Target Refuses To Let Mother In Fitting Room With Stroller-Bound Handicapped Child As That's "A Fire Hazard"

Having a handicapped child changes life completely. Simple tasks such as grocery shopping have become a major ordeal for me. I rarely go to stores alone due to the difficulties pushing a wheelchair and buggy simultaneously and family members work schedules leave little time to assist me with shopping. My three year old daughter is unable to sit independently, walk, or talk. To navigate stores I find it easier to use her lightweight stroller rather than her bulky and heavy wheelchair…

On Friday July 13, 2007 I was in the Hattiesburg, MS Target with my mother and handicapped daughter. We had over a hundred dollars worth of items to buy and several articles of clothes to potentially buy. The dressing room employee checked the number of clothes we had and that’s when the absurdity began. The employee informed me I could not go into the dressing room with my stroller but I could leave my stroller and child with her while I tried on the clothes. I tried to explain that my daughter was handicapped and used the stroller in place of her wheelchair but it made no difference. I was told that the stroller was a fire hazard and could not be in the dressing room under any circumstances. Again she said that she would watch my child. Arguing how absurd this discrimination was made no difference to the Target employee.

My mother asked to speak with the manager only to find the same pretentious fire hazard excuse for not allowing my daughters’ method of transportation into the dressing room. The managers solution was to call a 1 800 number with a complaint. We left the store feeling abused and discriminated against.

It is unfathomable to imagine why Target feels a store clerk is qualified to watch store patrons children much less a handicapped child. As if some high school store clerk cares or is prepared if someone’s child gets knocked over in the stroller, kidnapped, injured, chokes, or has a seizure. As a nurse I can assure you none of Targets’ employees are qualified to care for my handicapped child but as a mother I find that fact irrelevant in this farce. Why would Target assume that I would trust my child with a complete stranger that may be called to the floor or get preoccupied with other customers?

Target has no right to discriminate and further handicap mothers, their children, and the handicapped. In my situation shopping is hard enough without added obstacles created because Target is afraid someone might steal something in a stroller. In my opinion, the fire safety excuse for their blatant discrimination is a means to justify anti theft measures. Either way whether fire or theft is the reason the result is the same – I feel discriminated against.

I feel assured that if a fire swarms Target I would have less difficulty pushing my daughters’ stroller out of the dressing room than an elderly person or handicapped adult in the same dressing room. What’s next? Will the elderly be banned from trying on clothes or from the store completely as a fire hazard? Furthermore, the crowds of buggies piled high with rejected clothes that were backed up around the entrance/exit to the dressing room is a far greater fire hazard than a child’s stroller.

Ashley R.

(Photo: sylvar)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Geekybiker says:

    They meant “fire” hazard as in they will get fired in they let you in there with it.

  2. LowerHouseMember says:

    So… it sounds like there were three people there, why didn’t the mother’s mother just watch the kid for a few minutes?

  3. scoobydoo says:

    What is it with Target lately? They used to be pretty customer friendly, but more and more it seems like they borrowed a few pages from the Walmart customer services guide.

    Thumbs WAY down to them for this.

  4. CreativeLinks says:

    Sorry, I can’t blame Target in this situation. I have to agree with LOWERHOUSEMEMBER. Why didn’t the mother’s mother sit out with the child and the target employee?

    Also, I thought it was excellent customer service on Target’s part to offer to watch the child while the Mom tried on clothes. It sounds like they tried to accomodate her needs, but she wasn’t having any of it.

    I think the word “discrimination” here is a bit harsh.

  5. LowerHouseMember says:

    Also, it’s not like stores just arbitrarily decide what is and isn’t a fire hazard. The fire marshal does that. If the fire marshal says you can’t have something blocking an exit path, you can’t have something blocking an exit path. Overturning that rule was not a call that clerk could make, and I love how she’s being derided and insulted for just offering to help out as best she could.

    That said, Target probably should have bigger dressing rooms that allow for this type of handicapped access.

  6. bambino says:

    I feel bad for the woman. However, she was not ‘discriminated’ against. Everyone with a stroller would have been told the same thing. If you’re going to write a serious letter, please get the terminology correct, lest you sound like Al Sharpton.

  7. Jasmo says:

    Ya know, just because one employee and one manager of a Target location do something stupid doesn’t mean that you are being discriminated against – it just means that these people can’t resolve your wants (bring kid with) with their orders (no strollers in dressing room). Crying discrimination just escalates the whole thing into a shit-storm that will never end.

  8. SOhp101 says:

    This isn’t discrimination because of disability. She even offered to watch the child, and even if she is not qualified to do so she is in such close proximity that she could yell and immediately get the mother’s attention.

    One thing I don’t understand is why they didn’t have a ‘disabled persons’ changing room. Nearly every clothing retailer I’ve been to has one.

    Ashley, if you have a problem with the fire code, go complain to the fire marshal, not Target. Better yet, maybe you should have just let your mom watch your kid while you changed. Way to make a mountain out of a molehill.

  9. swalve says:

    Target was denying her the right to act in an unsafe manner! How is she going to win the lawsuit lottery if she can’t block exits with her daughter??

  10. whereismyrobot says:

    Yeah, I am calling BS on this one. Every Target has a handicapped room.

    I feel for the woman, but it seems like she was looking for a reason to complain.

  11. KIRZEN2007 says:

    They may be quite serious when they say that you can’t have the stroller in the dressing room, there are actually relatively strict rules regarding obstructions in some fire codes. The matter is that if they let you ‘into’ the dressing room, and the stroller prevents you from getting ‘out’ of the dressing room because of its size or bulk, or shape, and you cannot evacuate the building in a reasonable time and suffer physical injury or trauma as a result, you ‘could’ sue them.

    Would you?

    Probably not.

    To give you an idea, when I was working in the hotel industry, every room in the hotel that already had two beds in it could not have an additional cot. Regardless of the fact that the suite was quite large and could have accomodated the small foot print of a cot without cramping the room, the fire codes for the building stipulated that because of the square foot measurement of the suites they could not have anything more than two beds in them, because the third bed would make it difficult to evacute the room if a fire started. That was the fire marshal’s explanation of why we couldn’t have an additional cot in those rooms.

    At $10,000 per infraction, no one in a room with two beds was getting a cot -period-.

    Just make sure you understand that it ‘is’ possible that there is a regulation against what can and can’t go into the dressing rooms. It would be wonderful if all the locations had an oversize dressing room for special circumstances, but sometimes, that’s just not possible.

  12. Bye says:

    You should check with your local fire marshall to determine if this is indeed a ‘fire hazard’.

    The Target that I go to does not allow strollers into the dressing rooms because they assume people might fill them up with unpaid merchandise.

    This Target may be addressing the same shrinkage issues only under the guise of it being a fire hazard.

  13. ohayorisa says:

    @SOhp101:

    If the Target is like the one I used to work at, the handicapped dressing room may have been full of stuff waiting to go back out on the floor. My softlines bosses used to push carts full of merch in there to hide it from the store leads who patrolled the store.

  14. jeffeb3 says:

    If anything, she was discriminated against because she had a kid, and not because she had a handicapped kid. Please don’t teach your child to cry wolf and throw the handicap card when something goes wrong that has nothing to do with disabilities.

  15. Upsilon says:

    Well, the lady shouldn’t have worried about the stroller getting knocked over. I don’t know one person who wouldn’t catch a kid if he/she were falling. And these are the same people who will leave a broken glass on the floor “to pick up later.” *coughGUILTYcough*

    And the kidnapping? Please. Highschoolers carry shanks as a STANDARD these days…

    I hope I’m not being taken seriously, lol

  16. kaikhor says:

    For a company as big as Target, I am sure there would have to a handicap stall for legal reasons (American Disabilities Act, for one). I can understand the first “you can’t take a stroller in” but after explaining that the daughter is handicapped and needs to stay with her mother, I would expect that the handicap changing room would then be offered, even if it meant a short wait. I can understand fire codes, but there are federal laws that say you have to be able to accomodate the handicapped. As for stuff in the handicap stall, MOVE IT. At least temporarily.

  17. outsiderlookingn says:

    Target was actually in violation of the ADA by not allowing the child in with the mother. A business must make reasonable accommodation and they did not make a reasonable accommodation. It is not reasonable for an employee to watch a disabled child and that would be a lawsuit if something happened to a child. A stroller is considered medical equipment to a disabled child and a business must make their business accessible at all times to them. If this store did not have an available handicapped changing room they are in violation of the ADA. I highly doubt this was a violation of fire code and if it was, the store is required to make an accommodation. Just as having a pet in a restaurant is a violation of health code, restaurant are required to admit service animals due to the ADA.

  18. ChrisC1234 says:

    I like how the Target employee OFFERED to watch the child for her. This paragraph right here:

    “It is unfathomable to imagine why Target feels a store clerk is qualified to watch store patrons children much less a handicapped child. As if some high school store clerk cares or is prepared if someone’s child gets knocked over in the stroller, kidnapped, injured, chokes, or has a seizure. As a nurse I can assure you none of Targets’ employees are qualified to care for my handicapped child but as a mother I find that fact irrelevant in this farce. Why would Target assume that I would trust my child with a complete stranger that may be called to the floor or get preoccupied with other customers? “

    I honestly feel sorry for any children that this woman does have. I would honestly say the employee was attempting to help the woman out with the rules by offering to watch the child (probably something else she’s not supposed to do), but this woman [sarcasm]who I’m sure was exremely polite during the whole ordeal[/sarcasm] wouldn’t even consider that. The Target employee probably would’ve kept a better eye on the kid than the mother did while shopping (as kid falls out while mom is reading a package).

  19. Charmander says:

    @Rey: This Target may be addressing the same shrinkage issues only under the guise of it being a fire hazard.

    I think you may be on to something there. I’ve been in stores where they let you take the entire shopping cart into the dressing room (the cart functioning the same as a stroller because my child is sitting in it), as well as strollers.

  20. a says:

    Don’t dressing rooms have handicapped stalls? How do people in wheelchairs try things on? Isn’t this the same setup as a bathroom? Is it a fire hazard for a handicapped person to go to the bathroom?

    How are people possibly blaming this woman (besides the second adult to watch the child, which isn’t the point)?

    How is an object with wheels a fire hazard?

    The questions!

  21. Slytherin says:

    @LowerHouseMember: I have to agree with you 100%. Why didn’t the mother’s mother take care of the child? Common sense seems to remain at the entrance when people go shopping.

  22. outsiderlookingn says:

    @ChrisC1234: I would NEVER allow a store employee to watch a handicapped child. They are not qualified to watch this women’s child or any child with special needs. Is this women going to be responsible if a child has a seizure, stops breathing, has an asthma attack, etc? No, she would have no idea what to do in an emergency or what symptoms to look out for or precautions to take. Many handicapped children can not attend public classrooms (they go to ESE) and can not go to most daycares because the staff is not qualified to care for these children, so in no way, is a store employee qualified.

  23. JayThree says:

    Wow! Once again a negative Target story and everyone blames the writer! Funny how that is always reversed when Wal-Mart is the store in question!

  24. kaikhor says:

    For those asking about the mother’s mother, what if she was on the other side of the store? With my family, when we’re browsing stores we split up for awhile and meet back up after whoever got whatever they needed from that section way over there. Although it states the grandmother went shopping with them, it never states she was standing there through this whole ordeal. It’s very possible she was over picking up shampoo on the opposite side of the store.

  25. Slytherin says:

    @kaikhor: “My mother asked to speak with the manager only to find the same pretentious fire hazard excuse for not allowing my daughters’ method of transportation into the dressing room.”

    I doubt she was on the other side of the store if she asked to speak with a manager about the situation.

  26. Frapp says:

    Allow me to play devil’s advocate here…

    I’m just curious as to why all of you are making such harsh comments about the mother? While her letter is phrased much like a typical “I’m MOM and thou shall obey me” complaint, perhaps she left some information out. Missing info happens to everyone, especially when you’re writing for people who may not be familiar with the topic. In her state of mind to get the letter written, it is certainly feasible.

    Consider what type of handicap the child has. Would it become unruly in the absence of the mother? Does it require a certain level of attention that the mother can only give?

    What of the grandmother in the situation? Is she able enough herself to tend to the child should it need something? If not, it’d be like the blind leading the blind.

    How about the Target employee? It was certainly a nice gesture to provide child-watching services. However, as others have stated before me, the employee is likely not licensed or qualified to watch the child. If something happened that required the clerk’s attention in the store, the attention would not be on the child. It’s a disaster and/or a kidnapping waiting to happen.

  27. kaikhor says:

    @Slytherin: I saw that after I posted. But I couldn’t take it back (need a delete and edit button!). I apologize.

  28. Televiper says:

    She should of called the Fire Marshall before making the assumption and writing to the consumerist. Yes, they could have done a lot more to accommodate her.

    The building I live in has halls that are 8ft wide. You can’t have anything in the hallway be it a bicycle, or blue box (a floor mat is OK). You can’t have anything in the gap underneath the stairs either.

    It doesn’t make sense that a light umbrella stroller with a three year old would be interpreted as a fire hazard.

  29. clarient says:

    I think both parties are at fault.

    Target should have been more accomodating in attempting to find a solution, and this woman should have been more reasonable in accepting that there is a policy that prohibits strollers in a fitting room.

  30. Miss Anthropy says:

    I’m confused. When, exactly, did she ask to use the handicapped dressing room? I see where she called fire regulations “pretentious” and complained that she was discriminated against, but I can’t tell if she was denied access to an ADA-compliant dressing room, or if one even existed.

    That sort of information would go a long way toward clearing this up. But again, it’s so much easier to blame a Target employee who may very well be complying with the law. (I’m sure the employee has heard customers suddenly claim their children are “handicapped” in an attempt to get around the rules, which is why I’d like to know if they specifically asked to use the handicapped dressing room. It seems like that would have easily solved the problem, and yet nobody seems to have tried that route.)

  31. Graedus says:

    The mother is out of line. It has nothing to do with the child but the stroller itself. Taking a bulky object and fitting it into Target’s tight fitting room hallway is a fire hazard, regardless of what is in the stroller. Why not have the grandmother watch the child (as previously mentioned by other users), or why not have the grandmother/mother carry the child since trying on new clothes must be a family activity.

    Obviously a store clerk isn’t qualified to watch any child, but it is beyond the point entirely. Cudos to the Target staff for not swaying, especially after the cries of “discrimination”.

    I work as a lifeguard and swimming instructor with four years of experience. I have worked closely with special needs students and their parents, and I am aware of the ordeal they go through to keep their children active (while still being exceptionally reasonable people). But, I also have to enforce unpopular rules that some parents are reluctant to follow. (Get your dirt-ridden shoes off our deck. Thanks.)

    The rules are there for a reason and, when broken, will result in someone’s head being cut off if A) a supervisor/inspector is doing their job right, or B) an actual emergency happens.

  32. powerjhb says:

    To all of you asking why did the Grandmother not take the child, maybe she was not qualified either. My daughter has a tracheotomy among other issues and the only ones qualified to take care of her are myself, my wife or a qualified nurse (we were trained in the hospital for 3 weeks before they would release her). If my mother came shopping with me, I could not leave my daughter with her as I would need to be there in case of emergency and my mom has not been trained.

    It is a simple request and those without disabled children do not know the everyday struggles just to do normal things with your children. My daughter was a year old before we even took her to a grocery store.

    Also, strollers for children who are wheelchair bound are easier for the parents as well as you don’t have as many people staring at your child and they are cheaper.

  33. Xerloq says:

    Every Target I’ve been to has a handicapped changing room, and I’ve never had a problem with taking a stroller into one. Why is this woman special?

  34. Thrust says:

    Ok. First, handicapped children can be considered a fire hazard. In an emergency, all civility and reason go out the window like OJ Simpson’s career. People push, shove, trample, and force their way to safety. Janie Q. Dribblechin in the chair there (or any child in any wheeled contraption) is a high risk factor in such an emergency, as she is likely to get bowled over as someone trips over her stroller.

    Now government regulated fire and safety rules are up there with laws and court orders. You don’t f*cking argue with them. She says fire hazard, that means someone with more power than the store General Manager has declared it so. If that is inconvenient to you, who gives a flying f*ck. Its the rules, and they are not up for negotiation. If you’re going to say it’s discrimination, Die In A Fire! Literally.

    Now if, IF it is not actually a rule but a means for them to prevent shoplifting, I STILL say tough shit to the mother. Shoplifting is a very serious problem in retail, and the government has only made it easier since you can’t apprehend the shoplifters until they try to leave with the merchandise, and that you can’t question customers on what’s in their bag/purse/anus because you’ll violate their fictional civil liberties. Stores have to protect their interests, and I say let them. Because when they loose merchandise, prices go UP. I ain’t payin more for my stuff because someone argued her way around store policy, then stuffed a stroller full of free loot.

    @JayThree: If this happened at walmart, I’d STILL be rag’ing on the mother because this whole story has nothing to do with the fact her child is a sped, but she claims discrimination. She wasn’t discriminated, she was told a store/government policy and decided it didn’t apply to her because she’s special. I don’t know why Target didn’t have and/or offer her a special needs changing room. I don’t know why she didn’t leave the kid with her mother (kid’s grandmother). I also don’t know why people insist on bringing their handicapped kids out shopping with them all the time, but if they do, its their problem not everyone around them. Don’t expect special treatment because you have a disabled child, because by the very same laws that forbid us for treating your child differently than everyone else, we cannot turn it around and treat you/her special either, or you discriminate against everyone without a special need.

  35. floofy says:

    I don’t think the real reason she denied bringing her child in was safety. I think it was theft reasons. Having worked in retail, unsavory people use strollers and kids to hide merchandise under. Granted, this may not have been her case, but what’s the use of having a policy if they made exceptions for every person with a stroller (including the ones stuffing merchandise into those strollers and under the kids). My step sister is wheelchair bound, so I completely understand why she may be a little sensitive about discrimination, but I don’t understand why she didn’t allow her mother to watch the child if she didn’t want the store clerk who graciously offered to do so.

  36. LSonnenhimmer says:

    I was going to post a ‘quit whining’ comment but everyone here summed it up nicely.

    And Ms. Ashley R., don’t use your child’s condition to invoke special favors or attention. You will end up thriving upon that to the detriment of your child.

  37. bohemian says:

    If the mother was trying on clothes why didn’t she leave the kid with grandma?
    If mom was trying clothes on the handicapped kid did she mention this? I think ADA usually allows an assistant for a handicapped person in places they don’t usually allow two people. I also can’t imagine trying on clothes with a seriously handicapped child would be a good use of time. It would probably be more hassle than just estimating that it fits since Target clothes are cheap and easily returned.
    It also does not mention if they were trying to use the handicapped dressing room or not.
    I think part of the reason they rejected the stroller aside from the theft issues was probably to prevent people from blocking the aisles with those SUV sized stroller.
    I was in an Applebees for lunch in a slightly upscale suburb last summer. You literally could not navigate the walkways between tables due to all the freaking SUV sized strollers. It was a major hazard.

  38. Lordstrom says:

    Ugh, I seriously want to smack this woman upside the head. Her wanton use of “discrimination” is despicable. The fact that she’s using a disabled child as the vehicle only makes her worse of a human being.

