A county court bailiff who brought a miniature Yorkshire terrier to work as an ‘emotional support dog’ has lost her claim for disability discrimination against the Ministry of Justice.
Ms Cullingford took her dog Bella with her when she enforced court orders, the employment tribunal heard, so she could talk it through with her when she felt anxious.
In February 2022, other bailiffs noticed the dog in Cullingford’s car and she was told to stop bringing her to walk as she was not a guide dog.
She told the tribunal in Manchester that she had got her dog in 2020 and, because she lived alone, the terrier provided vital companionship and support during the Covid pandemic lockdowns.
In early 2021, Cullingford was diagnosed with cancer for the third time and had to undergo surgery. When she returned to work, she did clerking duties from home, but returned to bailiff duties in Leeds in January 2022.
She told the tribunal that when she returned to work, she was the only bailiff who was required to move desks and this was followed by a number of run-ins with colleagues and managers.
After Bella was spotted in her car, Cullingford was told she could not bring the dog into work. Her line manager, Mr Shakeel, told her that he had safety concerns that the dog could potentially jump out of the car.
Cullingford responded that the dog was always strapped in securely, but Shakeel said that it was unprofessional. Cullingford replied by saying it was unprofessional to wear a baseball cap in the office, referring to her manager.
Shakeel informed her he would discuss the matter with senior management, but in the meantime she should not bring Bella with her on bailiff visits. The HR team advised that it was seeking advice on the situation.
HR informed Cullingford that she would need to make alternative arrangements for the dog while she was in the office or on her routes, stating that she did not have a legal right to have a dog at work, and their concern for the health and safety of the dog.
Email correspondence seen by the tribunal showed discussions about her anxiety and recommendations that disciplining her might not be the best course of action. Cullingford attended a number of consultations with Healthy Minds, a mental health resource, but told her manager she felt her anxiety was getting worse.
She then consulted with her department’s Disability Forum, which advised that there was a difference between a registered assistance dog such as a guide dog and an emotional support dog. It offered guidance on the considerations and training needed to bring a therapy dog into work.
The tribunal judgment said that this would have been a very good starting place for addressing the issue, but this email was not shared with decision-makers.
In March, Cullingford obtained a letter from her GP supporting her application for the dog to be registered as an emotional support animal. She did not follow up on registering the dog, however, as she was unsure whether this would make a difference to her employer’s decision.
HR and occupational health teams looked into whether the dog’s presence at work could be part of a workplace adjustment for Cullingford’s anxiety, but the final decision, taken in April 2023, was that HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was rejecting her request.
She challenged the decision, noting that she was experiencing anxiety and distress due to her cancer diagnosis and that she had not insisted the dog come into the office, only her car.
Cullingford commenced early conciliation with Acas and handed in her resignation.
In rejecting her claim for disability discrimination, the tribunal said that HMCTS had legitimate concerns in terms of confidentiality, security of her vehicle, health and safety, risk of the dog escaping and its interactions with the public.
For it to be considered a reasonable adjustment to allow her to have the dog with her, the adjustment would have to alleviate her disadvantage. The view of the tribunal was that this was not the case, so her reasonable adjustments claim also failed.
A further claim of harassment related to her disability was dismissed.
