San Jose’s animal shelter is facing a potential legal battle as advocates escalate concerns over alleged neglect and inhumane conditions. After years of raising alarms about the facility, a group led by Partners in Animal Care &. Compassion has hired legal counsel and is prepared to file a lawsuit if improvements aren’t made. The move comes despite city claims of progress following a critical audit in 2024.
The core of the dispute centers on allegations that the shelter consistently fails to provide adequate care for animals, violating state law and leading to preventable suffering, and death. Advocates point to a pattern of substandard conditions, insufficient staffing, and a lack of transparency as evidence of systemic issues within the city-run facility. The potential litigation represents a significant escalation in efforts to force change at the shelter, which has been the subject of scrutiny for years.
Kit O’Doherty, founder of Partners in Animal Care & Compassion, expressed frustration with the city’s response to their demands for improvement. “I don’t see any other route but litigation,” O’Doherty told The Mercury News on Tuesday. “We’ve got to get out of the gaslighting hub that is the city and in front of a judge and jury.”
The 2024 audit, prompted by concerns raised by advocates, confirmed many of their allegations. The report detailed substandard conditions, an increased risk of disease, outdated protocols, and overcrowding at the shelter. It also highlighted challenges in serving the community, including difficulties in animal adoption and a lack of resources for sick or injured animals. The audit resulted in 39 recommendations for improvement, covering areas like training, community engagement, and record-keeping.
Throughout 2025, city officials reported progress in implementing the audit’s recommendations, claiming animal population levels were within acceptable limits and outcomes were improving. However, advocates and shelter staff continued to raise concerns about ongoing issues, including the May death of a dog left unattended with an IV, which prompted questions about transparency and potential retaliation against employees who spoke out.
O’Doherty alleges a pattern of bullying and mistreatment towards volunteers, rescues, and advocates, claiming the city is resistant to outside help. Among the complaints are instances of animals lacking food and water, inadequate training for staff, shortages of essential supplies, and botched surgeries resulting in animal deaths. These allegations directly contradict California Civil Code, which mandates “necessary and prompt veterinary care, adequate nutrition and water, and shelter” for animals.
Advocates also accuse the shelter of violating the Hayden Act by scheduling euthanasia for adoptable animals or those with treatable conditions. The Hayden Act prioritizes finding homes for adoptable animals before resorting to euthanasia.
The city, after requesting an extension, refuted the claims in a letter on Friday, stating it had enhanced medical protocols, increased staffing, and made oversight changes. “The City of San Jose does not agree with the characterizations in the letter but would like to take this opportunity to provide additional information that responds to the demands,” wrote Senior Deputy City Attorney Arlene Silva, according to ABC7 News. However, O’Doherty stated that the city provided no supporting documentation for these claims.
Adding to the tension, O’Doherty alleges the city retaliated against her for raising concerns. On January 30th, Monica Wylie, the shelter’s deputy director, demanded the return of keys previously provided to O’Doherty for conducting dog playgroups and restricted her access to non-public areas of the shelter. O’Doherty dismissed the move as part of a predictable pattern of silencing critics, stating, “If anyone raises concerns, usher them to the door, literally, and the canned response is ‘Your services are no longer needed.’”
The situation remains fluid, with legal action appearing increasingly likely. The outcome of this dispute could have significant implications for animal welfare in San Jose and potentially set a precedent for accountability in municipal animal shelters. The next step will likely be the filing of a formal lawsuit, at which point the city will be required to respond in court.
What are your thoughts on the allegations against the San Jose Animal Care Center? Share your comments below and help us continue the conversation.
