Ask FELTG: How does an agency revoke an approved accommodation that’s not working, without violating the law?

May 12, 2026

Question continued:

Let’s say the agency approved the presence of an emotional support animal for an employee who has PTSD and anxiety disorder, but the animal is misbehaving so badly it is making the workplace intolerable not just for the employee who owns the dog, but for coworkers as well.

Thanks for the question. Any time your agency is faced with a new problem regarding an employee’s reasonable accommodation, it’s imperative to use the legal framework to determine the next steps. Because even if the details are new, the law is well established.

In the case of a misbehaving animal as described above, the agency would most likely have a valid reason to revisit the accommodation – because it isn’t working. This determination triggers the agency’s obligation to re-open the interactive process and discuss alternative accommodations with the employee.

There’s an EEOC decision from a few years ago that you should check out, Meaghan F. v. Treasury, EEOC App. No. 2019005325 (May 20, 2021). The agency granted the complainant, who had a mental health condition, a 60-day trial period where she could bring her emotional support animal to work to determine whether having the animal nearby was effective in helping her perform the essential functions of her job.

After 60 days the agency concluded the emotional support animal was not an effective accommodation, because:

  • It did not allow the complainant to successfully perform her essential job functions,
  • The animal’s behavior caused disruption in the workplace, and
  • The complainant had not been caring for the animal’s needs.

Id. at 10.

The complainant requested reconsideration, stating that the dog was a puppy and had required care to such an extent that it “[i]nterfered with [her] assignments and distracted [her]” but that the problem was now resolved. Id. The agency denied the request, and the EEOC agreed with the agency:

We are disinclined to find that the Agency had an obligation to offer Complainant another trial period shortly after she failed the first one, as Complainant has not persuasively demonstrated any change in circumstance (aside from the puppy being a few months older).

Id. at 11.

We’ll be discussing service and emotional support animals in our upcoming EEO Counselor and Investigator Refresher Training June 3-4, so be sure to join if this is something you’d like to learn more about. info@feltg.com

Related training:

This information is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Contacting FELTG does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please consult an attorney for legal advice.