Bar Refused Service Based on Pregnancy

[BOR]

I thought it was a EEOC case law and I was right.


.......In 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with enforcing Title VII, interpreted the sex discrimination prohibition to bar discrimination on the basis of pregnancy..........

Although the case at FN 5 General Electric is cited, I looked it up and it dealt with disabilities and pregnancy. I was not aware of that case, but ergo, the PDA amendment of 1978 to clarify Title 7.

Now, as we are talking about OH, as I said, I am not familiar with the case law, but if it followed the U.S. Courts rational, I would be right. Anyway the case law I alluded to is there.

EEOC

[jk]

hey, you said it wasn't federal!!

But the bigger question, how does this apply to consumer protection laws?

and if you say it does, I'm going to run out and find 30 pregnant women and go to the carnival and when they say the pregnant women can't ride because they are pregnant, I'll be rich (due to the referral fees of course)

[cdwjava]

Carl, you talked of possibly being sued yourself for damage to a fetus. Waht attorny would take such a case for her, as you point out the posters case. You know how hard it would be to prove Causation, and even if proven the LAW must allow for damages, not feelings.

Real world, BOR ... what attorney will spend thousands of his own money up front in the hope that he would get a sufficient award to pay his fees? Won't happen. And any claim for damages is still speculative and not a given. A strong argument can be made that this is not discrimination but a business exercising it's right to refuse service and to avoid what they believe may cause them liability.

Theory is great, but in reality, the OP is not going to spend many thousands o fher own dollars for the right to buy booze, and no attorney is going to do it on a coin toss, either.

[BOR]

hey, you said it wasn't federal!!

I said the posters case was not federal, but based on ohio law. You asked me to cite my Title 7 case law, and I did!

But the bigger question, how does this apply to consumer protection laws?
and if you say it does, I'm going to run out and find 30 pregnant women and go to the carnival and when they say the pregnant women can't ride because they are pregnant, I'll be rich (due to the referral fees of course)

Are we talking about a Merry-go-round, or a roller coaster?

The hard rides are, as a given, may be considered a Ultra-Hazordous activity, if I may. Although the female is willing to "assume the risk", if posible "strict liability" may be imposed for an act, then it may probably constitute negligence on the park's part if they permit it. When 2 or more rights conflict, the law will weigh the better for society, etc.

There is a doctrine in the law, I forget it now, but if a courts ruling would reach an ABSURD conclusion, the court will not render it, despite the actual law.

Permitting an OCRC suit to go forward based on a park's refusal to permit a pregnant woman to ride the rollercoaster would be ABSURD.

Probably agree Carl, but a relative attorney might. Regardless, the poster wanted to know if a law may have been violated, I merely pointed out, probably, and she was free to consult an attorney. Initial consulations are either free or cheap.

[Mr. Knowitall]

I think a lawyer might be interested if there were reason to believe that the bar was trying to exclude or discourage pregnant women from being on the premises, as opposed to a bar employee deciding he or she wasn't comfortable serving alcohol to a pregnant customer. There's a big difference between a bar saying, "You can stay, but we'll only serve you water, juice or soft drinks," versus saying (or suggesting), "If you're pregnant, you're not welcome in our premises."

Also, if the employee is stating that he didn't want to serve a pregnant customer, the employee could claim that the patron appeared to be intoxicated - an assessment that, even if wrong, would justify suspending the service of alcohol to any patron - even if such a defense were completely contrived it would be difficult to overcome. And there's also the aforementioned issue of damages.

[BOR]

jk, what I spoke of a few posts up is known as the Absurdity Doctrine.

Carl, what I meant was, as you point out an attorney taking this case on contingeny is slight, if you served drinks to a pregnant woman and she claimed fetal damage because of you, who would take her case on contingency?

It works both ways.

[PattyPA]

IMHO, the bartender should have been given a medal.

[cbg]

I will once again point out, since the poster herself tried to align the case with employment laws, and since the EEOC and Title VII are employment related, that under employment discrimination laws a single instance rarely (not never, but rarely) is sufficient to support a lawsuit. So EVEN IF the bartender was in the wrong, it's still unlikely that she could successfully sue on that basis.

[cdwjava]

I would still refuse to serve a pregnant woman. I can't imagine it getting to a court at all.

[angelic1]

I am not posting this in an attempt for moral judgement...I respect your opinions anyhow. I am looking for answers. Thank you.
Is this information I found correct?
Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.