Mgt 532 - Two Vets, Two Dogs and a Deadlock

FINAL EXAM

CASE 36: Two Vets, Two Dogs and a Deadlock

1) With whom do you agree in this dispute? Should Russ have honored Clyde’s request to leave or should Clyde have allowed Russ and Ellie into his store?

This dispute could have easily been solved with a little of yielding from both sides. I think, as the owner of the shop, Clyde should have taken better care of its stakeholder, in this case a customer with a service dog. An unsatisfied customer can give bad references about a business, and thus hindering in the growth of the business. If the problem was the owner’s dog, why not put it in another room or somehow restrain it while the customer was present with his service dog.

2) Who are the stakeholders and what are the stakes?

The stakeholders here are the customers and the owner of the shop. The customer wants to be respectfully treated since he is paying for a service or product. The customer with disabilities also wants stores to be accessible to them according to their different needs. On the other hand, the owner wants a safe place for him and his other customers.

3) What ethical principles apply to this situation?

Based on the Teleological principle, the owner was thinking about the possible consequences of having a possible dogfight could bring to other customers in the store. The owner thought that greatest good was to remove one customer and allow others to shop with no disturbance.

Based on Deontological principle, the “duty” of the owner was to serve customers the same way no matter their limitations. The owner did not follow this principle.

4) Before doing any more research on service dogs and the ADA, think about what happened. Who is in the right? Is this a violation of the ADA or does the store owner have rights to outweigh ADA concerns?

The owner is in the right to deny the entrance to anyone since it is a private place as he argues. In my opinion, the owner has the right to outweigh ADA concerns even though it is not ethical at all.

5) Was a reasonable accommodation attempted? Did the potential accommodation involve undue hardship?

A reasonable accommodation was not attempted. A possible reasonable accommodation could have been the owner restraining his dog or placing him out of the building while this customer was inside. The owner can argue that this potential accommodation could affect business security because that’s the main reason why he has a dog in the building.

6) Now look up the ADA policy on service animals. Considering this, who is in the right in the above scenario? Does your answer change from the one you gave in Question #1 or 4?

After looking up the ADA policy on service animals, I come to the