Maryland Firefighter Alleges Disability Discrimination for Failure to Accommodate Service Dog

A Maryland firefighter has filed suit against a volunteer fire company and Montgomery County alleging both entities failed to accommodate his disability by making it difficult for him to have his service dog with him. Jayce Yeh filed suit against the Burtonsville Volunteer Fire Department and the county alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, and the Montgomery County Code.

Yeh claims the BVFD made it difficult for him to obtain initial clearance to begin serving as a volunteer, and later change its polices in a way that made thing even more difficult for him. Quoting from the complaint:

• Yeh has disabilities that substantially limit major life activities and thus is a person with disabilities under relevant law.
• Yeh uses a service animal to perform tasks and mitigate his disabilities.
• All volunteer candidates seeking to become or maintain their status as active fire or Emergency Medical Services members must undergo a background check, physical exam, drug testing, and fingerprinting.
• On November 19, 2021, Yeh underwent the required physical exam at Fire & Rescue Occupational Medical Services.
• During this examination, Yeh was asked to complete forms regarding the presence and status of any disabilities.
• Yeh requested an accommodation to use a service dog in his role as a volunteer firefighter and EMS provider candidate.
• In response to this disclosure, FROMS gave Yeh seven days to secure extensive documentation from his healthcare provider.
• Yeh’s provider supplied a letter dated November 25, 2021… endorsing Yeh’s ability to perform essential job tasks and supporting the service dog accommodation request.
• On or around December 20, 2021, FROMS requested additional documentation, to be submitted on their specific forms.
• Yeh’s healthcare provider and his supervisor completed and returned the forms to FROMS on January 13, 2022, as requested.
• On February 2, 2022, Yeh was notified that FROMS rejected one of the responses provided in the January 13 forms and requested specific wording confirming Yeh’s ability to perform essential job tasks.
• Yeh provided the requested documentation, including verification of his disability, qualification to perform job tasks, and documentation supporting the use of his service dog, including examples of tasks performed by the animal.
• FROMS rejected this documentation, requiring that the tasks be individually listed and rewritten by Yeh’s provider.
• During Yeh’s physical exam, he was again asked for detailed disability information and submitted additional documentation from his healthcare provider within the requested timeframe.
• FROMS required Yeh to provide a service dog certification as proof that the dog was a service animal, which Yeh provided along with a video demonstrating the dog’s tasks and handler control.
• Yeh’s provider continued to supply requested documentation endorsing Yeh’s ability to perform essential job tasks with his service dog as an accommodation.
• During a virtual meeting, Yeh requested that MCFRS clarify specific concerns regarding his service dog’s presence in shared spaces, such as allowing the dog to lie at his feet while he ate at a communal table. Rather than addressing his specific inquiries, MCFRS leadership responded with general statements implying “general concerns” about animals in certain spaces without citing specific reasons for denying Yeh’s service animal access to these areas.
• MCFRS leadership required Yeh to explain what specific task required his service dog’s presence in each area of the facility (e.g., kitchen, operations vehicles, sleeping quarters, etc.). It demanded documentation from a healthcare provider to support each of these requirements.
• This onerous demand for additional documentation occurred despite Yeh’s repeated efforts to provide clear explanations and supporting materials regarding his service dog’s tasks.
• MCFRS repeatedly mischaracterized Yeh’s service dog as an “emotional support animal,” despite Yeh’s consistent clarification that his service dog is a task-trained service animal assisting with specific tasks related to his disabilities.
• Yeh experienced MCFRS’s repeated demands for documentation and hypothetical concerns about his service dog as an unwillingness to engage in an interactive accommodation process. Despite Yeh’s efforts to provide the required information, MCFRS continued to misinterpret his statements and implied he had misrepresented his service dog as an emotional support animal.
• On March 10, 2022, Yeh received a letter outlining restrictions for his service dog.
• Yeh disagreed with MCFRS’s definition of service dogs as pets.
• MCFRS further required that Yeh separate from other employees in order to use his service animal.
• For example, Yeh would not be allowed to use the sleeping quarters, kitchen, dining area, main locker room with connected restrooms, or operations vehicles while accompanied by his service animal.
• On April 4, 2022, Yeh expressed disagreement with the restrictions as discriminatory.
• On April 6, 2022, Yeh was informed that his “pending member” status was on hold and that he could not participate in duty nights or BVFD meetings until the matter was addressed.
• On July 19, 2022, BVFD informed Yeh that his physical exam was not considered cleared due to his disagreement with the county’s proffered service dog accommodations.
• If Yeh did not agree with the proposed accommodation for his service dog, his physical exam would not be considered cleared.
• Yeh attempted to appeal this finding through both FROMS and the Montgomery County Office of Human Resources.
• On July 21, 2022, during a meeting with OHR, Yeh was told that the county’s restrictions were not based on any complaints or known allergies but were hypothetically applied to avoid potential future issues.
• Yeh continued to seek clarification, requesting to engage in a direct, interactive discussion about his accommodation needs rather than indirect communication through intermediaries.
• Yeh’s requests for accommodation were met with minimal dialogue, contrary to the collaborative approach envisioned by the ADA.
• Although MCFRS formally included Yeh in meetings labeled as part of the “interactive process,” Yeh found the approach to be dismissive and limited. Rather than engaging in a genuine interactive discussion, MCFRS leadership made restrictive policy changes that significantly impacted Yeh’s ability to participate equally in the program without his input.
• On August 16, 2022, MCFRS updated its policy to distinguish between pets, service animals, and working animals. However, the updated policy continued to apply the same restrictions to working dogs and service animals alike.
• MCFRS applied the same restrictions on Yeh’s service dog as those used for their working canines without acknowledging the distinctions between service dogs and working animals, creating undue limitations on Yeh’s use of his service animal.
• MCFRS’s policy, while updated to distinguish working dogs from service dogs, applies broad, restrictive limitations on Yeh’s service dog without providing clear guidance on the terminology or rationale for these restrictions.
• For example, MCFRS restricted Yeh’s service dog from being in utility vehicles designated for non-emergency use, such as parades or community events, labeling these vehicles as “operational apparatus” where service dogs are prohibited. MCFRS provided no substantive explanation for why Yeh’s service animal could not be accommodated in these vehicles.
• On December 28, 2022, Yeh received a letter restating the service dog restrictions and MCFRS’s proposed accommodation of his service animal, which were narrower than the new policy announced in August.
• Yeh was required to submit written agreement by January 10, 2023, or risk rescission of his membership status.
• Yeh submitted the required written statement in an effort to continue participating at BVFD.
• However, he continued to face exclusion from regular volunteer privileges, including mailbox access, volunteer communications, and scheduling.
• A non-disabled volunteer who joined BVFD around the same time as Yeh had already been awarded many of the benefits generally extended to volunteers, including a locker and mailbox assignment and shift scheduling.
• When Yeh attempted to request shifts, he was told his requests for weekday shifts were “unavailable.”
• Other candidates and probationary members, however, were routinely scheduled in the manner Yeh requested.
• On January 15, 2023, BVFD Chief Ryman asked Yeh to leave a shift due to the absence of his service dog, indicating that Yeh’s physical clearance was conditional on the service dog’s presence.
• Yeh subsequently completed shifts on January 22 and January 24, 2023, with his service dog, following all restrictions.
• However, he was still unable to access areas available to other members, such as the kitchen, locker room, sleeping quarters, and operations vehicles, due to the presence of his service dog.
• On January 27, 2023, Yeh requested formal clarification from the Division Chief that he should not be restricted from duty if his service dog was temporarily unavailable. This was confirmed via email; however, Yeh continued to face questioning and barriers to participation.
• Yeh requested additional clarification on February 17, 2023, and followed up in person at FROMS on March 6, 2023, but has not received further response from OHR/FROMS.
• At a January 9, 2024, BVFD Board of Directors meeting, the Board extended Yeh’s probationary period for an additional 60 days. The Board advised that at the end of the extension, they “may vote to grant [his] status as an Active EMS Member, provide another extension, or they may elect to terminate [his] membership if [he had] not satisfied all [his] probationary requirements by that time.”
• Yeh met the stated probationary requirements within the 60-day extension; however, he was informed that his passing evaluations were deemed insufficient due to being “spread too far apart” to obtain charge status. As a result, BVFD imposed additional probationary requirements with more restrictive deadlines.
• Despite being qualified and having met BVFD’s probationary requirements, BVFD imposed additional conditions and restrictive deadlines on Yeh’s probationary status that were not required by Montgomery County or imposed on non-disabled members.
• Yeh did not feel adequately supported throughout the probationary process by BVFD leadership, which created additional barriers by not providing appropriate accommodations for his disabilities. This lack of support and accommodation added significant stress to his probationary experience.
• Yeh was further distressed when BVFD’s attorney disclosed personal information related to Yeh’s disability status and gender identity to both BVFD and TPVFD leadership without Yeh’s consent.
• BVFD’s handling of accessibility needs appeared condescending and unhelpful. For instance, BVFD leadership made remarks implying it was inappropriate for Yeh to have a friend present to interpret and take notes during meetings.
• During one shift, upon Yeh’s arrival, BVFD Chief Michael Ryman made a dismissive comment, saying, “Oh great… you’re here,” which Yeh found neither supportive nor welcoming.
• Due to BVFD’s restrictive probation conditions, lack of accommodations, and unwelcoming environment, Yeh resigned from BVFD on January 29, 2024.
• Defendants failed to properly accommodate Mr. Yeh in a way that would facilitate his meaningful participation in Defendants’ programming.

Here is a copy of the complaint: