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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

@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.

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!

@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.

@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.

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!

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Thrust:
Janie Q. Dribblechin in the chair there

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.