Seriously, you don't have to be blind or deaf to be disabled. Having severe balance issues (through neurological problems or anatomical problems) could be a struggle and a disability in its own right.

My dad (unsure if it's PD or Parkinsonism) opts to use a shopping cart or a cane for balance, but if he opted to use a service dog for balancing, I'd support him.

Way to go Dillard's, you got caught in a double whammy!

My stepmother used to train service dogs. Whether they are fully fledged service dogs or just dogs in training it's THE LAW that they are allowed to go pretty much anywhere(my stepmother would threaten to call police if any store/restaurant gave her a hard time).

If this doesn't result in a civil law suit, it should atleast result in a large governmental fine for Dillards.

Hopefully this gentleman will find other businesses more understanding and sympathetic to his needs.

You should train the service dog to crap in every Dillards.

@sleze69: I don't think the local cops have jurisdiction over that.

If the guy only said he was training the dog, then it is his own fault.

Like it was said, if he would have identified himself as disabled, or identified the dog as a service dog and that he needed the dog to keep his balance, he would have been allowed in the store.

To expect store managers to respond to a compliant against the dog, and then try to guess if the person is disabled since he did not identified himself as disabled - then why is the store being blamed?

I read the article and couldn't find any reference to this "disturbance in the store". This is not very good journalism.

Just a question, do you have to be certified to train service animals? Or do service animals have to be registered? If someone did want to game the system, could they just claim they were training their pet to be a service animal and then get free rein to bring their household pet anywhere?

@chrisgoh:
According to the article, In Texas, an assistance animal in training has the same rights as long as the trainer is an agent of an organization generally recognized by agencies involved in the rehabilitation of animals and their handlers.

Misleading title. I thought Dillard's put a parking boot on his disabilities action van, then shackled his dog.

@coan_net:

Because the dog was clearly marked.

[www.woai.com]
"In front of a whole staff of shoppers, I was asked to depart with my clearly marked service dog,"

Besides even a dog in TRAINING is afforded access
to a business.

The DOJ is fairly clear on this as well:
[www.usdoj.gov]

"If you are not certain that an animal is a service animal, you may ask the person who has the animal if it is a service animal required because of a disability....you may not insist on proof of state certification before permitting the service animal to accompany the person with a disability."

In short I'm much more likely to believe the
vet than the store manager and that is why
I blame the store esp. since it garnered
an appology.

Screw Dillards. Pretentious pricks. They are even worse than Macy's.

Seriously, if you ever want to get talked down to by someone with far less education, or social status than yourself, A Dillards makeup counter is the way to go.

@blitzcat: I thought the title meant boots by Dillard's caused a guy to become disabled.

@sleze69: Last summer, I helped raise a Seeing Eye dog with my now ex. When they are in training, we were told you HAVE to ask the store/place of business if you can bring them in, because the dogs have not been formally trained. Once they pass their training, the can go wherever they want w/ their handlers. There were a few occasions where we could not bring the dog somewhere because he was only in training. I heard from my ex that he went back to the Seeing Eye in early Nov '07, and he seems to be doing well in the program.

@chrisgoh: With the Seeing Eye, they came and did like an interview, and you had to get the animal their regular checkups, attend meetings, give status reports, etc. And yes, the dogs are tattoed, and you have paper work/ID for the dog identifying them as dogs in training.

@chrisgoh: Also, some states allow "comfort" animals. All you have to prove is that the animal provides some sort of comfort service, and you can get a ID for it. So in that sense, you can get a parrot to be your comfort animal if you have a mental disorder where you feel like you are a pirate trapped in a 21st century person's body. Add eye patch and optional wooden leg, and a-hoy Dillards!!

@Headon - No need to train the dog to crap in the store... the customers already do.

I worked at a Dillard's for a year. And it's such a shitty, shitty company.

"If a person wishes to seek to train a dog in a Dillard's department store, the respective store manager needs to be contacted so that the best time can be established for both parties."
=========================================

What a load of shit!!!! The cop should have written them up.

I gave up Dullerds years ago when it came to light that they were 'flagging' checks with a 1 or 2 number to designate whether the check writer was white or black. They also have a very restrictive return policy which my mother found out about when she tried to return a Xmas gift I gave her years ago and she didn't have my receipt. The item had a Dullerds tag on it so obviously it came from their store.

Dullerds just SUCKS!

Where's the designated community leaders such as Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Oprah Winfrey, Hannity & Colmes, etc? Why aren't they screaming outrage and blasting this to our faces on the 24 hour news networks?

