Legal Meets Practical

Everyone knows the old adage “late is late.” Every year, there are bid protests that illustrate this. If a proposal must be received via email by noon on Wednesday, it must be received via email by noon on Wednesday.

If you’re having problems with your server, it takes too long for the emailed proposal to go through, or your messenger is hit by a bus….sorry, Charlie. Thanks for playing.

But every once in a while, a protest comes along that gives a contractor a break.

On April 23, 2014, the GAO sustained a bid protest brought by a ICI Services, Inc (ICI). ICI had initially been awarded a task order under the Navy’s Seaport-e vehicle, but then had the award yanked when the Navy determined the proposal was “late.” ICI Services, Inc., B-409231-2.

In this case, the Navy had  instructed offerors to submit their proposals via the Seaport-e portal; however, because the portal was inaccessible, ICI received instruction from the contract specialist to submit its proposal via email. ICI timely emailed its proposal.

After the Navy revoked its award, ICI filed a bid protest with the GAO, arguing that it was arbitrary and unreasonable for the Navy to deem its proposal “late.”  The GAO agreed with ICI and sustained the protest.

The GAO noted that although a late proposal generally cannot be considered, “the policy underlying the late proposal rule is to ensure fair and equal competition and avoid confusion.”  In this case, “[a]lthough the Navy argues that accepting ICI’s proposal ‘without evidence that [ICI] even attempted to upload its proposal . . . would have put the other offerors at a competitive disadvantage,’ the agency does not explain or show how other offerors would be disadvantaged, nor do we see any such possibility here.” Common sense prevailed!

In general, where a contractor is late in submitting a bid or submits it in an improper format, the contractor is generally out of luck even if its plight is sympathetic.

For example, in one bid protest, a contractor had called ahead to let an agency know a messenger was coming to drop off a proposal. The messenger got to the building in time but since the agency took its sweet time in admitting the messenger and escorting him to the proper department, the proposal was stamped  “received” too late and a protest was unsuccessful. Technically, the protestor could have prevented its proposal from being late – its courier could have showed up earlier. Accordingly, no dice. Aerospace, Inc., B-403464.2 (October 6, 2010).

Sometimes, however, circumstances are truly extenuating. For instance, when the government shut down due to D.C.’s great blizzard of 2010, it was proper to extend a proposal due date until the government opened again. CFS-Inc., J.V., B-401809.2 (March 31, 2010).

The distinction is this – could the protestor have done anything differently? Or was the situation truly beyond its control?

In ICS’ case, the GAO ruled that ICI did all that it could, and it was even entitled to its protest costs. But think of all the stress and work that went into protesting the Navy’s decision.

Oh, the things we put ourselves through for the privilege of doing business with the federal government.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veteran and small business issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.

Last week, CNN broadcasted the horrific story of a “secret” waiting list at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care Center, resulting in the deaths of at least 40 veterans.

The secret list was part of an elaborate scheme designed by Veterans Affairs managers in Phoenix who were trying to hide that 1,400 to 1,600 sick veterans were forced to wait months to see a doctor, according to several extremely reliable sources.

One of CNN’s key sources was a former doctor at the Phoenix VA Health Care Center, Dr. Sam Foote. He came forward after spending 24 years with the VA, revealing that the VA works off two lists: an “official” list that’s shared with officials in Washington and shows the VA has been providing timely appointments, which Foote calls a sham list. And then there’s the real list that’s hidden from outsiders, where wait times can last more than a year.

Dr. Foote told CNN that the “official” list was put in place so the VA could evade its own rules, which requires it to provide care to patients in a timely manner (generally within 14 to 30 days). Rather than doing its job and taking care of the veterans it was entrusted to care for, the Phoenix VA Health Care Center shredded documents, deliberately omitted to record appointment requests, and took other measures to avoid a paper trail that would evidence its deplorable treatment of veterans.

This practice is similar to what the VA is currently doing with its backlog initiative. The VA pats itself on the back by releasing statistics about the decrease in backlogged claims. What it doesn’t tell the public is that because of its focus on getting initial claims off the table, the claims in the appeals process are facing much lengthier wait times. Before the backlog, appeals at the Roanoke Regional Office were taking a year to resolve. Now it’s up to two.

After this story hit the wires last week, the VA quickly launched into defensive mode. Today it told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee that a preliminary review of the Phoenix VA Health Care Center showed no evidence to support the recent allegations of corruption and unnecessary veteran deaths. However, the VA’s Office of Inspector General has launched an official investigation into the matter, after which a hearing will follow.

