No Mask, No Service: Supermarket Sued For Disability Discrimination Over Strict Face-Covering Policy

OD
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart

Contributor

Ogletree Deakins is a labor and employment law firm representing management in all types of employment-related legal matters. Ogletree Deakins has more than 850 attorneys located in 53 offices across the United States and in Europe, Canada, and Mexico. The firm represents a range of clients, from small businesses to Fortune 50 companies.
On May 26, 2020, a woman with an alleged respiratory disability filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act
United States Coronavirus (COVID-19)
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On May 26, 2020, a woman with an alleged respiratory disability filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against a supermarket chain in Pennsylvania after she was denied entry because she could not wear a face mask. This lawsuit marks a growing trend of disability access lawsuits challenging face mask policies.

The Pennsylvania face-covering order at issue in the lawsuit generally requires that public accommodations deny access to individuals not wearing masks, but makes an exception for individuals who cannot wear masks due to medical conditions. The supermarket chain has taken a stricter approach, requiring that all guests-without exception-wear face masks to shop in its stores.

The supermarket chain at the center of the suit in this case is not alone. Many other retailers have implemented face mask policies that do not provide an exception for individuals who cannot wear face coverings due to medical reasons. This raises a question: is such a face mask policy lawful?

The ADA requires "reasonable modifications" of policies, practices, or procedures, such as the face mask rule, when necessary to provide goods and services to individuals with disabilities. However, the ADA does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in, or benefit from, the goods or services if that individual poses a "direct threat" to the health or safety of others. Whether something rises to the level of direct threat depends on various factors and requires an individualized assessment of the medical evidence. The business carries the burden to prove the direct threat defense. Does the risk of spreading the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) qualify as a "direct threat"? Cases like this may start to provide an answer to that question.

Key Takeaways

Public accommodations that elect to implement policies requiring all guests to wear face coverings without exception, particularly where a state or local order provides for medical exceptions, may want to thoroughly evaluate the "direct threat" in order to be in the best position to defend against any ADA challenge. Public Accommodations that deny entry to customers who cannot wear face masks may want to consider offering other comparable services, such as online ordering, curbside pickup, or special shopping hours, to excluded customers.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

No Mask, No Service: Supermarket Sued For Disability Discrimination Over Strict Face-Covering Policy

United States Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Contributor

Ogletree Deakins is a labor and employment law firm representing management in all types of employment-related legal matters. Ogletree Deakins has more than 850 attorneys located in 53 offices across the United States and in Europe, Canada, and Mexico. The firm represents a range of clients, from small businesses to Fortune 50 companies.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More