By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Blackfeet Nation member reported being denied a routine return at Target when employees refused to acknowledge her federally recognized Tribal identification. The woman, who has used her Tribal ID without issue for years, including while previously employed at Target, offered to manually input the information, but her ID was rejected by both an employee and a supervisor. This incident, occurring while she was out for essential baby supplies as a new mother, has caused distress and prompted her to share her experience online to prevent similar occurrences for other Native Americans.
Read the original article here
The incident involving a Great Falls woman being refused service at Target due to her Tribal ID has sparked considerable discussion, highlighting a pervasive issue of unfamiliarity and lack of proper training regarding various forms of identification across different businesses. This situation, while specific to one individual’s experience, echoes similar instances where valid, government-issued identification has been rejected, leading to frustration and confusion for customers. The core of the problem, as many have observed, appears to stem from insufficient employee training and, in some cases, systemic limitations in how businesses process identification.
Many who have encountered similar scenarios point to a fundamental lack of awareness among retail employees. It’s not uncommon, for instance, to hear about individuals being told their Alaskan driver’s license, Washington D.C. identification, or even U.S. Passport Cards are not acceptable forms of identification. The rationale often provided, if any, boils down to the employee’s limited understanding or the business’s internal systems not recognizing these credentials. This suggests a failure at a management or corporate level to adequately educate their staff on the spectrum of valid IDs.
The situation becomes even more perplexing when considering that Tribal IDs are, in essence, federal IDs issued by sovereign nations. The expectation is that such official documentation, akin to a U.S. Passport or a military ID, would be universally accepted for age verification and identification purposes. The fact that employees, and even supervisors, at Target were reportedly unaware of or unwilling to accept a Tribal ID indicates a significant gap in their operational protocols and employee education. It’s been noted that some corporate representatives themselves provided conflicting information when contacted for clarification, further underscoring the internal inconsistencies and lack of clear policy.
One perspective suggests that retail workers, especially younger ones, may err on the side of caution to avoid potential repercussions for incorrectly verifying an ID, particularly when dealing with age-restricted items like alcohol or tobacco. The fear of losing their job or facing legal scrutiny can lead them to reject anything that falls outside their narrow understanding of acceptable identification. This fear-driven caution, while understandable from an employee’s standpoint, ultimately disadvantages customers who possess legitimate forms of identification. This also raises questions about how well these systems are designed to handle non-standard, yet valid, identification methods.
Furthermore, the experience of individuals who have previously worked at Target, or similar retail environments, and have successfully used their Tribal IDs adds another layer of complexity. This suggests that the issue might not be a longstanding corporate policy but rather a more recent lapse in training or a misunderstanding among current staff. The contrast between past acceptance and present refusal points towards a need for updated and consistent training modules that cover the full range of recognized identification documents. The fact that a former employee of Target could use the same ID without issue in the past highlights the internal inconsistencies and the critical need for standardized protocols.
Some have speculated that the underlying issue might be a technological one, where the specific system used by Target for scanning IDs may not be equipped to process Tribal IDs. If the system requires a scannable barcode that certain Tribal IDs lack, this could be a legitimate technical hurdle. However, even in such cases, there should be a manual override or alternative procedure available, and the lack of such options points back to a corporate-level deficiency in addressing these nuances. The experience of a pharmacy technician at Walgreens, where the register prompts only have limited options and don’t include Tribal IDs, illustrates how systemic limitations can impact in-store verification processes.
The discussion also touches upon the broader societal context, where historical lack of awareness about Indigenous peoples and their sovereign status contributes to these misunderstandings. For some, encountering situations where their valid IDs are rejected is not a new experience, but rather a recurring one that reflects a wider societal ignorance. This ignorance, while not always malicious, can still be deeply frustrating and invalidating for those affected, especially when it prevents them from engaging in routine transactions. The comparison to experiences in Canada with Indigenous Status Cards being refused for similar reasons underscores that this is not an isolated North American issue.
While some acknowledge the potential for genuine ignorance or fear of disciplinary action on the part of the employees, others are less forgiving. The repeated instances of Target being criticized for various social and ethical issues lead some to question the company’s commitment to inclusivity and diversity. For these individuals, the refusal of a Tribal ID is another in a series of reasons to avoid shopping at Target, viewing it as a symptom of a larger institutional problem rather than an isolated training oversight. The idea that a business which promotes itself as inclusive could fail to recognize legitimate forms of identification held by Native Americans is seen as a significant failing.
Ultimately, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of comprehensive and up-to-date training for all customer-facing employees. Businesses need to move beyond relying solely on driver’s licenses or passports as the only acceptable forms of identification. Acknowledging and properly recognizing Tribal IDs, military IDs, and other valid government-issued documents is not just a matter of convenience; it is a matter of respect and equitable treatment for all customers. The expectation is that Target, like any major retailer, should have robust training protocols in place to ensure their employees are equipped to handle a diverse range of customer identification needs accurately and respectfully.