This is just more of the same, isn’t it? I’ll tell you the truth – I don’t like blogging about these topics. I would love for the timely topic of the week to be an amazing, positive development brought about by the VA. Unfortunately, I have no material.

Did you find this blog informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.

by Sarah Schauerte

From June 16th through June 19th, the National Veteran Small Business Coalition (“NVSBC”) will host its annual symposium in Reno, Nevada. The four-day conference will give veterans the opportunity to network with prospective teaming partners that offer complementary skills and past performance. They can also attend training sessions, workshops, and participate in one-on-one business sessions.

As Scott Denniston, the Executive Director of the NVSBC shared with me, “this is the only national veteran small business conference run by veteran business owners for veteran business owners.” As such, the conference is organized by veterans who have decades of experience in the federal procurement sector. Who better to create this type of conference? They know what kind of structure will give veteran business owners the best value.

If you are a veteran business owner who is interested in learning more about how to be successful in pursuing government contract opportunities, this is one you might want to invest in. After all, many veteran business owners looking to expand their business do so by seeking out trusted partners – LinkedIn is fabulous, but wouldn’t you rather meet that person face to face?

Also, word on the street is the annual veterans conference put on by the VA might not happen this year. My spies tell me that we’re looking at December for a conference date (if it happens), which will reduce attendance. The NVSBC picked a great time and a beautiful location to have a conference, and the folks in charge have decades of experience in growing veteran businesses. This is worth the investment.

In general, the conference is fairly affordable – the cost of flying to Nevada is offset by the extremely cheap hotel cost – only $79 per night at the Silver Legacy Hotel in Reno, if you book it by May 25th. How much do you think a hotel would cost if you were staying in D.C. or another big city? Pre-registration is $325 or $375 depending on if you’re a member of NVSBC.

If you’d like more information about the NVSBC’s Veteran Training Symposium (or would like to register), their website is available here. Take a look!

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues on my homepage at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click on the link sent to your email to activate your subscription.

After receiving benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) since 2011, the 92 year-old widow of a Pearl Harbor veteran is being told she must pay more than $20,000 back.

John Edson served in both the Army and the Navy. He gave his life to the government until he passed away in 1997 at the age of 82. His widow, Florence Edson, was later informed that she may be entitled to benefits through the VA. She applied, and began receiving a check for $837 monthly in August of 2011. This was around the same time she entered into an assisted living facility.

In December of 2013, Ms. Edson’s son, Mark Edson, was asked to send supporting documentation to the VA relating to medical expenditures incurred by his mother. In response to the documentation provided, the VA sent a letter indicating that it was overpaying the war widow and that she owed the VA $23,252. In addition, any further payments were terminated.

As stated by Mark Edson in an article posted on My FOX Austin’s website: “The idea that she somehow got these monies in such a way that she should now have to pay them back is ridiculous. Much less the idea that as she lies in a nursing home unable to pay for the care she is currently receiving, somehow they are going to garnish her income to pay this debt.”

Ms. Edson’s son also notes that this horrific news is coming at a time when his ailing mother’s health continues to deteriorate.

This story is terrible on so many levels. On a basic level, it illustrates how strictly the VA interprets pension and benefits as “entitlements” in its favor. In the VA’s view, if someone (here, a war widow) received benefits to which she is ultimately not “entitled” per VA regulations, she must pay them back. It doesn’t matter if it was the VA that (possibly) made the mistake in granting them, that they were not obtained through misrepresentation, that no notice was received to alert the widow to possible error, or that she apparently hasn’t been given the opportunity to respond to the VA’s determination of overpayment.

Meanwhile, if someone who is entitled to benefits has to wait five years to receive them due to VA error and delay, they receive absolutely no interest on these back-dated benefits. Furthermore, take into account the large number of veterans who give up – or die – while waiting for the benefits to which they are entitled. The VA has “saved” a great deal of monies due to veterans in these situations, which could be applied to take care of this war window whose late husband spent his life serving this country.

Ms. Edson resides in Texas, and I understand that her son has already sought the involvement of U.S. Senator John Cornyn. If you would like to approach him with this same issue, his contact form may be accessed here.

