Grocery shopping is not a major life activity. From 28 CFR 36.104, "The phrase major life activities means functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."
So unpack it. On it's most basic level, what prevents a person with severe social anxiety (with panic attacks) from shopping? At the root you will find a major life activity, I promise.
I'll do this one as an example, but this really is something that should be discussed (unpacked) with a qualified therapist. During a panic attack thoughts become very rapid and tend to spiral into greater and greater distortions. Even if a person has been taught techniques for controlling panic attacks (visual imagery, breathing or grounding exercises, etc.), they may be unable to recall them or even if recalled to actually implement them.
Thinking is a major life activity. The primary substantial limitation in a major life activity with a severe panic disorder is a loss of ability to think. We're not talking about forgetting where you put your glasses, but thinking on its most basic level. One example:
Inability to recognize danger such as an oncoming car or misreading a police officer as dangerous and disobeying their instructions. These are examples of thinking so impaired it can get you killed. Somewhere between, "I can't find my glasses" and "I can't recognize danger" is a line that marks a "substantial" limitation. I can't tell you exactly where that line lies, just give you an example on either side of it. Only a judge can determine where the line actually lies.
So assuming we have a disability that substantially limits the person's ability to think, the next question is, how does the proposed task mitigate the inability to think? I really am going to let you guys work through this one on your own (or with a therapist). It's more of an explanation than I want to address.
1. substantial limitation in major life activity
2. mitigating task to overcome limitation
3. is this task trained?
Cover all three and you've got a task.
See also Storms v Fred Meyer Stores
http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/197The next question is whether that function alone would make a good case that a dog is a service dog. The answer is, "no," because the task is weak (difficult to prove it is intentionally trained in court). Please note: I define tasks as strong (easy to prove and legitimate), weak (legitimate, but difficult to prove), bonus (easy to prove but wouldn't qualify as a task). This has nothing whatever to do with how beneficial a trained behavior might be, just with how strong I think it is as evidence in court.
A person with an anxiety impairment so severe as to substantially limit the person's ability to think would need many other kinds of help as well. The grounding task, for one. Guiding when disoriented. Finding a person or place by name. It goes on.
A final note: if you're going to teach a boundary task (maintaining a boundary around a person), this is the correct way to do it. The dog should never confront people who get close. That encourages aggression in the dog and can be unnecessarily confrontational with the public. Circling or blocking with a side are non-confrontational and will not encourage aggression in a dog.