As a nation of dog lovers, it’s no surprise more employers are embracing pet-friendly policies. Having pets in the office can boost morale, reduce stress, and encourage employees to take breaks and move more. For many businesses, it is seen as a perk that supports wellbeing and recruitment.
But before employers roll out the welcome mat for furry friends, there are some important legal and practical issues to consider. A well-intentioned policy could quickly become a legal headache if not managed carefully.
Health and Safety Considerations
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers owe duties to employees to ensure they protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals in the workplace. Having pets in the workplace can lead to risks such as allergies, bites, and trip hazards, so a thorough risk assessment is essential before implementing any policy.
As part of the risk assessment, employers should think carefully about how to manage potential hazards linked to pets in the workplace. Practical steps might include requiring proof of vaccinations before pets are allowed on-site, creating designated pet-friendly and pet-free zones, and ensuring that animals are supervised by their owners at all times.
Insurance and Landlord Consent
Before introducing pets to the office, employers should check that any insurance policy covers incidents involving animals and any potential property damage. Additionally, if premises are leased, the employer should review the terms of the lease, as bringing animals onto the site is likely to require landlord approval.
The landlord may also need to review their own insurance arrangements and consult other tenants before granting consent.
Employee Objections
Not everyone will feel comfortable with pets in the workplace. Employees with underlying health conditions such as allergies or asthma may be affected by coming into contact with, or even being in close proximity to, certain animals.
Additionally, employees may have a phobia of certain types of animals. Any of these situations may result in the employee finding the presence of animals at their place of work difficult or distressing to deal with.
Potential Disability Discrimination
Where an underlying health condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it may amount to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). This could include the above conditions described in the ‘Employee Objections’ section above.
In such cases, employees are legally protected against any less favourable treatment which may be directly or indirectly related to their disability, and employers also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments. Accordingly, an employer should consider:
- whether introducing a pet-friendly workplace policy would be justified in these circumstances; and
- whether any reasonable adjustments must be made to any existing or proposed policy in order to address any disadvantage.
Reasonable Adjustments
Reasonable adjustments might include:
- creating pet-free zones
- offering alternative workspaces
- allowing remote working where appropriate
The goal when implementing reasonable adjustments is to remove or reduce any disadvantage caused by a pet-friendly policy on an employee with a disability, while balancing the benefits this policy may have on other employees’ mental wellbeing.
Discrimination Arising from Disability
Reasonable adjustments should always be considered carefully and ideally agreed with the employee. Making decisions without the employee’s consent (i.e., requiring them to work from home when they do not wish to, so as to allow other employees to benefit from bringing their pet into work, or excluding them from meetings or events) can create additional legal risks. The employee may view this as unfavourable treatment, which could amount to discrimination arising from disability. In such cases, the employee could bring a claim under section 15 of the EqA 2010 against the employer.
Indirect Discrimination
In addition to the above, a pet-friendly policy permitting employees to bring their pets into the workplace could amount to a Provision, Criterion, or Practice (PCP) that places employees with disabilities that mean they require the workplace to be pet-free at a disadvantage compared to employees without that disability.
This could lead to an indirect discrimination claim under section 19 of the EqA 2010 unless the employer can show the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Objective Justification Defence
In both discrimination arising from disability and indirect disability discrimination cases, the key question for employers is whether implementing a pet-friendly policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. While employers may argue that pets improve wellbeing and reduce stress, such justification must be carefully balanced against health and safety and equality obligations.
The most likely legitimate aim would be the overall improvement of employee welfare. However, the employer would still need to show that introducing a pet-friendly policy was a proportionate way of seeking to improve employee welfare. In assessing this, a relevant factor would be whether there were other ways that the employer could have acted to achieve the same overall outcome but with less of an impact on the disabled person. As an example, an office-based business who introduced a pet-friendly workplace policy which applied every day of the week and to every floor of its office might struggle to justify this if employees only came into the office, say, two days a week on average and without considering whether the policy could be implemented on a limited basis, e.g. on certain floors of the building and not others.
Each case will be fact-specific, depending on the terms of the proposed policy and the nature of the disabled employee’s condition. Therefore, we recommend that employers seek legal advice before proceeding in these circumstances.
Top Tips: A pet-friendly policy that might work for everyone
Even though the good intention behind a pet-friendly policy is unlikely to be in dispute, a poorly thought-through policy or one which is implemented on a blanket basis could easily backfire, leading to frustration, upset and potentially even formal grievances or claims. In addition to carrying out a thorough risk assessment, employers should take further steps to ensure the policy is fair, practical, and inclusive. Key recommendations include:
- Consult with employees: Gauge interest and concerns through surveys or meetings. This should help identify allergies, phobias, or other concerns early and ensure that any policy reflects the needs of the whole workforce.
- Discretionary: Make sure any policy makes clear that it is discretionary and the employer should reserve the right to amend the policy or withdraw it at any time.
- Define pet eligibility and rules: The policy should specify what types of pets are allowed, the standards of behaviour expected and any other requirements such as vaccines or lead protocols.
- Include emergency and removal protocols: A robust policy will include procedures for emergencies, such as pet illness or aggressive behaviour, and set out how complaints are handled.
- Consequences of animal behaviour: Ensure that the policy clearly states that the pet owner is responsible for the behaviour of the animal while on site, and that any aggressive behaviour by the animal will result in the employee being required to remove the animal and not bring them back into work again. Further, an unreasonable failure by an employee to control their pet’s behaviour while on site could be treated as a misconduct issue.
- Consider a trial run: Start with a trial period to test the policy in practice. Gather feedback and make adjustments before any wider rollout.
- Consider pet-friendly or pet-free zones: Having certain areas of the office allocated for pets may help reduce potential issues.
- Review and update regularly: Monitor how the policy works in practice and update it as needed to reflect changes in the workplace or feedback from staff.
Paul Ball
Paul has advised employers on all aspects of employment law for over 25 years and has particular experience in relation to discrimination issues, contractual issues arising on business transfers, and diversity, equality and inclusion.