The reason is because he's a vet and nobody gives a shit. I'm a disabled vet and I speak from experience.

I agree with some of the commenters that brought up the issue that he apparently did not identify himself as disabled. While not entirely the OP's fault, I think he made it worse by not saying "I am disabled and this is my service dog". Rather than doing that, he expected the store manager to read the vest on the dog, and make the assumption that the handler was actually disabled. The simple fact the dog is a service animal does not afford it access to places that do not permit animals unless it is with the person who requires the dog. It seems the "animal in training" issue varies state to state and is probably not part of the ADA (I didn't look it up, so don't hold me to that). Again, it's terrible on the part of the store that they kicked him out, but I think the OP is at least partly to blame for his failure to communicate his disability to the manager.

Many of the people I serve tell me about the lack of understanding they witness daily when they are out shopping or commuting to and from work/school.

It's disappointing that the management wasn't better trained so situations like this can be avoided.

"Welcome to Dillard's, Inc.. We are a retail department store offering fashion apparel and home furnishings from coast to coast. Dillard's caters to a broad spectrum of the population." -Except for those with disabilities it seems.

What kind of idiot manager would even chance kicking a disabled man and his dog out? I mean, sure there is the possibility that the man isn't really disabled, but if he is you can probably kiss your job goodbye.

@Pylon83:
So are you saying that not only does the dog need to wear a vest, the owner needs to also? Maybe people aren't so willing to broadcast to the world that they are disabled, and simply want to go about life as close to normal as possible.

@nursetim:
That's not even remotely close to what I said. I said that when the confrontation ensued, it would have made things much, much simpler if he had simply stated he was disabled. I do think he has a responsibility to do so when asked what the purpose of the dog is. I'm not saying he needs to say anything more than "I am disabled and this is my service dog", but I don't think that is too much to ask, particularly when confronted by store management.

I know at least 3 people who use those "training" vests on their dogs so they can bring them into stores. It is these people who are the problem.

Now you'd think any manager who actually listened to the vet would have realized that they weren't trying to be selfish, but I can see how stores want to crack down on this. Plus if the dog is disturbing other customers, I can't see any reason, even it if it a service dog, for Dillards not to ask the man to leave.

There needs to be more regulation of these "training vests" that people seem to be using these days.

So I used to work in a bank and while I was helping a customer I heard a noise behind her in the lobby. I looked out past her to see what it was, and she said "oh it's ok its a service dog." There wasn't a dog in the lobby and I was a bit confused until I saw the small dog sticking its head out of her purse!
Are you kidding me?!? It is people like this lady that I have described that make it hard for people like Mr. Gonzalez eho have real needs and real service dogs. For all the women who feel the need to carry their dogs around with them in their purse...STOP IT! And if asked about it don't lie and call a 5 1/2 pound furball a service dog. That dog couldn't do anything to serve you. There I'm done.

@categorically:
I agree. I think that if the dog was disturbing other customers, service dog or not, they were within their rights to ask him the leave. The ADA isn't designed to force store owners to tolerate service dogs regardless of the circumstances. If the dog is causing a ruckus, they should be allowed to ask them to leave. It would be no different than asking an unruly customer in a wheelchair to leave.

I read the original article. I don't see any evidence that the OP did NOT identify himself as disabled and identify his dog as a service dog. The article does not definitively state whether he made this identification or not. However, I think it would be prudent for any store manager to err on the side of caution when someone has a dog with a vest on identifying the animal as a service dog. There's an obvious difference between a dog in a purse and a dog wearing a service vest. However, anyone training a dog to be a service animal should be aware of the laws and follow proper procedure for taking the animal into businesses even if that entails making arrangements with the store manager.

I know it's not relevent to the facts, but I would think that training a six month old dog in public would be hazardous for a man unstable on his feet.

In any event, I was disapointed that the story didn't explain how boots purchased at Dillards disabled someone (and their dog). Now that would be a "Dillards" story -- instead there's a story about some store manager in a town that I've never heard about

@niteflytes1:
It's one thing to err on the side of caution in a normal situation, but if the dog was causing a disturbance (which has not been confirmed), I don't think it was out of line for him to ask.

@chrishop:
It could have been one of those seizure detection service dogs?

The article is seriously confusing. My first question is what disturbance was reported to the police prior to this incident? Or was it THIS incident? If there was a prior, then I would understand the manager's stance. But, what are they talking about? And second, according to the article, for dogs in training, they can have the same rights as certified dogs if they are being trained by a member or agent of an organization that specializes in training those dogs. So, technically, according to the article, the store might have some leverage. But, who does that? I mean, yeah all technicalities aside, who throws out a guy who's disabled & has a disabled dog? As long as its not crapping on the floor or biting people, I would think that was a preeeetty insensitive move on Dillards part.