Unfortunately, however, this is not akin to pressuring a company to take action through pressure and bad press that might hurt its business. This is a matter of swaying the VA, and if their interpretation of their regulations is that Ms. Edson is not entitled to her benefits received, public outcry might not be enough.

Still, it’s worth a try.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.

Last week, members of the House Small Business Committee voted unanimously in favor of several revisions to the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) budget proposal, with the result of putting several existing programs in peril.

One of these programs is the Boots to Business program, which targets military veterans-turned-entrepreneurs. I will tell you up front that I love the concept of the Boots to Business program. It uses a multi-phased approach to introduce transitioning service members to the fundamentals of small business ownership, as well as the SBA tools and resources available to them. This is a fantastic idea, as many military members transitioning out of the service are faced with a big question: what do I do now? And with the opportunities out there for veteran-owned small businesses (especially in the federal sector), it’s worth going for a piece of the pie.

Following a pilot program in 2012, the SBA tested the Boots to Business initiative by working with the United States Marine Corps. The SBA delivered a streamlined version of the Boots to Business program by delivering entrepreneurship training to approximately 20,000 transitioning Marines in four pilot locations. This training consisted of three phases: 1) a video which provided a short introduction on entrepreneurship; 2) a 90-minute training course on entrepreneurship; and 3) an eight-week online/distance learning course that led to the creation of a business plan.

Unfortunately for the Boots to Business program, the Congressional panel has recommended that it get the axe. This is part of a $50 million trim from the SBA’s $710 million budget proposal, and it’s based on the lack of results.

This just goes to show that even a great idea can fail in execution. But why, exactly, is the SBA Boots to Business program – a wonderful idea – a no go?

My suspicion is it’s because being a small business owner isn’t something you learn in a class. Yes, you can learn some things, but the most valuable lessons are gleaned from practical experience – identifying your skills and a niche market, finding people you trust to do business with, landing a good mentor who can help you along, and figuring out how to market yourself and your business.

Also, as a small business owner myself, I can tell you that if in the beginning of my journey, someone had pointed me to a similar program, I wouldn’t have gotten much value out of it because I wouldn’t have known how to use it. You need to come into these types of programs with an idea of what you want to learn and a concrete idea of the questions you need answered, and I suspect that most of these transitioning service members simply don’t have an idea yet.

The Boots to Business program is like a hammer in a fledgling workman’s toolkit. It has value, sure, but it has less value if the workman doesn’t know how to use it to fix his roof, or build the bird feeder, or repair the stairs…

But who knows? If it didn’t work, and the SBA knows why, it might be able to build upon it to create a program with more practical value. After all, failed programs are often test programs for ones that work. I have faith that the Boots to Business program will be one of these.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Also, check out the SBA’s webpage on the Boots to Business program at: http://www.sba.gov/bootstobusiness.

I’m thrilled to report a positive development in veteran disability claims! Hats off to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for giving our veterans a place in the front of the line. That’s where they should be.

Beginning March 17, the SSA will immediately begin fast-tracking paperwork for veterans who are rated 100 percent disabled by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Under the new process, the SSA will treat these veterans’ applications as high priority and issue expedited decisions just as it does for disability claims filed by troop members who become disabled for any reason while on active duty.

“We have reached another milestone for those who have sacrificed so much for our country and this process ensures they will get the benefits they need quickly,” Carolyn W. Colvin, acting Social Security commissioner, said in a statement released Tuesday afternoon by the White House.

The decision by the SSA does not affect the disability claims backlog that the VA has been dealing with for years, as these claims are processed separately and by different entities. Rather, it is for veterans who are applying for SSA benefits in addition to VA disability compensation.

Expediting Social Security disability claims processing for veterans does not guarantee approval for SSA disability benefits; however, a 100% rating from the VA is powerful evidence that a veteran meets the SSA’s eligibility requirements. SSA disability benefit applicants must show that they suffer from a disability that prevents them from working, and that the disability is expected to last a year or more.

A claim before the SSA may also be simplified for a veteran who previously applied for disability compensation benefits through the VA. Not only are the processes similar, but the veteran’s VA claims file will already contain medical records directly relevant to proving an SSA claim (And helpful tip – under statute, a veteran is entitled to one free copy of his VA file. Just know that it may take months for it to arrive once requested).

It is up to the veteran, not the VA, to inform the SSA that he qualifies for the expedited processing. The veteran must inform the SSA that he has a permanent and total VA disability rating of 100 percent. He must also provide proof of the rating (such as by including a copy of the rating letter).

Access the SSA’s page on this process here. To learn more about applying for SSA benefits and to start your application online, go to: http://www.ssa.gov/pgm/disability.htm.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click the link to activate your subscription!

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with it, the VetBiz Vendor Information Pages (VIP) is a listing of companies that have been verified by the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) as veteran-owned and veteran-controlled. Businesses listed in the VetBiz VIP are eligible for set-asides conducted by the VA, and any company that has run the VetBiz gauntlet (especially multi-member companies) can testify that it is a rigorous process.

As businesses listed in the VetBiz Vendor Information Pages (VIP) know, as part of the process, a good deal of personal information needs to be uploaded to an electronic portal for review by the CVE – from individual tax returns to the company’s operating agreement or bylaws. One logs into the portal with a user name and password.

But how safe is this portal? There are two inquiries here – how safe is the portal in terms of security, and how safe is the portal in terms of the protection of personal information?

Let’s look at security first. After the SAM scare last year, where it was possible to view the extremely sensitive information of companies after following a series of steps (I have free credit reporting for a year as a consequence of this, as I was identified as “high risk” for identity fraud), the Government should be cognizant of potential security breaches.

As it relates to VetBiz VIP, I’m curious to know what measures are taken to make sure this highly personal and/or confidential information is sufficiently protected. Is it encrypted on the VA’s side? How can it be accessed by VA personnel? I am not an IT professional by any means, but it would give businesses peace of mind if the CVE would share how it protects the information it receives. It also alarms me that CVE does not have a process in place to kick back documentation submitted by the veteran that contains non-redacted social security numbers.

Also related to security is the information requested. Unlike the Small Business Administration’s assessment of an 8(a) Business Development application, the CVE does not examine whether an individual is economically disadvantaged. If this is so, why request an entire individual tax return? If this practice was eliminated, and the CVE instead requested a letter from the individual’s CPA summarizing from where the individual received income, this would allow the CVE to check for affiliation issues (the purpose for requesting tax returns) while protecting the veteran’s personal information.

I have no expectation that changes in the required documentation will be implemented, however. I know of one VetBiz Verification Assistance Counselor who has repeatedly told the CVE that certain documents are inapplicable depending on the type of business. It has been years and no change has been made.

Now let’s talk personal information. The CVE requests information including how much money an individual makes (tax returns), corporate documents (company operation), resumes, bank signature cards and cancelled checks, and copies of contract signature pages. If they exist, you must upload these documents to be considered; the CVE does not make exceptions.

Recently, the CVE sent out this mass email to select businesses listed in the VetBiz VIP. I say “select” because I know of some businesses who received this, others did not. However, there is no reason why some businesses would be distinguished from others:

A VetBiz Verification Assistance Counselor I know promptly submitted an inquiry to the CVE, asking it for input especially as to the wording of the first sentence. After two weeks, he is still waiting for a response.

In practice, the fact that information is subject to FOIA requests will likely not impact businesses. The government cannot give out information that is “a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information obtained from a person.” But the fact that the request can be made is unneverving.

At this point, I have not heard of information being misused or compromised via the VetBiz VIP or the electronic portal for submission. At the same time, however, these concerns are real, and I hope the CVE is cognizant of the need to address them.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!

by Sarah Schauerte

In general, my blog addresses timely issues. However, this week I can’t resist covering a veterans issue that most people don’t know too much about – TDIU, or Total Disability Based on Individual Unemployability. I want this information out there, for veterans and family members struggling with their claims for disability compensation before the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

What is a TDIU Claim? 

As an every veteran with a disability rating knows, getting a 100% “schedular” disability rating is hard to do. A 100% “schedular” rating is achieved when a veteran’s disability ratings add up to 100%. But in VA Land, a 70% rating plus a 40% rating doesn’t equal 110% – it equals 80% because of how ratings are calculated. (See a helpful ratings calculator here).

In some cases, even if a veteran does not have a rating that adds up to 100%, he suffers from a disability that makes it impossible for him to work. In that case, the VA may assign a 100% rating because the veteran is totally disabled based on his individual unemployability (hence the term, “TDIU”).  The VA must first find the veteran suffers from an impairment that makes it impossible for him to maintain a substantially gainful occupation. Also, the veteran must have one service-connected disability that is at least 60%, or a total disability rating of at least 70%, with one rating as 40% or more.

