Hacker News Reader

Comment by FiloSottile | Hacker News Reader

I can't believe how casual and normal "there was a dog in this room" is made out to be in American work culture.

I have a potentially lethal dog allergy, so that's a room, a floor, an office I could not be in at all. Maybe I couldn't even take the job, so that the pets could have my spot in the company directory. I realize I have almost all the other privileges but this really doesn't make me feel welcome in a workplace, and I don't understand how pets in the office isn't considered an anti-inclusive practice.

I guess it doesn't matter now. Previously: https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1116418872519929859

View on HN

In the US, you would technically be allowed to request a dog-free environment as a "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Practically speaking, I'm not sure how that would go, especially if your allergy is so severe that lingering pet dander could trigger it, even after Fido was banished.

I'm also not sure how that would interact with an employee who requires a service dog as a disability accommodation. I've asked about this as a hypothetical before, but never really gotten a good answer.

We make it very clear before the interview that we have service dogs and our office is a dog-friendly environment.

Last time we asked HR/legal about it, they said the service dog had more clearly defined protections, while asking for dogs to be removed isn't considered "reasonable" since the dog is legally allowed to be there while accommodations only needed to be "best effort".

I would think the fact that the employees with service dogs are already there would be the deciding factor. AFAIK, dog allergy and disabilities mitigated by service dogs are on essentially equal legal footing. If you can accommodate both without "undue hardship," you'd be legally required to. But, if you couldn't, that's a more interesting question.

Airlines have a lot of situations where a service dog and an allergic passenger come into conflict. The dog always stays, and allergic passenger is the one to forced to deplane.

Airlines and workplaces fall under a different set of laws. Federally, workplaces fall under the ADA. Airlines fall under both the ADA (for the allergic individual) and the Air Carrier Access Act (for the person with the dog). In the case of an airline, it is considered a "reasonable accommodation" to allow the allergic individual to take a different flight, which would be similar to having dog-free floors in an office.

Start throwing in state law, and you lose me, because I don't know enough to say anything reasonably intelligent.

Out of curiosity, I pulled up the ADA guidelines, and it says:

> Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.

So the ADA gives priority to dogs as well.

That does not actually say the ADA gives priority to dogs. It says "...they should both be assigned, by accommodating them, if possible...." but is silent on what should happen if it is not possible to accommodate both. Both dog allergy and dog phobia can rise to the level of a disability under the ADA, so it's not just a case of some sniffles or just not liking dogs versus the rights of a person with a disability who uses a service dog as an aid.

This is extremely complicated, and you can go down some pretty deep rabbit holes trying to understand it all. Believe me, I've tried. I'm starting to suspect that truly understanding how all these laws interact requires a JD and 2 years practicing employment law.

Our lawyers thought it was a clear cut case and they were willing to defend a lawsuit in favor of the dogs. I think at the end that's what it comes down to: which side the legal team sides with. Odds are in a pro-dog company, they will side with the dogs.

Yeah, I think that's the practical solution, ultimately. Succeeding at an ADA employment suit is difficult and expensive for most individuals, so I would not be surprised if there was no ADA case in any federal court involving dogs in any way. Even filing an EEOC charge takes a good bit of effort, and that's the minimum to start down the road to an ADA employment discrimination suit.

Generally, I wouldn't expect pet dogs to be appearing at a company that already has a severely allergic employee, provided that's known information. The other way around (new employee with a service dog vs already present and highly allergic employee), I would guess comes down to the "undue hardship" test. If both cannot be accommodated, it probably is not considered reasonable to fire the existing employee in favor of the new person and their dog. Unless, of course, it is, because the company believes the new person will provide more value for the company than retaining the old person would.

That essentially means that the ambiguity is decided by private companies, which I find distasteful, but I would not be surprised if that's how it actually works out.

Doesn’t work that way in practice:

https://www.theawl.com/2015/01/i-was-an-amazon-chew-toy/

I'm not a fan of dogs either. I have had what looked like a dog attacking me in the past in an office and I was being told that I should not worry because it is usually "friendly".

I really hope that this whole dog at the office madness stops sooner than later. Hopefully WFH is going to resolve this.

Regardless of how you feel about dogs (I love them and would be thrilled if I worked in an office with one or more dogs), no reasonable office dog policy would allow an animal that attacks people. That's just wrong.

