J.D. by Doherty v. Colonial Williamsburg Found.
925 F.3d 663 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public accommodation's offer to provide an alternative accommodation does not, as a matter of law, render a disabled individual's requested policy modification unnecessary under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A court must conduct a fact-specific, individualized inquiry into whether the offered accommodation sufficiently addresses the plaintiff's particular disability.
Facts:
- J.D., an 11-year-old boy, suffers severe health symptoms, including temporary loss of consciousness, if he ingests even trace amounts of gluten.
- A strictly gluten-free diet is medically necessary for J.D.'s health.
- On multiple prior occasions, J.D. became ill after eating meals at restaurants that represented their food as gluten-free, due to cross-contamination or error.
- As a result of these experiences, J.D.'s parents began preparing all his food to ensure it was medically safe.
- During a school field trip to Colonial Williamsburg, J.D. and his father went to Shields Tavern, a restaurant with a policy against outside food.
- J.D.'s father began preparing a homemade gluten-free meal for J.D. inside the restaurant.
- Restaurant staff enforced the 'no outside food' policy but offered to have the head chef prepare a gluten-free meal for J.D.
- Distrusting the restaurant's ability to safely prepare the meal based on past experiences elsewhere, J.D.'s father declined the offer, and J.D. ate his homemade meal at picnic tables outside, apart from his classmates.
Procedural Posture:
- J.D. sued the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in the United States District Court, alleging violations of the ADA and related state and federal laws.
- Colonial Williamsburg moved for summary judgment.
- A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendant, finding the requested modification was not 'necessary.'
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor of Colonial Williamsburg.
- J.D. (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a restaurant's refusal to modify its 'no outside food' policy for a patron with a severe gluten sensitivity constitute discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, when the restaurant offers to prepare its own gluten-free meal but the patron has a history of becoming ill from commercially prepared 'gluten-free' meals?
Opinions:
Majority - Diaz, Circuit Judge
Yes, a restaurant's refusal to modify its policy under these circumstances can constitute discrimination, as there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the modification was necessary. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an individualized inquiry into the specific needs of the disabled person. The district court erred by granting summary judgment without properly weighing J.D.'s evidence that commercially prepared gluten-free meals, like the one offered by Shields Tavern, posed a significant risk to his health due to his past experiences. A jury could find that eating a meal prepared by the restaurant was beyond J.D.'s capacity, making his request to bring his own food a necessary modification for him to have a 'like experience' to his peers. Furthermore, genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether the requested modification was reasonable and whether it would fundamentally alter the nature of the restaurant's services, precluding summary judgment.
Dissenting - Wilkinson, Circuit Judge
No, the restaurant's refusal did not constitute discrimination because the modification J.D. requested was neither necessary nor reasonable. The requested modification was not necessary because Shields Tavern provided 'meaningful access' by offering to prepare a gluten-free meal with extensive and undisputed safety protocols, having served over 5,000 such meals without complaint. J.D.'s prior negative experiences at other restaurants do not render this specific, rigorous offer insufficient. The modification was also unreasonable because allowing outside food would disrupt the restaurant's business, undermine its historical atmosphere, deny servers their tips, and create significant health and liability risks for other patrons.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the 'reasonable modification' analysis under the ADA is a highly fact-specific and individualized inquiry. It establishes that a defendant's standing offer of an accommodation is not a complete defense if a plaintiff can produce evidence that the offered accommodation is inadequate for their particular disability. The ruling potentially expands protections for individuals with severe food allergies by allowing their subjective, experience-based fears of cross-contamination to be presented to a jury, shifting the burden to businesses to prove that a requested policy exception is unreasonable or would cause a fundamental alteration.
Unlock the full brief for J.D. by Doherty v. Colonial Williamsburg Found.