karen “KP” p
Google
On Friday, November 28th, around 12:20 PM, I visited Pho Duy Vietnamese Noodle House at 6968 Wilcrest Drive with my family before heading back to San Antonio. I am a disabled veteran, and I rely on my trained service dog, Maverick, for daily functioning and safety.
When I walked in, a woman I did not know approached me and said, in a very condescending tone, “No dogs allowed.” I calmly informed her that he is a service dog, which legally grants him access under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She repeated “No, no dogs” again. I did not recognize her as a worker as she was not in any uniform so I spoke to the server who apologized and said the same thing, that dogs weren’t allowed, despite me explaining that federal law requires public businesses to allow trained service animals.
I asked to speak with a manager, but I was told there was none available. After I left, my family told me the staff claimed my dog was a “liability because of dander,” even though he is clean, groomed, and fully trained.
For clarity: Service animals are not pets. Allergies, dander concerns, personal preferences, and store policy do NOT override ADA law. A business may only ask two legal questions:
Is this a service animal required because of a disability?
What task has the service animal been trained to perform?
They cannot deny access for “liability,” for fur, for grooming preferences, or because they “don’t allow dogs.”
This is stated in the ada.gov website:
Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.
A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.
My family and friends chose not to eat here after witnessing the discrimination. My only reason for writing this review is that I would never want another person with a disability to be treated this way. Service dog handlers already navigate enough challenges being denied basic access should not be one of them. I will be writing a formal ADA complaint to the Texas Attorney General-Civil Rights Division and the Department of Justice Office.
I hope the owners will use this as an opportunity to train their staff on ADA compliance and treat disabled patrons with dignity and respect.