I think a problem is that some people feel the dog is attacking them, when the owner thinks the dog is being playful. That's how people get upset about dogs in my experience.

That's still not behavior that should be tolerated in an office environment. I would expect an office dog to behave to approximately the standard required in the Canine Good Citizen test. My dog would almost pass, but she's not good enough on the leash. I think that would be good enough for an office environment, but I certainly would not let her "play" with someone who thought she was "attacking" them.

You can’t know in advance that someone is going to interpret a dogs playful behavior with being attacked. If however you had a bad encounter and the owner failed to exercise more restraint, I would say that’s madness.

Of course not. If I ever I found out anyone thought my dog was harassing them, I would certainly make sure that she didn't get the opportunity to "harass" them again, regardless of what it was she was doing. That's just common sense, and no responsible dog owner would act otherwise.

> I'm not a fan of dogs either.

The dog could sense that so he got you.

No, that's cats.

It looks like the solution has turned out to be stopping this whole staff at the office madness sooner rather than later, as you observe!

Every workplace that I've been at that allowed dogs has done so extremely responsibly.

Every employee was surveyed for allergies. Before bringing dogs in you had to talk with reception and register the dog. Reception would check if there were any employees with allergies before allowing dogs in. The severity of the allergy would determine the proximity dogs could be to the person with the allergy.

A mild allergy that lead to a small stuffy nose and itchy eyes would just be cause to notify the owner of the dog and tell them to keep it out of that person's space as much as possible. I hadn't heard of a potentially lethal dog allergy while I was there, but I imagine that would be grounds for not allowing dogs into that particular building.

So I disagree that it's inherently anti-inclusive. I think it all comes down to how it's administered.

The scenarios described are concerning the introduction of a dog into the environment, where there are people with known allergies. How would it look the other way around?

Is there one scenario, where the allergic persons don't have to modify their behaviour.

I wasn't in the administration of the programs, so I wouldn't know for certain. Here are some thoughts though:

- If they're allergic, then find them a seating arrangement that works for them (assuming they don't already have a seating arrangement).

- If no such seating arrangement is possible (for example, if they need to sit with their team and the team is on a floor with a dog), then notify the dog owners that due to an allergy they will no longer be able to bring their dog in.

- If the dog owner really likes bringing their dog in, help relocate the dog owner to a different space.

I think some places would rather have the dogs, even if it means excluding those with lethal allergies to dogs.

Maybe that's fine?

Not every place has to be a fit for everyone.

Maybe that's fine?

It’s not fine. Allergies are disabilities under the ADA. If you don’t provide a safe workplace for people with severe or potentially fatal allergies then you’re in violation and open to a lawsuit.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) does require employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for employees with a qualifying disability if doing so won’t impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business.

Sounds like there’s a lot of room there for reasonable policy.

How are pets (not service animals) relevant at all to the operation of a tech company's business?

It's a perk to many, and can be a part of company culture

You can find at least one person who is deathly allergic to anything. If I’m deathly allergic to carpets, that means no office in the world is allowed to have carpets?

This level of extremist view isn’t very helpful. Typically the expectation is about making _reasonable_ changes which is, ultimately, flexible. There’s an office in my building that has a sign on the door stating that it is a nut free zone due to an employee’s severe allergy. I have dietary requirements that my employer accommodates. Employers don’t get to have the value of an employee without incurring costs: adapting process is part of that cost.

You can find extreme examples — such as an allergy to sunlight — and sometimes the accommodation for those examples may be different to “banning carpet from the office”.

The original post is what you are referring to. Apparently all companies must accommodate people allergic to dogs. Thankfully, just apparently.

Yes, no office that employs you. If we have to get crammed into one space to work together, we have to come down to least common denominator.

EDIT: And I'm not trying to advocate for whatever group there is. It's just reality. You make software that is used by people, you need to make it accessible. You make books, you need to make them readable and so on and so on.

And you know what I noticed? I noticed that when people make stuff accessible with least common denominator in mind, that stuff becomes easier and more comfortable to use for me as well even though I don't have any issues.

Ok time to organize a class action against all buildings that have carpets

Fuck carpets in offices in general though. I've almost slipped on one at our office on several times.

Not to mention carpet is filthy (especially in high traffic areas) and is frequently coated with those crazy waterproofing chemicals

I know that’s why I’m totally serious

What happens when an existing employee has an ADA-approved service dog?

