“I don’t see any other route but litigation”: San Jose rebuffs advocates’ demands of animal shelter

After years of persistent issues at San Jose’s beleaguered animal shelter, a group of welfare advocates finally has had enough.

Despite claims of progress made by shelter management and city leaders following a 2024 scathing audit, advocates continued to paint a bleaker picture — neglect, negligence and violations of state law leading to the detriment and suffering of animals — and have hired a law firm as they threaten litigation to force improvements at the shelter.

Partners in Animal Care & Compassion founder Kit O’Doherty said they hoped a letter demanding improvements would elicit some form of authenticity or good faith from the shelter in performing its mandatory duties. Instead, she said the city’s response last week was underwhelming in its denial of the claims, illustrating a familiar pattern and practice of lacking accountability and setting the stage for future legal action.

“I don’t see any other route but litigation,” O’Doherty told The Mercury News Tuesday. “We’ve got to get out of the gaslighting hub that is the city and in front of a judge and jury … Three and a half years of really turning every stone over is a good amount of data to say this city is not going to suddenly start operating in good faith.”

Welfare advocates have been at the forefront of driving change at San Jose’s shelter, credited by elected officials in calling out the deficiencies and uptick in deaths that helped spur a review of its operations.

The 2024 audit confirmed much of their allegations: substandard conditions, increased risk of disease, outdated or nonexistent protocols and operating well above capacity. It also highlighted the shelter’s struggle to serve the existing community – taking in fewer animals due to difficulties moving them through adoption or rescue, placing greater emphasis on caring for sick or injured animals and failing to expand medical care.

The audit led to 39 recommendations, including updated training and protocols, improved community engagement, strengthened record-keeping, and increased trap-neuter-return services.

Throughout 2025, shelter officials touted the progress they had made in implementing the audit recommendations and how the facility was now operating within acceptable animal population levels. According to the data publicly released in the shelter’s annual report, the recommendations helped improve animal outcomes, decreasing the average length of stay and increasing the live release rate for all animals.

Even so, shelter staff, volunteers and advocates continued to sound the alarm after several troubling incidents, they say, undercut the city’s narrative.

For example, following the May death of a dog that was left unattended in a kennel while still leashed and hooked up with an IV, union representatives questioned whether the city was more focused on damage control than transparency, given the voluminous history of alleged retaliation against employees who have spoken out. Others regularly involved with the shelter made similar claims.

“It’s important that our community be aware of how the city is running this shelter,” O’Doherty said. “They are bullying and mistreating volunteers, rescues and animal advocates. They do not want help in the shelter.”

Among the other complaints cited by advocates were animals left without food or water, a lack of training, regular shortages of critical supplies and botched routine surgeries leading to deaths.

California Civil Code also requires the shelter to provide “necessary and prompt veterinary care, adequate nutrition and water, and shelter,” as well as humane treatment.

Advocates also accused the shelter of scheduling euthanasia for adoptable pets or those with treatable conditions in violation of the Hayden Act, which created the policy that adoptable animals should not be killed if a home can be found.

After requesting an extension to respond to the demand letter, the city refuted the claims on Friday, noting that it has enhanced medical protocols, increased staffing and made oversight changes, while denying that it violated the Hayden Act.

“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,” senior Deputy City Attorney Arlene Silva wrote in a letter Friday. “The City has implemented meaningful reforms and operational improvements consistent with the November 2024 Auditor’s Report and applicable state law.”

O’Doherty noted that neither she nor the Ryther Law Group — the firm representing her organization — received any supplemental documentation to bolster the city’s claims.

She also accused the city of inserting more drama into the situation by retaliating against her for raising concerns. The city declined to comment on the accusations.

On Jan. 30, a little more than two weeks after the city received the demand letter, the shelter’s deputy director, Monica Wylie, wrote a letter to O’Doherty demanding that she return a set of keys and that she not enter non-public areas of the shelter.

“We don’t know the circumstances or when you came into possession of these keys,” Wylie wrote. “Irrespective of the circumstances, only city employees should have a set of keys to a City facility, and for obvious reasons, possession by a non-city employee that has not been approved by current operations team and management compromises the security of the facility, and safety of the animals housed within.”

O’Doherty scoffed at Wyle’s letter, saying she was given keys under a previous agreement with management to bring dog playgroups to the shelter, and added that the shelter has used her to train new volunteers and assess new dogs.

“This is not a one-off, and I, and many others, predicted that this would take place because they are operating on a very clear playbook,” O’Doherty said. “If anyone raises concerns, usher them to the door, literally, and the canned response is ‘Your services are no longer needed.’”