problems with elevators and patients with animal allergies or phobias. The witnesses did not measure the space a service dog and its owner would require, and a dog pulling a wheelchair would not take up more space than two people side-by-side. The hospital also allowed guide dogs for sight-impaired people in the facilities, and could ask patients about allergies and fears during the intake process. The court concluded that a power chair and a full-time assistant were inadequate alternatives to an injunction allowing the use of the service dog. (Branson v. West, , at *11-13 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 1999).)

In Moore v. Pet Supermarket, Inc., a case applying state law analogous to the ADA, the court concluded that the employer fully accommodated the employee's claimed need for a seizure alert service dog, even though the employee did not inform the employer of the need for the dog before beginning employment. The employer:

The employee told the supervisor that they did not need any additional accommodations. The court also noted that, even if the employer subsequently discriminated against the employee because of their disability, it fully accommodated the employee and engaged in the interactive process. (, at *6-8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2014).)

In Bonnette v. Shinseki, another case arising under the Rehab Act, the court concluded that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reasonably accommodated a blind employee's need for a service dog. The VA:

The employee's supervisor once requested that the employee "take the dog further away from the building to a highly trafficked area to allow the dog to relieve itself." The court characterized this as "a single incident of insensitivity," and held that the numerous other steps were adequate accommodations. (907 F. Supp. 2d 54, 79 (D.D.C. 2012).)

In Meyer v. City of Chehalis, a federal district court considered the novel question of whether the court could order "inspection" of the plaintiff's current service animal. While the court concluded that it had the authority to do so under FRCP 34(a) (as an inspection of a "tangible thing"), it declined to do so in this case because the inspection was not "relevant and proportional to the needs of the case." The plaintiff's current service animal was not the same one used at the time the employer denied the plaintiff's accommodation request. The relevant inquiry was whether allowing the animal would have posed an undue hardship on the employer and examining the plaintiff's current dog was irrelevant to answering that question. (Meyer, , at *2-3 (W.D. Wash. June 23, 2023).)

While not directly addressing requests to bring a service animal as an accommodation, several other cases are instructive about issues that may arise when animals come to work.

For example, an employer may be required to modify a workplace to ensure a service animal can perform tasks for the employee. One court required an employer to install nonskid floor coverings in a workplace with slippery floors that made it difficult for a service animal to walk. The court reasoned that the accommodation was for the employee, not for the service animal, much like an employer's need to install a ramp or widen a door. (McDonald v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 214 P.3d 749, 761 (Mont. 2009).)

An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's fear of animals where doing so requires the employer to violate other state and federal laws. For example, in Ahmad v. Department of Transportation, a taxicab driver with a fear of dogs was terminated after refusing to pick up a passenger at the airport who had a service dog. The employee alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate the employee's disability (dog phobia) under Connecticut state law. The court found that there was no reasonable accommodation for the employee's fear that would have allowed the driver to perform the essential functions of the job. Because drivers were required by state and federal regulations to pick up individuals with service dogs, providing transportation to people with service animals was an essential function of the job. (, at *2-6 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 2015).)

Owning a pet can have positive health benefits, including:

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): How to Stay Healthy Around Pets and Other Animals.)

Studies have shown that these benefits can extend to the workplace, and that employees who bring dogs to work may experience benefits such as:

(See Int'l Journal of Envtl. Research & Pub. Health: Dogs in the Workplace: A Review of the Benefits and Potential Challenges (May 2017) (summarizing research); see also Wagner, E. and Pina e Cunha, M., Dogs at the Workplace: A Multiple Case Study (Jan. 2021).)

Employers also may benefit because allowing animals in the workplace may:

(See generally American Kennel Club: Should You Bring Your Dog to Work? Pros and Cons of Dogs in the Workplace (May 2021, updated Mar. 14, 2024).)

Allowing a pet-friendly workplace is not a universal remedy for disability accommodation requests involving animals. A pet-friendly workplace likely will have some limitations, and an employer may still need to address possible accommodation requests. For example, a disabled employee may need an accommodation if the employer:

Employees with allergies to animals may claim that an employer should accommodate their allergy as a disability, though allergies may not always qualify as a disability (see, for example, Gallagher v. Sunrise Assisted Living of Haverford, 268 F. Supp. 2d 436, 440-42 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (dismissing employee's claim because the employee's allergies did not qualify as a disability under the ADA, though the case was decided before passage of the ADAAA, which broadened the definition of disability); Friedman v. St. John Health, , at *4-5 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2006) (question of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff's nut allergy was sufficiently severe to qualify as a disability under the ADA)).

To reduce the risk of discrimination claims, as with any policy employers must consistently apply the pet policy and any exceptions to all employees. Employers also must be sure that allowing pets at work does not create a workplace hazard under the OSH Act or its regulations (see Workplace Safety Requirements Under the OSH Act).

Other practical problems may arise when implementing a pet-friendly workplace. Before allowing pets to be brought into the workplace by employees, the employer should consider:

An employer seeking to create a pet-friendly workplace may prevent common problems by implementing a written policy and enforcing it in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. There is no one-size-fits-all approach and employers should craft a policy that makes sense for their physical workspaces and employee populations. In any policy (whether written or informal), employers should consider:

Sometimes employers go beyond merely allowing pets in the workplace, and affirmatively tout their pet-friendly policies as an integral part of their corporate culture (see, for example, Amazon News: Meet Some of the Cutest Dogs at Amazon (April 2024) (noting the 10,000 dogs registered to come to work at Amazon as part of their Woof From Office (WFO) policy)). Some employers participate in corporate leadership summits designed to allow collaboration among top executives about pet-friendly cultures and best practices (see Best Pet Workplaces: Summits). Other employers may offer generous pet-friendly amenities and benefits (some of which may apply to all pets) to encourage employees to bring their pets to work or to show support for their employees as pet owners, such as providing: