A bronze statue of Lady Justice holding scales is displayed indoors.
COOKEVILLE, Tenn. – A Tennessee county will have to pay a maintenance worker it “effectively terminated” after he asked to bring his service dog to the job.
A federal jury hit Putnam County with a $333,349 on Aug. 24 in the case of Jason Vaden, who suffers from PTSD, anxiety and depression. In October 2023, Vaden learned he would be receiving a service dog that December and requested an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to have it accompany him to work.
“Putnam County told Mr. Vaden that they did not believe he needed a service dog or the requested accommodation because he was already doing his job without a service dog,” the suit says.
“This intense interrogation and questioning of his disabilities caused Mr. Vaden to have a panic attack.”
Vaden’s dog was a golden retriever named Gabe, and he stayed home while the county began questioning Vaden’s ability to work – specifically, climbing ladders and operating machinery, he says. In January 2024, he was put on indefinite paid leave while he waited to for a doctor’s appointment he calls a “disaster.”
“Dr. Hudson repeatedly referred to Gabe as a ‘puppy’ and suggested that Mr. Vaden’s disabilities could be fixed with medication and more trips to church,” the suit says.
After eight years working for Putnam County, Vaden was told in April 2024 he was a “danger” and “unable to work in his current position,” the suit says. More leave followed, and a job at a dump the county suggested proved to be only a part-time position. An opening for his maintenance job was posted, and the county announced therapy dog appreciation week in August 2024, the suit says.
Vaden was never officially fired but was never allowed to return to work after January 2024, he said.
“Putnam County never had any problem with Mr. Vaden, his disabilities, or his job performance, until Mr. Vaden requested accommodation related to his disabilities in clear violation of the law,” the suit says.
In court records, the county said Vaden refused to consider other accommodations for his disability, saying he failed the “interactive process.” When asked at a deposition if he didn’t try “anything else,” he replied, “Right.”
“Plaintiff thus confirmed, in his own words, that the service dog was the only accommodation he would consider and the only one he pursued,” the county wrote in July.
Before the trial, the sides presented their arguments on what damages were recoverable. Plaintiff lawyers say the best settlement offer they received was only $35,000, and the verdict was nearly 10 times that.
“Justice was overdue for Mr. Vaden,” said Ethan Hargraves, senior trial attorney at Gary Massey Injury Lawyers. “This verdict affirms that retaliating against a disabled worker for following the law carries real consequences.”
