This Case Has ‘Moot Court’ Written All Over It

This case, pitting the fatal-paprika-allergy-warning dog vs. the co-worker with the serious allergy to canines has great facts and a knotty legal problem — surely it is coming to a moot court or mock trial near you?

Fearing a fatal encounter with paprika, Ms. Kysel’s parents and grandparents chipped in to buy her an allergy-detection dog, which works much like a narcotics-sniffing dog. After she had extensive talks with her employer, the City of Indianapolis, officials gave her permission to take the dog to work. The golden retriever, named Penny, cost her family $10,000 — it jumps up on Ms. Kysel whenever it detects paprika.

On the first day Ms. Kysel took Penny to work, one of her co-workers suffered an asthma attack because she is allergic to dogs. That afternoon Ms. Kysel was stunned when her boss told her that she could no longer take the dog to work, or if she felt she could not report to work without Penny, she could go on indefinite unpaid leave. She was ineligible for unemployment compensation because of the limbo she was put in.

Perfect.

This entry was posted in Law: Everything Else. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to This Case Has ‘Moot Court’ Written All Over It

  1. Joe1 says:

    This is Indianapolis, which has tried to privatize every governmental function. There’s got to be a reason why one of the co-workers can’t be transferred to another department.

  2. Vic says:

    This is only a case because it involves governmental workers. And it’ll be multiplied by twelve in the size of the response because of the same reason.

  3. Just me says:

    Ha! What a great case.

  4. michael says:

    No, I think it would raise the same American with Disabilities Act (ADA) problems in a private firm

  5. anon says:

    I’m pretty sure (99.9%) her disability does not qualify for ADA. Does being barred right off the bat make for a good moot court case?

  6. michael says:

    Can you explain please why the employer wouldn’t have an obligation to make a reasonable accomodation under the ADA, especially in light of the amendments in the ADAAA?

    The Act, as amended, applies to disabilities, defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.” And major life activities include, “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working”

    This case involves breathing and working, doesn’t it?

    But I’m not an ADA expert, so I’m prepared to be educated.

  7. Jackie says:

    The government officials gave her permission so she should not suffer in any complaint from her co-worker. Aside from that, they should consider other factors before giving permission to individual in order to avoid future problems like this one. Jackie

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.