@cryrevolution:
I agree. he article was pretty confusing. However, his admission that the dog was in training, and the fact that dogs in training only have rights in Texas if they are being trained by an agent of an organization that engages in the business of training dogs, he really doesn't have a leg to stand on (no pun intended). Who's to say the manager wasn't aware of what the law was and made an informed decision that the dog in training, not accompanied by an agent of an organization that trains dogs, could be excluded from the store? I think there are a lot of holes here, and in my opinion, I think the store and the vet were wrong.

@timmus:

You mean you couldn't see the third graf before "An apology?"

My guess is that if Dillard's officials didn't confirm nor deny the incident, it probably didn't happen.

Why does it matter if the dog is in training or not?

That's one update to the ADA that I would certainly support.

There is no "best" time for allowing training, real customers with service animals will come in whatever time they please. They certainly won't be calling the manager to see what time is "best" to come in and shop now, will they?

Because maybe it's not just about training the dog, but training others who may come into contact in such a circumstance?

And of course there was a "disturbance" recorded about the whole thing. He was asked to leave! Of course they considered it a disturbance. I've seen that played out a couple of times personally. There was a disturbance, but of course the offended party won't state that had they not made a fuss in the first place that there wouldn't have been a disturbance.

This sounds fishy too. Anyone (even a disabled person) can't just plop on a vest on a dog and say they are in training. The training is almost never done by the disabled person but by a third party organization.

My mom is disabled. She has two dogs. She can't just slap on a vest and bring her dogs with her into any store she likes in order to "train" them. In fact isn't it illegal to slap on a vest on a dog without it being a real service training dog? It sounds like this guy got this dog and decided to train it.

@Pylon83: Then the owner should inform the man of the rules, and let him continue shopping with a warning. It would have been the decent, humane, and civil thing to do. Instead the owner chose to be the crotchety prick. Outside of rigidly applying an in-store rule, there is nothing in the article that indicates that it was necessary for the man to leave.

WTF, 'he never identified himself as being disabled'?? I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, people with disabilities don't walk into a store and immediately shout, "I'm disabled!" (well, I know at least one who does, but thats not the point)

If the dog is wearing his service vest, the guy is obviously disabled. And even if he wasn't and just training, the dogs need to get used to all sorts of places and scenarios.

While I don't quite agree with the family upset about the restaurant issue, I think in this case Dillard's was out of line, especially considering the manager was ignorant enough to think that only blind and deaf people are disabled!

This sort of thing never happens here in Germany. Dogs are welcome everywhere and anywhere. Its quite cool, actually, as an American to see dogs in restaurants, stores, trains, buses etc without them being any sort of service dog. America really needs to relax on the whole dog ban thing.

JCASTLE, it is largely fear of liability in the U.S., but my experience with Europe generally and Germany in particular is that, even compared to the pre-ADA U.S., it is much less accommodating to the disabled. I'll gladly leave my best friend at home rather than deny access to the world at large to every blind or wheelchair-bound person.

This is an odd situation. Because the guy was not actually disabled to where he needed the dog & was just training a service dog in the store. I really dont know how to judge this one.... however I am slightly leaning towards the manager at this point. MY question is.... was this man actually disabled & did this disability actually NEED a service dog?

ABout the line that says that the guy should have contacted the manager to set up a time when it would be convenient to the store's operation to allow the man to train the dog there..... I find this quite reasonable. It IS a business after all & private property. Would you train your kid to drive during the holiday rush in a parking lot full of agressive drivers with very little spaces to park? SHOULD the store be allowed to boot you & your kid if you are just using their busy lot to practice driving? I'd say yes! Its proper to tell management what you are up to if your business in their establishment is of a nature contrary to the reasonable purpose of that establishment (and would possibly disturb the operation of that store). Years ago I brought in a device that sets off radar detectors (a small handheld black box called a highway zapper) into a best buy to test some radar detectors they had on display. I TOLD the guy at the door what I had & what I was planning on doing & asked if it was aceptable (I didnt want them wonder what I was doing & cause trouble for me).... they said it was ok, I did my thing then left... had no problems. The man training his dog could have easily done this as well.

When you get right down to it.... stores are for actual shopping & parking lots are for parking.

However ... IF this man was actually disabled & his disability needed the service dog.... then that is different. My uncle is disabled, but doesnt require/need the services of a service dog.... but does that give him the right to use an establishment's property to train this dog?

Wouldn't the "SERVICE DOG-NOT A PET" tip any reasonable person off that indeed, the dog is a service dog, and therefore allowed in the store?

@forgottenpassword:

correction: Ok I actually read the article. In my previous post I was under the impression that this guy was a service dog trainer who happened to have a disability that didnt need a dog, but was using his non-related disability so he could have a valid excuse to train the service dog in a store. I see now that it is not the case.

Depends on who is telling the truth. The store manager or the disabled guy.

Question... should I be allowed to slap a "service dog... do not pet" sign on my pet dog & then clip his leash to my belt & trapse into any store even if I am not obviously disabled & expect to be unchallenged?

@Vegconsumer:
I don't think it does. I can't slap a service animal vest on my dog and take her into Macy's without repercussion. I don't think they should be restrained from at least questioning the owner.

One hopes yes, but with the threat of heavy penalties if you are not a valid user or trainer.

@Bryan Price: "There is no "best" time for allowing training, real customers with service animals will come in whatever time they please."

It sort-of depends. During early training, and depending on the animal, you may want to bring them at times when things are less-crowded, since they have to learn all kinds of things, how to navigate a new place, how to behave properly in the stores, etc., as well as how to handle crowds. My understanding is it varies state-to-state whether service animals in training are required by law to be allowed access; however, most places, if you call ahead, are delighted to allow you access. (We have some friends who train for Seeing Eye.)

I used to live near a place where they trained service miniature PONIES. (Ponies!) They were primarily, IIRC, for the blind who had balance problems; the pony could support them when a dog would be too small. The ponies trained at the mall (in cute little booties, their hooves are hell on the flooring), and they often went at less-busy times, both to train the ponies slowly to the job AND because the ponies themselves drew such a crowd it could be hard to train them with 50 kids crowding around the pony. :)

They did always make a big thing about calling ahead and educating local businesses, partly because service ponies aren't widely known and it's the kind of thing people are likely to be like, "Right, service pony, tell me another -- and get out!"

I'm sure I'll get raked over the coals for this, but one thing that bothers me about this (logically) is this part of the article
"When Gonzalez holds Mason's leash or clips it to his belt loop, the dog prevents Gonzalez from falling if his knees give out or he loses his balance."
I'm not sure I can make a connection between holding what is seemingly a regular "limp" lease and maintaining balance. I could certainly see it if it was one of the rigid harness-like devices used on seeing eye dogs, but this just makes no sense to me. Perhaps someone with some experience with this can chime in here, but it just doesn't click that the dog would provide any balance assistance here.

@blitzcat: I thought a war vet had bought some boots from Dillard's and they gave him some disease that caused him to become disabled!

Is this guy certified to train dogs? Otherwise, I don't believe he's allowed to take his dog in training everywhere. That could create some dangerous situations where owners think their little Precious is going to be perfectly behaved. I could start training my dog tomorrow but he's still gonna go NUTS in a store. But I don't know the laws - just going off of what I saw in an episode of Dog Whisperer.

@Pylon83:

Maybe he considers the dog as a landing pad just in case his knees give out? Something to grab onto before he hits the ground? I agree... sounds kinda odd, but I do understand that ANY help is help when it comes to helping a disabled person... even if it seems like a far-fetched almost hard to believe reason.

@forgottenpassword:
I guess in my opinion the need for a service animal, and the corresponding right to impose it on virtually ANY business, should be reasonable. Simply having it there to grab onto, in my opinion, is not reasonable. It would seem that a cane would serve nearly the same purpose without infringing on the right of a business owner to exclude animals.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (hereafter ADA) is no joke. We recently had to lower our shelves to comply with this law so which means, those who AREN'T disabled have to yet again, bend (both literally and figuratively) to meet others "special" needs. I am in no way saying disabled persons aren't as equal as those who aren't, but I refuse to believe that the world has to stop spinning the way it is just for them.

On the other note, if he would've just called the store and said he was training his LEGAL service dog, it would've been uneventful. BUT, instead of choosing the less-self-depreciating method of a cane, he chose a dog. Why? No one knows but him. Dogs are most used to help lead the blind and hear for the deaf, open doors, retrieve items, and otherwise assist their owners. Rarely are they used as balancing devices, because I don't know about you, but a 150 lb. man vs. a 50 lb. dog doesn't seem to really be a fair balance. Either way, I see both sides and hope, for the disabled soldier's sake, that he doesn't have to deal with this again.