America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

http://www.boston.com/business/news/2014/07/14/maxx-told-boston-marathon-bombing-survivor-leave-because-her-service-dog/RAXAIgWwqlNmUZZF3r9aVO/story.html?p1=Topopage:Carousel_lead_headline#comments

T.J. Maxx Told Boston Marathon Bombing Survivor To Leave Because of Her Service Dog

By Sara Morrison
Boston.com Staff
JULY 14, 2014 2:59 PM


Marathon bombing survivor Sydney Corcoran was asked to leave a New Hampshire T.J. Maxx last Thursday because, she said, the store manager said her service dog was violating store policy.

Corcoran, 19, was shopping in a Nashua T.J. Maxx with her service dog, Koda. Koda, Corcoran told WCVB, has been her “support system” as she continues to deal with post traumatic stress disorder from last year’s attack. According to Corcoran, Koda was wearing a blue vest that said “service dog” on it, yet the manager told her he had to be put in a cart. When Corcoran told the manager that Koda would not fit in a cart, she said she was told he would have to leave the store.

According to the American Disabilities Act: “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.”

Corcoran tweeted about the incident, saying she was “livid and embarrassed.” She also, WCVB said, called her mother, Celeste. Celeste, who lost both of her legs in the attacks, rushed over to the store and gave the manager a lesson in the American Disabilities Act, at which point the manager apologized.

Not good enough, Celeste said: “You should have known ... You just made someone with an emotional disorder so much worse.”

T.J. Maxx, which was one of the stores the Corcorans frequented as part of their “retail therapy” in a Boston Globe story last year, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The store told WCVB: “We have looked into the particulars regarding this customer’s experience and deeply regret that our procedures were not appropriately followed in this instance. We are taking actions which we believe are appropriate, including working with our stores to reinforce the acceptance of service animals.”

On the Corcorans’ Facebook page, Celeste wrote that she hopes the incident “will educate ignorant people about service dog laws and the rights that service dog owners have.”



I have tremendous empathy for the Marathon survivors. But this is too much.
Couldn't the girl put the dog into the carriage? It's a poodle. Probably like the ride.
She has every right to have the dog with her. What's the harm putting it into the shopping cart? It's not a seeing eye dog. Hell, it would be closer to her so she could pet it.

This is somebody getting an additional 15 minutes.

But most frustrating are the 200+ comments.
Liberals having a circle jerk over the evil corporate manager.

I am giving her the benefit of the doubt and I hope it helps her.
I just ask for her and her mother to use a little common sense.

Embarrassed?
Bull.
If it was embarrassment, would she take to the news about it?


And worst of all?
A friggin poodle.

These people were definitely barking up the wrong tree.

I know someone who has a pug for a service animal. She has bipolar disorder. The dog is trained to look for signs of change that may require med changes etc.

I thought it was bs but watching if in person found it interesting.

She should have said it was from Honduras.

CROS' service coyote ran away....

After it ate his legs

I was unaware that this was a partisan issue.

actually, I was unaware that there was an issue at all.

all poodles are liberals.... except for some of those big ones...

Those Bassards..!!

Read the comments.

Take a lesson, fellas.

As this plays out you will see that the store violated the disabled woman's right to shop freely in their store without harassment, with her service animal.

They will pay dearly once the ADA folks (attorneys) get through with them.

When it comes down to ADA issues, if businesses offer any push back, they will lose.

It doesn't matter what we may think of it, at all.

It is the law.

Where has this manager been for the last 20-30 years?

The only intelligent thing for a business person to say to such a customer is, Welcome to our store. How may I assist you today, Maam?

She should have sheltered in place.

The 1st act was leaving comments. The second act was being a pedofile. The third act was being a mass murderer. So for the second and third acts there was no consideration of comments. Also I am not trying to trivialize pedofiles or mass murderers which are heinous criminals. My point was a small segment of a group does not justify inclusion of all of the group.

200 nut job liberals do not speak for liberals as a whole. They are not a vast majority of liberals. In fact I am in agreement with you, that specific group of liberals is making amountain out of a molehill. My only disagreement with you is your title, the liberal mindset. To me this implies all liberals which I believe is incorrect. If you had stated the far left liberal mindset I would agree with you. They are extremists with agenda's that do not represent liberals as a whole.

Actually, I did mean all (or most) liberals.

Those comments are indicative of their mindset.

Show me a liberal (or hell, even a democrat) that thinks this girl wasn't justified in her reaction.
Who thinks that TJ Maxx doesn't need to retrain their employees in regards to service animals.

In addition to having a poodle as an emotional support system for PTSD, WTF is "retail therapy?"

Do you get a prescription for it? Ya know, like a stack of gift cards....

...and stuff

From what I have read service animals for PTSD is questionable at best. You never really get over the PTSD. You will always need the service animal. There are much more effective therapys.

+1 WTF is "retail therapy" or is it "retail the rapy"?

How do you interprete improve the law to mean add more laws? That does not make sense. There would be no more or less laws. When a law is flawed the flaw needs to be corrected. Does that make sense to you?

Have you even read the law..??

But here's a point where you're wrong Tail...
If the store manager isn't going to ask a blind person to put their dog in the cart, why are they asking her?

I mean, I'll question whether she should have a service dog at all. And I'll question whether she had the proper documentation to prove the dog was a service dog....
But if all the documentation, doggy-vests, etc, etc are in order... then why would the store manager think that they have the authority to determine whether one service dog can perform its function walking on the floor, but the other can perform its function in a cart.

Maybe the poodle pissed all over somethin....

You misunderstood what I meant by improve the law. What I meant was common sense to me would dictate that TJMAX did nothing wrong. Anyone who thinks they did is an idiot. Unfortunately they broke the law the way it is written. So let's remove what the part that caused TJMAX to break the law as it is now written. My point about the blind person was that portion of the law is good. I do not expect any store to deny a blind person their service dog, but if they did that should be against the law.

Yes, have you? The TJMAX manager asked something that seems quite reasonable, yet she was technically breaking the law as it is written. You seem to be having trouble following my line of thought. Perhaps you could offer an alternative suggestion?

nope.. I didn't read it.. but I'm not hollering to change it... I just wanted to make sure you did.. now, whether you interpretted the law correctly is a whole nother matter...