Engaging in business transactions with others, even in retail, constitutes a form of contract. Consent is a crucial aspect of any contract; both parties must agree – one willing to buy and the other willing to sell. Can a retail store typically refuse service to a customer in such a setting?
The Federal Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are laws that safeguard individual rights from discrimination. The Federal Civil Rights Act ensures equal access to public accommodations without discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act promotes accessibility for individuals with disabilities in public places like stores, restaurants, movie theaters, and other establishments.
Segregation or what some may perceive as discrimination is permissible to a degree, as long as it does not target a protected class based on factors like race, ethnicity, skin color, religion, veteran status, physical condition, or disability. It should be consistently applied without singling out specific individuals or showing favoritism.
The law provides protection for business owners against disruptive customers who disturb the peace, cause harm to others or property, or engage in illegal activities like prostitution, drug use, pandering, or sexual misconduct. Such behavior should not be accepted and can be legally addressed by asking them to leave. This principle also extends to customers whose actions go against public welfare or morals. Conduct is deemed "contrary to the public welfare" when it is deemed harmful and undesirable according to societal norms, which can sometimes be subjective terms.
Discrimination based on race is a grave matter, and a retailer who refuses to serve a customer may face severe criticism and backlash from the public. In a specific incident at Wild Wing Café in North Carolina, 25 African American customers were asked to leave after a white man expressed feeling threatened by their presence. The restaurant received strong online criticism for the perceived discriminatory behavior. The manager later apologized to the customers, engaged in a constructive dialogue, and provided them with a complimentary meal. Thankfully, the situation was resolved amicably in the end.
Discriminating against a customer and refusing service based on their reputation, sexual identity, or preference is illegal. In a reported incident, a man from Oklahoma and his boyfriend were allegedly requested to leave Wal-Mart due to their sexual orientation. According to the account, a staff member approached them at the checkout counter, interrogated them, made derogatory remarks such as "It is Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and instructed them to exit the store.
The prohibition against discrimination includes religious or social backgrounds. In Chicago, a 62-year-old Vietnamese war veteran was wrongly asked to leave a Walgreens store or risk arrest due to a mistaken assumption that he was homeless. Previous incidents also occurred in off-base stores in Germany where he was stationed, where entry was denied based on his race. Walgreens apologized for the error in identity and presented him with a Twenty-Dollar gift card as a gesture of reconciliation.
Certain exceptions to discrimination based on factors such as age and clothing are considered reasonable regulations based on the services offered by a business. For instance, it is common practice for bars and stores selling alcohol to require customers to be of legal age. Similarly, imposing a higher service charge for a specific number of diners in a restaurant is generally accepted. While some argue against discriminating based on clothing, certain establishments like upscale restaurants and hotels have traditionally implemented dress codes. In a notable incident, a customer in Oregon wearing a bikini shared her experience on social media after being asked by Wal-Mart to cover up due to health codes. A Wal-Mart spokesperson clarified that the issue was not about the clothing itself but rather the customer's behavior and disturbance of the store's peace.
While a store is open to the public, it's still considered a private space, allowing the owner to implement appropriate safety measures and request a customer to leave if they feel uneasy. For instance, in 2013, David Meinert, the owner of Lost Lake Restaurant in Seattle, WA, prohibited the use of Google Glasses on his premises. He viewed the device as intrusive, as it could capture and record activities on the premises, breaching his customers' privacy. Meinert asserted his right to set rules on his private property, leading to customer Nick Starr being asked to either put away the glasses or exit. Starr chose to leave, expressing his frustration on Facebook.
The police informed a woman from Georgia that the local restaurant, which refused to allow her four-year-old daughter's service dog, is privately owned. They explained that the owner has the legal right to establish and enforce their own policies, even if it means excluding certain individuals.
Refusing something is one aspect, but the way in which the refusal is handled can sometimes lead to legal consequences. In 2013, a lawsuit was filed against Starbucks by a group of deaf customers who used to gather for their Deaf Chat Coffee group meetings. The customers sought unspecified damages after Starbucks employees ridiculed their speech and involved the police to expel them from a Manhattan store. The customers expressed feeling shocked, frightened, and humiliated by the ordeal. Upon investigation, the police found no valid reason for the complaint, apologized to the deaf customers, and rebuked Starbucks for involving them.
is generally acceptable to have store policies that may seem discriminatory, but it is crucial to enforce them consistently and not selectively. For instance, if a customer with a pet is asked to leave due to a no-pet policy, the business owner/manager should also apply the same rule to other customers with pets to avoid any bias.
In the examples mentioned earlier, it is evident that social media holds significant influence. A dissatisfied customer might not resort to legal action but can easily share their experience on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Before the business owner realizes it, the story spreads to mass media, potentially leading to a public relations crisis that could damage the company's reputation. Business owners should ensure that they are aware of their rights as retailers and property owners, while also exercising those rights lawfully. Many business owners provide training to their staff (managers and employees) on handling difficult customers, including scenarios where asking a customer to leave may be necessary. This not only educates the staff on proper conduct but also protects the business owner from potential lawsuits. Even if legal action is taken, a judge may rule in favor of the business owner if the policies are justifiable and witnesses confirm that the refusal was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Comments