Nordstrom has barred Charles Kellam from its stores and eBars, according to a letter from the retailer’s outside lawyer published by Atlanta Black Star. The company cites his conduct and repeated disputes over his dog’s leash. Kellam, a Black luxury designer who has accused the retailer of racial profiling, disputes its account. The situation reflects the ongoing controversy surrounding the Nordstrom Charles Kellam ban.

The letter brings a nationwide restriction into a dispute that began at Scottsdale Fashion Square in Arizona. Kellam, founder of Fruitful Rooster, told Atlanta Black Star that the retailer was overlooking his dog’s role as a service animal. His discrimination allegations and Nordstrom’s misconduct allegations remain contested.

This incident has sparked widespread discussion about the Nordstrom Charles Kellam ban and its implications for racial profiling in retail.

What the letter says

The two-page letter, dated Oct. 21 on its first page, is addressed to Kellam’s lawyers, Robert T. Mills and Sean A. Woods. David Perez of Morrison Foerster signs as counsel for Nordstrom. It warns that another unauthorized visit could prompt legal action, including a call to police.

Perez says he notified the attorneys of a company-wide restriction on Sept. 10. The letter alleges that Kellam returned to the Scottsdale store and eBar on Oct. 17 and removed his dog’s leash. It also accuses him of berating employees and customers and recording staff without consent.

Those statements represent the company’s position. A lawyer’s notice is not a court judgment, and the letter itself does not establish that a crime or civil-rights violation occurred. The Phoenix has not independently verified the competing descriptions of the encounters.

Kellam challenges the company’s explanation

In his response to Atlanta Black Star, Kellam said Ruby, his German Shepherd, performs service tasks that a leash prevents her from doing. He also said he had walked through the store with the dog leashed and left, but employees monitored him and approached him outside.

Kellam said he complied with a security manager’s request. He told the outlet that his attorney had instructed him not to enter Nordstrom after forwarding the letter, while advising that he could discuss the restriction publicly. Atlanta Black Star reported Oct. 28 that it had sought a further company comment and was awaiting a response.

The latest reporting does not resolve the parties’ conflicting accounts of the leash or the interactions with staff. It also does not establish that race motivated the ban. Nordstrom’s stated explanation is disputed conduct; Kellam’s allegation is discriminatory treatment.

The original encounter was in March

The underlying confrontation took place March 21, 2026, not in September, when Atlanta Black Star published an interview with Kellam and Woods. That earlier report said video of the encounter circulated June 19. In the interview, Kellam said he had been sitting at the store’s eBar, preparing for a contract meeting, when the manager approached him about Ruby.

Kellam described feeling humiliated as the encounter drew security officers and onlookers. Woods said the dog had been properly leashed and accused store management of targeting Kellam because he is Black. The attorney also said he had requested store surveillance footage.

Kellam said he had raised his concerns with corporate leadership but did not receive the acknowledgment he wanted. His account of that earlier corporate response was his own description of the exchange, not a public finding by an investigator. September’s interview and October’s letter concern different stages of the same dispute.

Service-animal rules include a leash exception

The disagreement raises a specific access question: when must a service dog be leashed? The U.S. Justice Department’s guidance says a service animal generally must be harnessed, leashed or tethered in public. An exception applies when those devices interfere with its work or when the handler’s disability prevents their use. The animal must still be controlled through voice commands, signals or another effective method.

The same guidance says a service animal must be under its handler’s control. An animal that is out of control may be removed if the handler does not take effective action. These general rules do not decide whether Ruby met the requirements during either disputed visit.

Federal guidance defines a service dog by its training to perform a task related to a person’s disability. It does not require a special vest, certification or professional training program. Stores and restaurants generally must allow service animals in areas open to customers, even when pets are prohibited.

When the need is not apparent, staff may ask whether the dog is required because of a disability and what task it has been trained to perform. They cannot demand a demonstration or ask about the person’s diagnosis. The public material reviewed for this story does not establish what questions were asked or what accommodations were discussed at the store.

An unresolved civil-rights dispute

Arizona’s attorney general lists race, color and disability among the protected categories in public-accommodation cases. Department stores are covered settings. The office identifies denial of entry and unequal treatment as examples of allegations it handles. Its website sets a 180-day period for filing a public-accommodation complaint with the Civil Rights Division, while advising people to check the deadline that applies to their circumstances.

The Phoenix has not obtained a filed complaint or ruling resolving this dispute. No conclusion about a filing deadline or the legality of the ban can be drawn from the letter alone. The underlying evidence, any formal claims and the parties’ responses would matter to such a determination.

Kellam has also connected his experience to his plans for a Black-owned retail space. On his public fundraising page, he says donations would help establish Fruitful Rooster’s first physical storefront. He describes a goal of creating jobs and offering customers respectful service. That business appeal is his response to the dispute, not independent proof of discrimination.