Proving TDIU is very, very difficult; and a lot of this boils down to insufficiency of the evidence. The veteran should present solid evidence of his service-connected disabilities, employment history, educational and vocational attainment, and all other factors having a bearing on the issue.

This is a subjective assessment, and it depends on individual facts and circumstances. For example,  if the veteran is an IT programmer and suffers from terrible service-connected migraines that prevent him from doing his job or being retrained to perform similar work for which he is qualified, he might be TDIU. However, if the veteran is a manual laborer who is affected less by the migraines (to where he can still work), the VA might hold that he is not TDIU.

The VA has prepared a webpage that discusses the general requirements to prove a TDIU claim, which can be accessed here. Also, the regulation that spells out these requirements, 38 CFR 4.16, is here.

How to Make a TDIU Claim

A veteran may make a TDIU claim in one of two ways: 1) by claiming it in conjunction with an original service-connection claim; or 2) with a claim for increased evaluation.

If, in connection with a claim for increased compensation, the evidence of record shows evidence of unemployability, and the veteran meets the schedular criteria for TDIU, then the evidence reasonably raises a TDIU claim (which the VA must explore) even if the veteran doesn’t specifically state it himself. However, the veteran is far better off to raise the argument himself, rather than rely on the VA to make it.

If a veteran makes a claim for TDIU, he must complete a VA Form 21-8940. In doing so, a veteran with multiple service-connected disabilities must specify at least one disability as the reason for his unemployability.

The VA’s Process for Evaluating TDIU Claims

The VA will then follow the administrative procedures in place for processing a TDIU claim. These include sending VA Form 21-4192 (Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefit) to the former employer(s) listed on the form for which the veteran worked during his last year of employment. The VA may also request either condition-specific Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) or a general medical DBQ when the VA determines that examinations are needed to decide the claim.

I highly encourage you to take a look at  the Fast Letter issued by the Director to all VA Regional Offices which revises and clarifies the VA procedures relating to claims for TDIU, which was issued on June 17, 2013. This is available here: VA Fast Letter 13-13. 

In general, keep in mind that while the VA has the duty to assist veterans applying for disability benefits (which includes TDIU), you as the veteran are your best advocate! Do your research before embarking on a TDIU claim, keep copies of everything sent to the VA, and make sure that you have built as solid a case as possible for your claim. This may include: submitting lay witness statements of co-workers who can offer personal observations of the effects of your disability on job performance, submitting medical evidence and opinions from doctors relating to your inability to work, and by timely responding to any VA requests for more information.

When you act as your own advocate, you increase your chances of receiving the benefits to which you are entitled.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.

by Sarah Schauerte

In a classic case reminding us not to count our chickens before they hatch, a joint venture under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) Business Development (BD) program lost a size determination protest because it submitted a proposal a mere two days before receiving the SBA’s official stamp of approval (Lukos-VATC JV, LLC, Appellant, SBA No. SIZ-5532, February 6, 2014).

Rules exist for a reason, and I understand why this determination was reached, but talk about a technicality…

This size determination involved a joint venture between two companies: Lukos, LLC (Lukos) and Visual Awareness Technologies and Consulting, Inc. (VATC). Lukos is a participant in the SBA’s 8(a) program, and the two companies executed a mentor-protege agreement where VATC agreed to act as Lukos’ mentor. If the SBA were to approve the mentor-protege relationship, this meant the companies could joint venture as a “small” business for government contracts because such arrangements are an exception to the SBA’s rules on affiliation. (Generally, even if a business is small, if it has affiliates, the receipts/number of employees of its affiliates are also counted to determine whether the business still qualifies as “small.”).

The Lukos-VATC joint venture submitted its mentor-protege application and supporting documentation to the SBA on March 18, 2013. While waiting for approval, the U.S. Special Operations Command issued an 8(a) BD set-aside solicitation seeking training and exercise support services.

It had already been waiting three months for approval, and the joint venture wanted to pursue this opportunity. It contacted the SBA on June 10, 2013 to check on the status of its application. It was told by an SBA business operations specialist  that it had been approved. Hurrah! The joint venture raced to get its proposal submitted by June 17th, 2013, and lo and behold, it was the successful offeror.

But what’s this? A size protest by an unsuccessful offeror? “Oh no,” says the Lukos-VATC joint venture. “We’re in an SBA-approved mentor-protege relationship. We fall under the exception to affiliation so we’re still ‘small.'”