    I really hope she doesn’t create anymore children.

  39. acambras says:

    @Thrust:
    Janie Q. Dribblechin in the chair there

    Some of your comments have been funny, but that’s just fucking hateful.

  40. appleface says:

    Set aside for a minute your disgust for the events in this story, and look at the store policy. I would never let a stranger, store employee or otherwise watch my child! I find it disturbing that more people don’t see that as a problem in this story.

  41. pwn4g3 says:

    Look at the point of this story guys. Whether her mother was there or not doesn’t matter. What if she was alone? Are you really going to trust your child with a person you’ve never met? If you would, I have to say that that’s not good parenting. It seems it’s just an inconvenience to me.

    Could it have legitimately been a fire hazard? Yes. Could Target have screwed her? Yes. I think she’s just pissed about the principle of the whole thing, she can’t watch her own child. I feel for her, but I see what Targets point was (if a real point was there).

  42. Mike_ says:

    Lady, if you want to be supported instead of derided, you’ve got to give the persecution complex a rest. Here’s how to write to The Consumerist about Target mistreating its disabled customers:

    Target Targets Handicapped, We Target Them

  43. rkm12 says:

    I’m curious to know whether they would have allowed a wheelchair in or if it’s just the stroller.

    What if the girl using the stroller was the one who wanted to try on clothes? I’m curious because I use a wheelchair and have used the dressing room several times at several Targets without issue. Maybe this is a store issue since I’ve seen many a stroller in the dressing room.

  44. missdona says:

    I’m not speaking for the employee, but when I worked retail I would .Never. .Ever. .Ever. offer to watch someone’s kid (handicapped or not). It’s not a responsibility of the staff to keep the kid safe/healthy/out of trouble.

  45. rkm12 says:

    As a person with a disability life can be inconvenient. Sometimes it’s not being able to get around or go where you need to go. Not being able to take the stroller in the room sucks, but life sucks and sometimes you compromise and make the situation work like asking the mother to watch her or going later when someone else can watch her daughter.

    Is it really fair, no. As a crippled kid you learn early that life isn’t fair and get on with making life just work.

    I don’t know enough about the situation to pass judgement on either side, but I wonder if it was the handicapped stall or a regular one. I think that would make a big differnce.

  46. erica.blog says:

    My best friend has a toddler with similar-sounding problems (in a wheelchair/stroller, potential for seizures, etc), and having gone shopping with her, I know firsthand that even a disabilities-friendly locale is much more difficult to navigate with a disabled toddler. Places that aren’t willing/able to accommodate the disabled don’t get our business, but luckily most people try to be extra helpful instead of add barriers. Too bad Target and most of Consumerist commenters aren’t in that category.

    Beyond being good parenting to not trust strangers for babysitting, kudos to the mother for not leaving her child with either the fitting room attendant or the grandmother. How do you think the kid must have felt — “No, you can’t go in there with Mommy. It’s because you’re in a wheelchair. Too bad you’re different, because if you’re around and there’s a fire it would be hard for other people to get out!” Just because the kid can’t walk doesn’t mean her mental faculties are impaired…

  47. TheDude06 says:

    What exactly, in fire marshall terms, is the difference between a stroller and a wheelchair?

    none that i can find! If wheelchairs are allowed, there should be no reason a stroller wouldnt.

  48. Haplo9000 says:

    Putting aside the actual complaint in this post, what the heck is the deal with “Oh, just leave your kid with me, I’ll watch her”? Are you freaking kidding me? My two-year-old daughter is as healthy as a horse, but there’s no way I’m letting some random Target employee “watch” her while I go try on clothes for 10 minutes. The fact that the employee thought that was a rational solution boggles the mind. I’m not even talking about store liability or anything here…just, as a parent, this strikes me as totally absurd.

  49. SaraAB87 says:

    I can see why she had a problem, It might be very common for moms with children to want to use the dressing room stating the reason for this is that their child is handicapped, then when they are allowed in they shoplift the clothing. Any parent could declare any child in a stroller as handicapped. This particular store may have been having a lot of problems with this particular type of theft. She may have also run into a jaded employee that sees a lot of these “handicapped” kids. Note, I have no doubt that the person writing the letter is telling the truth but if this type of fraud is common in her area its reasonable to assume that the employee thought she was lying about her kid being handicapped. This was a bad judgement call for the employee and manager though.

    We need more details on this. We need to find out if they offered them the handicapped dressing room, pretty much every store I have gone into has one, so lets hope they have one too, and if this really is a fire code for their area.. I have to agree that having an employee watch ANY child is very inappropriate in any situation and if this is store policy then it needs to be changed quick.

  50. DeeJayQueue says:

    Wow, I wonder if she thinks she’s being discriminated against?

    Seriously, no she’s not. Actually it’s the opposite. She’s being put into the same boat and being made to follow the same rules that everyone else is, and she’s bitching about it.

    Did she ask to use the handicapped stall? We don’t know, but from the tone of the letter I’d guess that she either didn’t ask or there wasn’t one. That being the case, Target would have to fall back on the rules that say “No Strollers In Fitting Rooms.” It was bad judgement on the part of the employee to offer to watch the child. That opens the store to liability, but in the moment I’m sure they were just trying to help. If it truly was a fire code, there’s nothing they can do to skirt the rules. I’m not a fire code expert, but I’m pretty sure that the rule is something like “under no circumstances can anything be blocking a means of ingress or egress for any reason or for any length of time” or words to that effect. It’s the same reason you can’t sit in the aisle at a movie, and why doors in public buildings that lock automatically have to have crash bars on the inside. It’s also why Joe Clark got put in jail.

  51. Ponygirl says:

    @LowerHouseMember: The fact is that if this child had been in a wheelchair Target could not have refused entrance. Doesn’t that make refusing access based on the mode of transportation in this case discriminatory?

  52. padabo says:

    Wait, if I have a child in a stroller I can’t try on clothes at Target? Unless I leave my child somewhere where I can’t see him/her? Really?

  53. ThyGuy says:

    I’m with target on this situation. If they didn’t have a dress room for disabled people, then they just don’t have a damn dress room for them. Want to sue them? Fine! But you’re still not going into that dressing room with your disabled child.

    Just remember, no matter what happens, in the end your child is still going to be a retard.

  54. Lordstrom says:

    @padabo: I don’t see why anyone should be playing dress up while taking care of a baby or handicapped child. That is absolutely unnecessary. You can at least wait until they’re able to walk.

  55. rkm12 says:

    See, even though I agree with the people above that the women’s going overboard, it’s the retarded comments and others about chin dribbling that sometimes put people with disabilities on edge. Can’t you guys get your point across without being a-holes?

  56. Xenuite says:

    Nope. Its in their blood. Perhaps they need stroller too… wait… I think that would have lead to another retard comment… And something I want to point out, do people really complain about everything that happens at a retail store now? C’mon, the saying “the customer is always right” is BS and people should start just accepting the fact that they won’t get everything they want. Part of this woman’s tirade reminds me of when I told my nephew he couldn’t play my Xbox ’cause I was watching a movie with friends.
    America needs to grow up and suck it up.

  57. Thrust says:

    Ok, there’s a few comments on the “What if it were a wheelchair” kind of thoughts.

    Different rules would have applied with a real wheelchair. It is an approved medical device designed for the use it receives. It is ALSO a believable sign of a real handicap. A stroller is not proper transport for a handicapped child that has been assigned a wheelchair, or the doctors would have given her a bloody stroller. Now she comes up with her “supposedly handicapped” kid, who isn’t in a wheelchair. That cries possible shoplifter to retail. It’s like a blind man without his cane, or someone walking on a cast-encased foot without using crutches. It is NOT discriminatory for them to say wheelchair fine, stroller unacceptable. Partly because she was SUPPOSED to be in the wheelchair, and partly because a stroller isn’t the same dimensions as the wheelchairs they design handicapped access items for.

    @ThyGuy: Nicely put.

    @rkm12 & acambras: I can’t speak for why ThyGuy or anyone else makes fun of and/or insensitive or hateful towards “mentally handicapped” people, I can only say why I am a hateful bastard towards them. My own personal/religious beliefs are part of it. The beliefs I hold to (as does many of my friends) is that a person is what’s in the head, not the body. I would expand on this but I KNOW it will offend many people. The short form of it is that no amount of physical deformity or disability changes the fact that a physically disabled person is still a person, but mental functionality and capacity DO make a difference in determining whether someone is just a slow-learning slightly deficient person, or on the other side of the line, they aren’t considered human. It’s not a popular opinion with most people, but we are entitled to it.

  58. rkm12 says:

    You have beliefs that tell you to be hateful toward the disabled. Ok. I agree with you on your point, however, that using a wheelchair is different.

  59. wakela says:

    Consumerist:
    Does this Target have a changing room for the handicapped?
    Is there a fire code in Hattiesburg, MS that bans strollers from changing rooms?
    Why didn’t the woman let her mother watch her child?
    Ten minutes on the phone and an email, and you would have this information. But instead commenters are left to speculate on crucial details. As it stands we can’t really make an informed opinion of the situation.

    As long as we’re speculating without evidence, how’s this: The Consumerist intentionally posts an inflamatory headline accuising a big company of wrongdoing. This encourages people to click through to read the whole story. The Consumerist intentionally doesn’t bother to research the questions that would help us make an informed decision. This encourages people to argue in the comment section, spending more time on the page. Then The Consumerist gets to charge treehugger and hawker artists more advertising money.

    There are many legitimate consumer complaints posted on The Consumerist, and this story cheapens all of them.

  60. bosleydear says:

    I disagree with many of the comments here and that may be because my 8 year old daughter is in a wheelchair and has been since she was about 3. When a person is handicapped, and requires a wheelchair (or a stroller as we often did when she was small enough & we didn’t feel like lugging a 70 lb wheelchair out and in to the car) they should be permitted to go where an able bodied person could go. To me, that’s the principle that’s violated in this case. If she’d have been allowed in the dressing room with her child sans stroller, she should be allowed in the dressing room with the stroller in this case. The availability of someone else to watch the child is immaterial. A mother should be able to take her child into a dressing room.

  61. EtherealStrife says:

    @ThyGuy: LMAO
    @wakela: Yup. Seems somewhat intentional, as the ones that are most open ended are also those that spark the most controversy. And comments.

  62. missdona says:

    My mom has had three hip replacement surgeries. Hip replacements often have to be re-done after a certain amount of time.

    She struggles to get in and out of the car and booths in restaurants. When she started using her cane, right before the third surgery, she noticed a marked difference in how she was treated in public. Hence the wheelchair vs. stroller controversy.

    She’s still stared at, all the time, but people might actually extend a hand to help her out.

    And anyone who wants to be hateful toward her, because she walks with a limp and was born without fully functional hips, can deal with my wrath.

  63. donnie5 says:

    This may sound harsh, but she should have grabbed the manager and punched him in his face. That is ridiculous. Some people just need an ass whoopin.
    ***As a disclaimer, I do not advocate ass-whoopins on a regular basis, just this one, please do not go and whoop someones ass on account of this comment, Thanks***

  64. @Televiper: “It doesn’t make sense that a light umbrella stroller with a three year old would be interpreted as a fire hazard.”

    In a standard dressing room it absolutely could be. If you’ve ever gotten yourself stuck in a narrow airport bathroom stall because of your suitcase and had to sort-of bumble around to get back out, you could see why. Doors on dressing rooms generally open in, not out, and the stroller could block the door from opening back up.

    That said, there should have been a handicapped dressing room available with adequate room so that this would NOT be a problem and the room would be exempt from the fire hazard issue. Assuming this was a real fire-related policy and not a theft policy, I don’t presume to know whether Target didn’t make the room available or the mother didn’t ask.

    Aside, when out with a handicapped family member (whose problem isn’t super-visible), we’ve always found that calling ahead or a quick word with the manager on arrival bypasses the vast majority of this kind of problem. Sure, we shouldn’t “have” to do it, he has legal rights to accommodation, but people are often poorly-educated on disabilities and it generally ensures we get exemplary service and accommodation because when people are aware of the issue, they typically go well out of their way to be helpful.

    (It also prevents nasty little public struggles for accommodation that draw attention to his disability, because he’s still fairly young and pretty sensitive about that. *I* enjoy a little righteous indignation at non-compliant stores, but he finds it very embarrassing, and that’s much more important than me liking to argue.)

  65. Chairman-Meow says:

    Not to sidetrack here, but I’m going to anyways.

    Hattiesburg Mississippi is the only place east of the Mississippi to host a Nuclear Detonation; two of them in-fact.

    Just thought you’d like to know.

  66. Xenuite says:

    @Televiper: “It doesn’t make sense that a light umbrella stroller with a three year old would be interpreted as a fire hazard.”

    At some point someone like this woman brought a stroller in and Hitler was born. Do you want Hitler back? ‘Cause it sounds like you do.

  67. savvy9999 says:

    Nobody has also mentioned the obvious alternative, that Mommy could have perhaps taken her daughter out of the stroller, laid her on her blanket in the dressing room, and not turned this into a Watts riot.

    Personally, I would have let the employee watch the daughter, and asked for the closest changing room to the door, and talked the whole time to both. A kid strapped into a stroller in a department store is about as safe a situation as one can get. And the employee is not being asked to perform physical therapy on the child, just simply keep eyes open and communicate any obvious changes. If you can’t trust someone who hasn’t had ‘training’ to do that much, then you’ve got control issues.

    I have kids, some with problems, and in my experience, that woman is 1) paranoid about the chances of her kid having a severe medical emergency at any given moment (extremely low, otherwise stay at home), and 2) rather close-minded about adapting to unique situations. Think outside of the box and have a little trust, Mommy Dearest, or you’re in for years of similar grief.

  68. B* says:

    I worked the fitting room at a Target a while back in a different state. We had two larger fitting rooms for people with disabilities. As one commenter said, one was always packed with stuff (ad equipment mostly) and usually locked. Personally, I never remember any rules about not allowing people with strollers to use fitting rooms (that doesn’t even make sense, where would you put an infant?). People had to leave carts out but were welcome to use the larger fitting room whether or not their child was disabled. If theft was an issue, I would simply call a security employee and ask them to watch the person for a while after they left the fitting rooms. Also, I would never, ever offer to watch a child. It sounds like the employees in this story were simply not willing to accommodate the customer (or in Targetese, the “guest”). I wouldn’t necessarily call it discrimination, but certainly laziness and rudeness.

  69. B* says:

    Oh, and laying a child on a blanket on the floor of the fitting room is a /terrible/ idea. Target doesn’t keep blankets laying around, and do you realize how many kids pee on the floor in there and it never gets cleaned? I don’t even take my shoes off when I try on clothes.

  70. beyond says:

    I guess the question is, would they have let 3 people and a stroller in the dressing room had they not been handicapped? Why is it that whenever someone who is a minority or disabled doesn’t get their way, they cry discrimination?

  71. Mike_ says:

    Like I said up here … She may have been mistreated, but there are ways to complain about it that don’t involve playing the “discrimination” card five times in as many paragraphs. I feel very strongly about handicap accessibility, and would have really liked to support her, but I couldn’t get through her letter without rolling my eyes.

    So …

    - Disregarding the needs of the disabled is unconscionable.

    - Target seems to have mishandled some aspects of this encounter.

    - Ashley seems really obnoxious. I don’t like her very much.

    - She also mishandled some aspects of the encounter.

    - Some of her story doesn’t make sense.

    My suggestions:

    - Don’t be so obnoxious.

    - Learn how to handle these situations better.

    - Try to make more sense.

    … and maybe next time you’ll get a more sympathetic audience here.

  72. vanilla-fro says:

    Maybe the grandmother wasn’t qualified to help the kid…..how long would it take for a mother to get to her child in need of help from a dressing room a couple of feet away once grammy yelled? in case you’re wondering, not long at all literally seconds. even if the child was choking you have a couple seconds to rectify that otherwise half of us wouldn’t be reading this right now.

    Also how easily can you get around the stroller in a little dressing room to help the child within the dressing room?

    Sure Target may not actually have rules about the stroller in the dressing room because of fire codes, but they may. Maybe this target should have a handicap dressing room. if they didn’t, they didn’t and had no option to help this mother further.

    I feel for the mother as I have friends and family with hanicaped children, but crying discrimination about something like this doesn’t help anyone at all.

  73. missdona says:

    Also, another option is to buy-and-return, bypassing the dressing room altogether. She may not like that option, but it is one available to her.

  74. mhutt says:

    While in a target store in Kemah, TX. I had the same problem. I had my newborn in a stroller and needed to try on clothes. I was told I could not take the stroller with me but the clerk would be happy to watch my baby for me. I was astounded that they thought I should leave my baby with a stranger. I am allowed to take my stroller into walmart handicapped stalls, I don’t see how it is different at target.

  75. LoLoren says:

    As a Target employee and fitting room attendant, that Target team member and team lead were wrong in this situation.
    a. It is not common practice to have merchandise in the handicapped fitting room. I’ve never seen this in any store in my area and can’t imagine it very legal because of the ADA.
    b. As long as an employee checks to make sure the cart or stroller are empty of any merchandise, guests are more than welcome to take them into any fitting room. It’s not very common that a guest takes one into the non-handicapped fitting room so I’ve never seen this as an issue before.
    c. If the guest had merchandise in the basket, we would offer to hold onto the products while they took the cart or stroller with child into the fitting room.
    It’s not rocket science – it’s guest service.

  76. acambras says:

    I keep seeing stuff in here about stores using what’s supposed to be their accessible dressing room to store extra merchandise, as if that’s OK. The accessible dressing room should not be used as some sort of satellite stockroom. It is not there for the convenience of management/employees.

    I think the employee attributed the prohibition of strollers to fire codes because that’s a little easier to tell a customer (“It’s out of my hands”) than to tell them, “You can’t take that stroller in there because you might steal.” And I realize that stores are concerned with shrinkage, but prohibiting strollers in dressing rooms seems disingenuous to me. Lots of mothers (and fathers) with small children shop at Target. In this day and age, I would not feel comfortable letting ANY small child out of my sight, and I certainly would think that having any stranger (including a Target staffer) “watch” the child would be a bad idea.

    Besides, strollers aren’t the only way people could shoplift. What about big bags, loose clothing that camouflages stolen clothing worn out of the store, etc.? I’ve even heard of “pregnant” women with fake “bellies” that hold stolen merchandise.

    Oh, and those people who think moms should stay home (or get a sitter every time they run an errand) should stop offering asinine advice on something they obviously know nothing about.

  77. Xenuite says:

    I just realized that this woman’s three year old is essentially a vegetable. Why even take her out when going shopping? Just get a sitter and go buy your stuff.
    Am I allowed to make a joke involving veggies now or would that be bad?

  78. missdona says:

    Getting a sitter for a trip to Target is not feasible for a lot of the population.

  79. CumaeanSibyl says:

    @lorddave: Yes, I completely agree. Parents don’t deserve to buy clothes. What an eminently sensible individual you are!

    Oh, and “wait until they’re able to walk”? That’s great, unless your kid is never going to be able to walk, in which case I guess you just can’t have nice things anymore. Forever.

  80. A post about the disabled = lots of incredibly stupid comments.

    1) Target ought to have had a handicap accessible changing room available.

    2) As powerjhb has already said, some disabilities require people who are trained/qualified to watch the person who has it. Maybe signs of trouble are easy to miss. Maybe severe complications happen quickly. Either way, it is not unreasonable for the mother not to want to leave her child with someone who will think it’s ok to walk away since the child can’t get out of the stroller.

    3) You can’t always get a sitter. #2 might make that impossible.

  81. The Walking Eye says:

    I think her using the child as a reason for special treatment is more dispicable than what Target did (not dispicable at all, really) or is accused of doing. It doesn’t matter one bit that her child is handicapped, as they weren’t denied entry for that reason. If the child wasn’t handicapped, but still too young to walk or whatever, the stroller wouldn’t have been allowed in the changing room. No strollers are allowed, per the store’s rules and the fire marshall, no matter the occupant of said stroller. Ashley needs to STFU.

  82. Thrust says:

    @rkm12: Half-right. I am increasingly more hateful to mentally challenged. Physically challenged people I have no issues with whatsoever. And it’s not all of the mentally challenged our beliefs consider subhuman. It’s an extreme example, but look at Stephen Hawking. He is barely able to interact with the world around him, and it is (from what I’ve been told) becoming more debilitating as time goes. As our beliefs are that the mind is what makes a person human, Professor Hawking can be classified as superhuman.

    I believe in natural selection, I’ve mentioned it before. I believe it is an absolutely terrific world we live in, where even a quadrapalegic (sp?) cand function in society at least to some degree, and that we continually improve our technologies to make life better for the physically challenged. We have two main victims for nature to take. The crippled and the dumb. We won’t give her the crippled, they aren’t for her. So lets give her the dumb.

  83. @Thrust: As karma is a bitch, I hope the inevitable early-onset senility coming for you works out well for you.

  84. missdona says:

    In my personal beliefs/religion, I believe that empathy is of the traits that makes someone human.

  85. missdona says:

    In my religion/personal beliefs, empathy is one of the traits that makes one human.

  86. mandawest says:

    I’ve been allowed into a Target dressing room with my child in a stroller. I went to the larger ‘family’ dressing room – I thought that all Target stores must have those. Or at least a handicap room that they could have used, which I see so often in Target stores that I thought it was an ADA requirement. What do customers with disabilities do? Are wheelchairs also not allowed at that particular store?
    I have to say I sympathize with this mother. After having a baby, my eyes were opened to just how easy I had it before. Now just simple errands take a lot more planning and work. The thought of him being three years old and still needing to be carried seems daunting.
    And also, there is no way on earth I would let a perfect stranger watch my own healthy child while I changed clothes. That’s not customer service – that’s creepy and much more of a liability for the store. Can you imagine if something had happened to the child? We would all be looking at that mother and saying “what would possess someone to leave her handicapped child with someone she had just met?”

  87. Transuranic says:

    Hey, that’s not funny! My nephew is retarded, and he has to wear a helmet!

  88. mermaidshoes says:

    screw banning people for being PR shills, ban them for hatefulness. i absolutely cannot believe some of the revolting responses to this situation. if i were just a little bit more of an asshole, i’d wish debilitating physical AND mental conditions on all of you, your families, and especially your children. but since i’m not quite that nasty, i’ll just ask people to consider having a little more sensitivity. this isn’t a raspberry mocha complaint, after all–it’s about the health and safety of a child, and legal regulations that require reasonable accommodation of customers. i’m not saying the stroller should have been allowed into a too-small dressing room (as that in itself could have been a safety threat), but i am saying that handicapped people (even children) should be able to access dressing rooms in some way, and that everyone should make a little more effort to accomodate their fellow human beings. the heartlessness overrunning this comments section is truly sickening.

    rather than hate on anyone, maybe we should look at some information:

    ADA requirements for fitting rooms [www.dbtac.vcu.edu]

    Another disabled child considered a fire hazard [www.buzzle.com]

    Disabled people are dangers even in church [findarticles.com]

    Wheelchairs as fire hazards [query.nytimes.com]

    i had trouble finding any non-anecdotal discussion of wheelchairs as firehazards, so i emailed the mississippi fire marshall (firemarshal@mid.state.ms.us) about the issue. i will try to post any information i receive.

  89. DeepSeaBerserker says:

    If I had a nickle for every charred wheelchair I’ve found in a dressing room…

  90. Malethos says:

    Both sides are potentially in the wrong here.

    The store should have available accomidations. If the handicaped changing area was not available at the time, it should have been comunicated as to when it would become available. They probably also should have been more agressively service oriented.

    OTOH, the mother also sound like she could well be in the wrong. THe store may very well have legitimate issues with fire code and it does sound like they made some efforts(some of them possibly not the right thing to do) to do right by her.

    So this is a little from column A a little from column B, this is an example of poor service ( which will happen anywhere) meeting up with someone who feels entitled to a higher level of service this is a story, but only minimally so.

  91. Thrust says:

    @mermaidshoes: The first story link from Buzzle there brings us to the situation where a company must discriminate against someone to PREVENT discrimination (somewhere in the Land of FARK, an Ironic tag asploded).

    That one handicapped child may have been able to swim. Now if they told her she WAS allowed, and all the handicapped kids that are unsafe in the pool were told they all CAN’T swim, you’re discriminating against more people. Whereas if ALL of them are not allowed to swim, SHE becomes the only ONE person discriminated against. It’s numbers, plain and simple.

    From that SAME article. It must have been an old theatre, because all theatres I’ve been in that were constructed post-2000 have gaps on the entry level, specifically put there for wheelchairs and/or strollers. OLDER theatres which were pre-ADA or Canadian equiv don’t often have those spaces, and so wheelchairs block the aisle instead. That’s text-book Fire hazard.

    To the findarticles.com story below it, was the worst thing I’d seen for a while. Playing the race card and the handicapped card at the same time. Nobody till now had ever mentioned race. Being black has no impact on how or why you are in that wheelchair.

    Now I have two grandparents who are both wheelchair bound, and y’know, sometimes there isn’t a ramp or easy access for them. We don’t bitch discrimination when this happens, we just deal with it. Our aunt often throws dinner parties, and we try to include the grandparents as often as we can. There is no ramps in her house, but when we are all over there, you could count no less than a dozen able-bodied youths to help lift them and their chairs up the front steps. It’s what we do. We do plain old hard lifting and get two grandparents from the pavement to the door so they can join in with the family. Should we all bitch to my aunt for not having a ramp? No. Should we count them out because the place isn’t handi-accessable? No.

