Why the line rules raise serious concerns under the ADA

What the statute requires

A retail sales establishment is a public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 12181. Title III, at 42 U.S.C. § 12182, bars denying a person the full and equal enjoyment of what the store offers because of a disability. The policy rules are 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.301 and 36.302. A store may not use eligibility criteria that screen out people with disabilities, and it must make reasonable modifications to policies when a disability requires the change, unless the change would fundamentally alter the business.

Handing out a number, or holding a place for a documented need, does not change a bin store into something else. A chair in line does not answer every disability. The restroom, a required break, and a caregiver who could hold the place are still outside what Breanna Danielle Henderson’s comment covers.

Where the posted rules raise the concern

1. 1. “Cannot leave for any reason”

   A rule with no exception for the restroom, or for any other reason, may screen out a shopper who cannot stay in one spot without a break. Federal rules treat a policy as discriminatory when it screens people out, or tends to, because of disability. That is the concern this rule raises. It is not a court finding.

2. 2. No held place, and no chairs inside

   Chairs in the line, which Breanna Danielle Henderson said are welcome, do not answer a person who must leave for the restroom or a medical reason, or a person who needs someone else to hold the spot. Refusing those changes, when a number or a held place would not change what the store sells, is the modification question under the regulation.

3. 3. “There is nothing about ADA in this.”

   Doug Henderson wrote that sentence, said the store should not have to pay someone to hand out numbers, and said he is “done being nice or political correct on the line cheaters.” Set next to a rule that does not allow leaving or a held place, those comments raise the question of whether the store refused a reasonable modification. Again, that is a question. No court has ruled.

The store’s Facebook page, separate from either owner’s personal comment, refused restroom exceptions. It said everyone who walks up late will claim they went to the bathroom, and “that don't work because of story tellers.” One owner says the store is “happy to accommodate customers with disabilities.” The door, Doug Henderson’s comments, and that page reply are the record next to that sentence.

No court has ruled

Nothing on this site is a verdict. The Justice Department decides whether to investigate a complaint. A private Title III case asks a judge to order a policy changed. It does not pay the shopper damages. Alabama has no state agency that takes this kind of complaint against a private business, so the federal report is the route that exists.