A Lexington restaurant has been fined $25,000 after its owner denied service to a disabled Navy veteran accompanied by a service dog.
According to Military.com, Oasis Mediterranean Restaurant in Lexington, Kentucky, was found to have violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing access to a veteran and her legally recognized service animal, an incident now resulting in financial penalties and heightened scrutiny.
The incident occurred in March 2023 when Sarah Van Vooren, a Navy veteran with a disability, visited the Oasis Mediterranean Restaurant in the Chevy Chase area of Lexington. She brought her service dog, Mooney, which was clearly marked to indicate its function as a service animal.
Ahmad Saleh, the restaurant's owner, initially seated Van Vooren. However, when she attempted to use the restaurant's restroom and buffet, Saleh denied her access upon realizing she was accompanied by the dog. Van Vooren recorded the encounter on her mobile phone, capturing Saleh blocking her path and refusing service. She later reported the incident to the Lexington-Fayette County Human Rights Commission, filing a formal complaint that spring.
Commission Cites Clear Violation of Civil Protections
Following a formal investigation and hearing, officials concluded that both Saleh and the restaurant had unlawfully discriminated against Van Vooren. The hearing officer emphasized that the conduct was not just discriminatory but was carried out deliberately and with severity.
On Sept. 15, 2025, the Lexington-Fayette County Human Rights Commission voted to adopt the officer’s findings. The commission imposed a $25,000 fine on Oasis and its owner, citing violations of both city ordinances and state-level regulations that protect people with disabilities. Raymond Sexton, the commission’s executive director, said the decision represents a meaningful outcome for Van Vooren and for others who rely on similar accommodations. He noted that the ruling affirmed the rights of individuals with visible and invisible impairments alike.
Business Owner’s Defense Dismissed as Invalid
During the proceedings, Saleh claimed that his refusal to admit the service dog stemmed from health department guidelines related to food safety. However, the commission determined that local health codes specifically allow trained service animals in public dining settings.
The hearing officer’s written report criticized Saleh’s actions as deliberate and unrepentant. According to the report, Saleh expressed no regret during his testimony and maintained that he did not feel obliged to “be kind” to a customer he accused of disruptive behavior. Saleh also attempted to argue that he denied entry only to the dog and not to Van Vooren herself. That claim was rejected by the commission as meaningless, with the officer pointing out that denying the dog was effectively the same as denying its handler.
Prior Allegation Raises Concerns of Ongoing Issues
The incident with Van Vooren was not the first time the restaurant had faced a similar accusation. In June 2024, Danielle Burton filed a separate complaint alleging she was denied access to the restaurant’s buffet while accompanied by her seeing-eye dog, Violet. Although the outcome of Burton’s complaint remains pending, it has added to public concern regarding the restaurant’s treatment of patrons with disabilities. Burton's experience closely mirrored Van Vooren’s, including being barred from accessing core areas of the restaurant.
Despite multiple opportunities to defend its practices, the restaurant's explanation regarding food safety failed to hold up under scrutiny. Officials reinforced that service animals are permitted by law, especially when tethered and well-behaved, as was the case in both complaints.
Appeals Option Still Open Amid Public Silence
Saleh has not publicly commented on the ruling and remains silent regarding the fine. Under the commission’s order, he has 30 days from the Sept. 15 decision to file an appeal with the Fayette Circuit Court, should he choose to challenge the outcome.
Van Vooren was not immediately available for comment after the decision was announced. However, her recorded evidence and formal complaint were crucial in shaping the final determination by city officials. Executive Director Sexton reiterated the broader implications of the ruling, stating that such cases underscore the purpose of public accommodation laws meant to protect individuals from being singled out based on their disabilities.
Advocates Call for Greater Disability Awareness
The case has drawn increased attention from disability rights advocates throughout Kentucky and beyond, many of whom see the decision as a crucial reminder of the legal responsibilities placed on public establishments.
While the fine provides closure to Van Vooren’s complaint, advocates hope the ruling will improve awareness and adherence to accessibility laws, particularly regarding customers with service animals. Service dogs perform essential tasks that allow individuals like Van Vooren to safely navigate public environments. As attention shifts toward the potential appeal, the commission maintains that its decision reflects the seriousness of the offense and its impact on an individual seeking fair treatment. The emphasis, according to Sexton, is on ensuring equal access for all, without exception.
