To think this is a serious error and the resolution doesn’t really cut it

[Myinterestingnewpath]

Visited a well known chain restaurant, early in the week so it wasn’t busy, only about six tables tables taken. I was with my daughter, asked if I could have a table instead of a booth, as I have an assistance dog. My dog is a small/medium size, and was wearing his harness. I got asked if he was a guide dog, I said no an assistance dog. He then asked what that meant. I explained that the dog helps me with tasks that help me live my daily life. He then asked what exactly that meant. So I explained I have neurological damage after breaking my neck, and I can’t feel my fingers so drop things and the dog retrieves them. I also explained I have balance issues, so bending down without falling over is a problem. I then got asked if it was a guide dog again. I said no. He then said you can’t come in because it’s not a guide dog and you’re not blind!! I am not a confrontational person so I just said ok, we’ll just go the restaurant next door, (which is owned by the same group) as they always welcome me. The next day I rang head office and they admitted that what he did is unlawful, and they would do some staff training. Turning away a disabled person because of their equipment is a serious issue. Dogs are classed as auxiliary aids same as wheelchairs. I have been offered £20, I think they’ve got off lightly. What do mumsnetters think?

YABU-restaurants can choose who dines
YANBU-it’s discrimination

Was your dog wearing its jacket? Were you carrying any paperwork? I have a mate in a wheelchair who is on her third assistance dog and gets furious about people who try to get their pets into shops and restaurants by claiming they're assistance dogs.

Did you show the restaurant his official registration/ID? That is key here as to whether any discrimination has taken place or not.

The company head office have admitted they have discriminated against her!

Well it was discrimination, but it sounds from the line of questioning like he was genuinely misinformed about what was/ wasn't allowed.

If I were in your position I would primarily be concerned about the training being improved to avoid it happening again/ to others. I mean sue them if you want, but the whole meal for two sounds more like trying to get something out of it rather than rectifiying the situation.

Support dogs are working dogs not pets so yes you should have been allowed to stay 💐

This highlights one of the problems around discrimination - if it's lack of training and nobody yelled a slur in your face, other people can be meh, they apologised, what more do you want. But this is how discrimination continues. And it's made stupidly hard to be disabled and access day to day life for this reason.

I think your meal covered and then a confirmation that training had taken place - and across their establishments - would be better and more likely to result in change. Because that is what this is really about.

I think it’s clear here that the employees thought they were following the restaurant rules as they have a ‘no dogs except guide dogs’ rule - they obviously didn’t realise that an assistance dog falls under the restaurant guidelines too. You could have just said ‘yes an assistance dog is a type of guide dog and by law restaurants are supposed to allow them in’ and they probably would have. It’s good they have acknowledged their mistake. Yes I would have offered a free meal ans drinks (if nothing else to get your custom back) but £20 is not terrible.

This.

Unless you want to make money out of it I don't see why you would pursue it further.

I don't understand your AIBU. They've acknowledged their poor service and that they discriminated against you. That's fact based in law, it doesn't need MN to agree. Surely your question should be as to whether to accept the £20? You sound very sure of yourself so either accept it or don't. You've decided what would be reasonable in your opinion (meal for 2) so ask for it. Your post just smacks of wanting to turn this into a big hoo-haa. You don't need advice or opinion as your mind is already made up.

A lot of people don't know that there are other assistance dogs than guide dogs-but then they don't need to know as part of their job!

It sounds as if they will be bringing staff up to date but also the staff member seems to have handled it badly.

Could have just said that only guide dogs were admitted!

The £20 seems low but I'm guessing would about cover one main meal?

I think you were treated terribly in the first place. They needed to look into their rules there and then. I am sorry this happened to you.

Is it an actual assistant dog or just a dog that helps you? Is there an official list/group you can prove dog is assistant?

I only ask because I've seen a massive rise in 'assistance dogs' normally small, often yappy where the owners claim they can assist them everywhere but in reality they are just CF with pets.

I think £20 is low. I have a friend with a (trained and registered) assistance dog. If I'd been out with her and this had happened, I think I'd have felt very judged, and quite embarrassed. Especially being asked about why and medical needs etc. I think £20 is low to recompense you for putting you out, discrimination etc. A full meal for two would be more reasonable.

But the restaurant have already agreed this to be the case. They've aknowledged she should have been allowed to stay. I don't understand why this fact is still up for debate.

I think the most important thing to come out of this is the training to the staff members.

I guess it depends on whether or not you actually believe they will train staff members and it’s not just a copy and paste letter to shut you up.

My daughter has a friend with a (registered) assistance dog who was refused access to a chain restaurant. She complained, got an apology letter, assurances that staff would be trained and a voucher for a free meal. She was happy with that…until a few weeks later when she went back to the same restaurant to use her voucher and was refused access again.

As a parent of a child with disabilities who deals with ableism and discrimination all the time, I’m a bit cynical to be honest.

I think what people are missing is that there is a big difference between

"I was refused entry with my dog even after I told them it was an assistance dog"

And

"I was refused entry with my registered assistance dog even after I showed them his official paperwork that I am required to carry, and accompanying leaflet explaining the law"

OP hasn't yet clarified which is accurate although the initial post gives the top scenario

This

@Chessetchelsea

So, official assistance dog, blatant discrimination, derisory £20 voucher offered as compensation. Can you imagine if the restaurant had turned away someone because of the colour of their skin? Or visibly of a certain religion? Everyone would be up in arms and heads would be rolling at head office. The attitude here seems to be there, there, dear. Nothing to worry about. Pipe down and be grateful for the voucher!

Op has said she'd be satisfied with a voucher , she just wants a more expensive one.

I'm not white. If I were refused service on the basis of my race, it wouldn't be the case that £80 rather than £20 would make it ok, and I wouldn't ever set foot in the place again.

The fact that op is just dissatisfied with the amount of the voucher is one indication that it's not a comparable situation.

The man was uninformed, not racist. And racism shouldn't be minimised like this

Given you can't bend down and pick things up, what happens when the dog lays an egg?

I work in a well known chain restaurant and I'm a supervisor. All my staff know not to turn assistance dogs away. Tbf my company would have disciplined for that type of complaint they probably have you know

£20 is a pittance. i think a meal for 2 would be entirely appropriate, you have been treated badly OP.

I’m sorry you dealt with this. I think their response about staff training and their apology is good, but agree £20 is a bit shit. I’d probably respond with a “thank you for your apology. Good to hear staff will receive training so others with disabilities don’t face similar discrimination in future.” And then say whilst you appreciate a gesture from them as way of apology, a voucher covering a meal for two would be more appropriate, and see where that takes you. £20 is a bit insulting!

I didn’t ask to see the manager, as time was of a premium. My daughter who had worked twelve hours had specifically asked if we could go to that particular restaurant. She had called me in the morning, so I could plan my day to accommodate the outing. I can only be upright for six hours per day, this includes any activity that needs standing or sitting so showering, eating, dog walking and any other chores. If I’m upright too long I black out, haven’t got time to argue with the ill informed.

Did you see @LittleBlueBrioTrain 's question?

I think what people are missing is that there is a big difference between

"I was refused entry with my dog even after I told them it was an assistance dog"

And

"I was refused entry with my registered assistance dog even after I showed them his official paperwork that I am required to carry, and accompanying leaflet explaining the law"

OP hasn't yet clarified which is accurate although the initial post gives the top scenario

did you have the paperwork and leaflet? Surely that would avoid the need for standing around arguing or asking to see the manager?

@Myinterestingnewpath I to have an assistance dog and also used to work in customer services. I 100% get where you are coming from but in my experience customer service has changed a lot and not for the better. The customer is always right has been scrapped it seems and replaced with the customer is to be argued with and given as little as possible, it's a real shame.

Under the equal equalities act 2010 he shouldn't have even questioned you.. He saw your dog had a harness that should have been or rather was sufficient enough evidence. I'd be telling them to sick their 20 where the sun doesn't shine and make a Holy show of them in the press. They humiliated you, after all. If you'd have said he was 16 and still learning I would have advised some leniency but this man was in his 40s.