  92. Youthier says:

    I don’t think anyone should blame the Target employee here. She sounds like she was polite enough – she followed policy and then offered to watch the child. Granted, this was probably naive of her as I wouldn’t let some stranger watch my kid, handicapped or not but I don’t think the employee had any ill intentions. I think she genuinely thought she was offering a resolution to the situation.

  93. Xenuite says:

    If it is really so important that this woman be with her child 24/7 and so very important that she must go clothes shopping she can use the internet and return the crap that doesn’t fit. Being a mother means that some things are going to be more difficult, perhaps its not fair but its true.

  94. mandawest says:

    @Xenuite:
    Being a mother doesn’t mean that you have to be at home 24/7. As much as it can be a pain, I try to do as much as I can with my child – he gets used to the routine and learns that I expect him to behave well in public. Yes, some things are more difficult and that’s just how life is – you’re totally right there. But parents have to set an example and show their kids that even though it’s difficult, it can be done. This is especially important for parents of kids with disabilities. They have to learn to be resillient and learn how to get through in a world that is not easy for anyone. So maybe this mom over-reacted, maybe she could have handled the situation differently. But maybe she’s exhausted and just trying to live as normal a life as possible and this was the last straw in a long week. It doesn’t seem like she was asking for a whole lot, just a couple minutes to try on some clothes, and these days we’ve gotten used to there always being rooms large enough to accomodate people with special needs.

  95. SJActress says:

    “One thing I don’t understand is why they didn’t have a ‘disabled persons’ changing room. Nearly every clothing retailer I’ve been to has one.”

    I was wondering the same thing. What if a handicapped person had shown up on their own in a wheelchair and wanted to go try on clothes? Would THAT be a fire hazard?

    It seems to me that this is one of those rules employees have to follow without even questioning the reason for the rule.

  96. Xenuite says:

    These days society raise people’s expectation of how they should be treated. If you don’t get what you want because of something like this you don’t claim discrimination, you suck it up and keep going. Oh, and her kid is not normal. She should face the fact that life is not going to be normal for her.
    And I think we are perhaps starting to assume a bit with this woman and are projecting or just assuming.

  97. DTWD says:

    @Xenuite: Today is Fuhrer Friday.

    @DeepSeaBerserker: I don’t know why, but the charred wheelchair comment made me laugh.

  98. MarkNS says:

    This woman’s cries of discrimination ring pretty hollow with me. I see no reason why her daughter must accompany her into the change room with her mother available to watch her. However, as the father of a 16 year old who requires a wheelchair and assistance, I wonder how Target would deal with her when she would ask for me to help her try clothes on? If they told her that her wheelchair is a “fire hazard” in the change room, you can bet Target would find our entire, rather formidable, arsenal of “outrage rockets” locked on and armed.
    Employees that irrationally follow “policy” are a sign of a poorly managed company with an inferior training program.

  99. Xenuite says:

    @DamnThoseWiffyDogs: I just got out my knee high boots and have been goose stepping all day. Normal is an average human being with all his/her facilities. I’m not saying the kid isn’t human, but the kid is not normal. Having a kid which is not normal means that life is not normal.

    Now, I have to go burn some Torahs and shave my head. Be back soon.

  100. momma4 says:

    I agree with her, to a certian extent. As a mother of 4 I would not trust a stranger to watch any one of them. It doesn’t matter that she had someone else there with her that could watch her little girl. As a parent it is her decision wether or not to let anyone, family, friend or stranger to watch her child. My 2 yr old is handicapped as well but we don’t go into fitting rooms because they are usually to hard to get around in, but thats my choice. My point, it should be parents choice if it can be done safely. The Target that I shop at allows strollers in their fitting rooms. Maybe it is just the manager of that store. If the manager couldn’t help her then I would recommend asking for the regional manager and so on. Go up the ladder until you feel that you have been heard and have all the facts of policies then decide wether or not to take legal action. As to the comment of discrimination, I am not sure if it was because the child is handicapped or not. But she feels that way so i suggest that she talk to the corporate headquarters. She will get her true answer there on the policy.

  101. allenhough says:

    I have a hadicappied girl that is 12 I am a single father and I understand who it is to be treated like dirt for no real reason. People treat you different when you have a handicappied child and it is not right. I have lost my housegave up most of the things i hae ever got to take care of my daughter. her mother left when she was two years old and never pays for child support. I can’t get ANY help from any agencys because i make to much money but with all the med bills and supplys we almost live on the street. I give up food for her meds everyday. It is terable the way Michigan and most people treat us and handicappied childeren in the great land of the usa. But it is the truth. I hope thing will change but i live in the real world. I don’t understand why so many people that don;t need the help get it and the people and the kids that do need it can’t get it. Allen H. Holland Mi.

  102. Tarblah says:

    I have to say that as a mother, I would not have been comfortable with a stranger watching my child. Target is not in the childcare/daycare business, so it was inappropriate for the offer to have been made to watch the patron’s child. It is possible that the woman and her mother were needed in the dressing room and, perhaps, the need for the dressing room was for the handicapped child to try clothes on. I find the situation to be disparaging and uncalled for. I believe that in that instance, the mother should have been permitted to use the dressing room without incident with her child in tow. I have a daughter who has been through many a surgery and, I have to say, that I was never turned away from my local Target when I needed to take her with me into the dressing room. She was initially in a stroller when it was too much to take her wheelchair in. I understand this mother’s complaint completely. I am of the opnion that her particular Target store made a rather severe error in judgment.

  103. karahmel says:

    Funny how I found this while I was googeling Target’s Fitting Room Policy! I had a little run in with their rudeness and wanted to know if there was any validity to what they post as their so call national policies. What I see is that Target managers and employees need to be more diplomatic and learn true customer service. After all, consumers have made target and can break it (look at all these other stores going out of business)! Those of you who defend some strange employee watching someone’s child are not in touch with reality and the cruel things that happen to children- you don’t have kids, do you? I say, you should of sent the complain to the press see how quickly the tables turn. I would of walked in anyways and let the call the cops so you really had a written report to take the down with. The other thing is how is a stroller a fire hazard when they have tons of shopping carts crowding the entrance and rest o the fitting room (at least in my town)….. Maybe next time I”ll take pics with my phone and put the on BLAST>>>> Wishing you the best mom, don’t let anyone ever make you feel as if you were wrong.. If you put your kid first xoxo