“Nope,” says the SBA Area Office. It found the two separate companies affiliated, and not qualifying under the mentor-protege exception to affiliation, because the SBA had not approved the mentor-protege agreement until June 19, 2013…two days after the joint venture submitted its proposal.

In upholding this decision on appeal, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) noted that there are several recognized exceptions to the rules on affiliation. One of these is joint ventures formed by 8(a) BD program mentor and protege firms. However, since the paperwork did not go through until June 19, that meant that until that time, the two companies were considered to be affiliated. Under the SBA’s rules, affiliates’ receipts are counted together when making a size determination (which is based on size at the time of the offer), and together, the two businesses were not “small.”

The Lukos-VATC joint venture tried to argue an estoppel theory – that it relied on the representations of an SBA employee. However, this argument failed for two reasons: 1) because that employee did not have the authority to approve the application; and 2) because estoppel is very, very hard to prove – a business have to show “affirmative misconduct” or “intentional misbehavior” by a government official. In this case, while very unfortunate that the Lukos-VATC joint venture was given incorrect information, the specialist’s acts didn’t rise to the level to estop the SBA from applying its regulations to find the two companies affiliated as of the time of the contract offer.

In the end, the Lukos-VATC joint venture walked away empty-handed, despite having what looked to be a very strong start to its mentor-protege relationship.

This is a hard, infuriating lesson, but it reinforces an old axiom in government contracting: always get the official word, and get it in writing.

If you’re interested in learning more about the SBA’s 8(a) BD mentor-protege program, click here.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on small business (and veterans) issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!

by Sarah Schauerte

A checklist to get sued:

1) Don’t train your employees about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

2) When you violate the ADA, make sure it’s by barring entry to your business to a veteran with an obvious disability.

3) Make sure the service dog you’re banning is an adorable yellow Labrador.

4) Do it in Texas, an extremely veteran-friendly state.

Check, check, check and check! Although Starbucks hasn’t gotten sued…yet. It has merely gotten some really, really bad press.

According to the different accounts of a story that was posted around the country earlier last week, Mr. Yancy Baer, a veteran of the Iraq war, tried to pop into a Starbucks on Memorial Drive in San Antonio. Mr. Baer had the lower half of his left leg amputated due to bone cancer, and he uses a yellow Labrador, Verbena, as his service dog. A Starbucks employee stopped him, and told him he couldn’t bring his dog into the store.

Mr. Baer is missing part of his left leg. I’d like to stress that again.

Embarrassed by the confrontation, which was in front of a store full of customers, Mr. Baer started shaking. He tried to explain to the sassy barista that Verbena is his service dog. When pressed, he described what Verbena does to assist him.

The response?

“Why can’t you do that for yourself?”

Adding to the terrible nature of this story is the reason Mr. Baer was in San Antonio – to give a speech on behalf of the service dog organization where he obtained Verbena – Canine Companions for Independence, a California-based non-profit organization that is the largest provider of assistance dogs in the United States.

In the end, another employee intervened and helped Mr. Baer, but I doubt he was able to enjoy his coffee. I’m willing to bet he took it to go, just to get the heck away from that barista.

The story didn’t end there for Starbucks. Somehow, it was repeated and picked up by the local television station, and then national channels. I personally found the story on a LinkedIn forum (U.S. Military Veterans Network). San Antonio is a very pro-veteran area, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t picketers outside that particular store. (News stories helpfully shared that it is a Starbucks on Memorial Drive).

Last summer, I blogged about a man who was denied entry to the Texas state legislature with his service dog, Piggy, a pug used to help him with his post-traumatic stress disorder. In that article, I discussed how important it is for businesses to know that when it comes to service dogs, under the ADA a private business is only allowed to ask two questions: 1) Is the animal required because of a disability? and 2) What work or task has the animal been trained to perform? An employee of a private business may not ask about the nature or extent of an individual’s disabilities, and he may not ask for documentation proving that the animal is in fact a service dog. If an employee crosses this line, the business risks a lawsuit.

In this instance, while Mr. Baer has publicly stated that he has “no hard feelings” towards Starbucks, the fact of the matter is that he had to have spoken up to someone, or the story never would have gotten press. And that press has surely led to a lot of customers boycotting that particular Starbucks. All because of one employee’s nasty faux pas.

Well, folks. One faux pas can cost you.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.