Do they fire that person so the allergic new hire can come to work? Do they alternate weeks and deep-clean the office during the weekends?

The building I work in has at least one person with a serious enough dog allergy that dogs aren't allowed on that floor, and at least 2 people who use service dogs. It's a large building, though not enormous (5-10 floors), people seem to manage.

Let's say it's a small office then. If they have just one floor and someone with a service dog what's a reasonable accommodation for a potential hire with allergies?

What happens if you have both blind employees that use guide dogs and employees that are allergic to dogs?

You place them in separate areas.

I would think you would do whatever you could to allow both of those employees to function while ensuring they don't cross each other's path.

How do you provide a safe environment specifically? If someone has a life threatening allergy, even if there has never been a dog in the workplace the pet hair and dander on dog owners clothing is enough to be a serious issue.

Maybe it's fine to exclude people allergic to dogs?

Maybe it's fine to exclude people with other health conditions as well?

Back in the early 90s I worked for a small company that had a Boxer dog. She liked to sit right behind my chair, which had two problems. First I had to remember that she was back there. Second, whenever anybody came to the front door of the building (postman, courier, etc.) she’d explode into furious barking, which would make me jump and set my heart hammering, especially if - against the odds - I had achieved deep focus. I used to say that she was taking years off my life.

Hmmm, I worked at a place with a mean old German Shepherd. It took a few months, but I got him to love me eventually. I seen him attack one of my coworkers once and tried to keep him out of the building. Turns out that coworker was a raging meth head who regularly got absolutely fucked out of his mind at work. That's actually one of two times i've seen a dog oust a meth head. The other time was at a party.

In the wonderful book "The Supermen" about Seymour Cray and the early days of CDC, there's an anecdote about engineers building one of the early computers bringing their dogs to the office as early as the late 1940s, at one of the predecessors to CDC. That stuck in my mind as an example of how early the freewheeling culture which later became associated with SV actually got started, and how it was somehow closely related to the work or the kind of people who were inclined to get into it.

In my imagination, if one of them had had an allergy the others would have been fine with not bringing their dogs in. That's how teams work.

Maybe that works for small teams, but I can just as well imagine someone who would have been a good fit not joining the team not to be that person that costed everyone their dog.

It's approximately how all exclusive practices self-perpetuate and lead to limited diversity (although I realize allergy diversity is not something with broad value).

The idea of a large team is probably an oxymoron.

I have a dog allergy as well but I would never require my employer to ban pets in the office. Yes, I need to eat medicine or wear protective gear but it's all worth it. It's a small sacrifice to make.

Just wondering, if I was touching my dog and carried some fur into the office on my clothes would you have a reaction? Or does it take more than that?

Dog friendly is a selling point here in Australia for some people but it's still very rare. I personally didn't like dogs much until we got our own a few years ago, and he's great, but I'm still largely indifferent to other people's dogs. Most of them have very poor manners.

It can, I spent half a school year once with sniffles because my deskmate had a dog (and I didn't know it could cause this yet).

It's not going to kill me though, and it doesn't contaminate the environment for days, so it's manageable. My colleague that work most closely with me know and take care to wash their hands after touching a dog, my friends with dogs change into clean clothes before coming to my apartment, etc.

"It's not going to kill me though"

Why did you initially (in the top level comment) characterize your allergy as a "potentially lethal dog allergy"?

Because it can, but the amount of allergen you can bring from home on your clothes is not enough to trigger a full respiratory reaction.

Was this some attempt at a gotcha like I would lie about my allergies on HN for some reason? :/

No i just misunderstood, I realize now it's about the volume of allergens

Dogs in an office. Dogs. In an office. What the fuck?

What do you have against human's best friends?

I'd take dogs over people any day.

I am always getting dizzy and feel sick when too many people are drinking coffee in the office :(

Try asking people not to drink coffee near you...

Because of the scent or something else?

Yes, I have coffee intolerance for both intake and the smell.

lol, I can relate. I worked at a company that moved to a nice big new office. They replaced the carpets and the ceiling tiles, and I still had nasty allergies for the first few weeks. Place used to be owned by a dog friendly business. OMG dude you should've seen when we went on the tour of the place lmao. The carpets were stained with pee and poop and it was sooooooooo disgusting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com