I am not sure the US actually can, given the current legal and political landscape.
Masks are "mandatory" where I'm at, and I walked into a multi-billion dollar business the other day with a sign that literally said "if you are not wearing a mask we will respectfully assume it is due to a medical condition".
"Mandatory" in the US effectively means "strongly suggested". There's literally zero effective way to enforce it.
Some states with incompetent governance allow nonsense like that.
A local retailer was telling people that they wouldn't enforce mask use once you entered the building. Someone called the health department, and they were shut down within 3 hours.
Yes, but that is very different than the sign I posted above. Businesses generally do not have the authority nor capability to judge anyone's medical conditions.
Businesses absolutely have the authority to say "no mask, no entry", just like they can set "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies.
The ADA requires reasonable accommodation, and has explicit exemptions to accommodations that pose a health threat to others. https://www.ada.gov/taman3.htm#III-3.8000
> III-3.8000 Direct threat. A public accommodation may exclude an individual with a disability from participation in an activity, if that individual's participation would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of others.
It is not clear that legally meets the definition of "direct threat".
> 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.
> [...] 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.
The fact that lawyers can't quite agree on this, should be more than enough to evidence to show that it will also not be clear to the laypeople who are responsible for setting, following, and enforcing those policies within stores. I am sure my local news and anecdotal experiences are also not unique in showing that compliance has been spotty. This is the US; being uncooperative is basically our national past-time. Most people will avoid confrontation, and when confrontation does happen, it'll be rare that police get involved unless they escalate to violence.
> If a court doesn't find "refuses to wear a mask during a global pandemic" to be a direct threat to the health of others, I'll eat my hat.
For a person not diagnosed with COVID-19 who is simply occupying a space and not in direct contact with another person -- I'd think that could be reasonably described as "indirect threat"
> Offering something like curbside pickup is, under the ADA, a "reasonable accommodation". People who genuinely can't wear a mask should request it.
That is a good solution to the issue and I personally wish more businesses would take this route to solve the problem, but unfortunately it is not happening.
If I call up my local gas station and tell them I want a Snickers bar, have a medical condition and can't wear a mask, the $8/hr employee on the other end is either going to argue with me or tell me to come in anyway. They're not going to contemplate the implications of the ADA and determine that curbside pickup is the best legal solution to the issue.
These are really the kinds of national conversations that should be facilitated from the top, but unfortunately that is not the perspective that our current leadership has.
The gas station cashier doesn't make a decision, they follow a policy. No sane business assumes that cashiers think.
I'm an escalation point for a not for profit that I serve on the board of. Our policy is that to be in a public space on our property, you must be masked. If you refuse to comply, the frontline worker's protocol is to ask you to leave the property. If you refuse to leave, you are trespassing, and the employee or supervisor calls the police. Supervisors are empowered to make some limited accommodations, but masks must be worn in public spaces.
If the employee ignores the policy, they are given one warning, then treated as insubordinate, usually terminated.
State regulations are very clear in our state, so if someone wants to sue, go for it. 95% percent of "health concerns" using masks are BS, and protecting our people is more important that worrying about an ADA lawsuit. Usually the people with a problem that leads to a police call flip out and act like an ass on camera, so have fun with the judge.
> The gas station cashier doesn't make a decision, they follow a policy. No sane business assumes that cashiers think.
That's part of my point -- few places have the time and money to detail policies that account for regulatory edge cases, and the boots on the ground aren't equipped to do so either. Most businesses are trying to focus on the basics, like "can we make payroll" and "are we legally allowed to be open". I expect the majority of businesses have policies that approximate the law in that they either give everyone the benefit of the doubt, or they give nobody the benefit of the doubt. Because every business has a slightly different interpretation and slightly different policy, this further degrades the public's understanding of what is legal/acceptable/reasonable. Inconsistencies like this are going to weaken the public's willingness to cooperate, and erode their belief that it actually matters.
> State regulations are very clear in our state, so if someone wants to sue, go for it. 95% percent of "health concerns" using masks are BS, and protecting our people is more important that worrying about an ADA lawsuit. Usually the people with a problem that leads to a police call flip out and act like an ass on camera, so have fun with the judge.
We're about 9 levels removed from my original comment, so a lot of context is vague by now, but my original point is more of a general statement about compliance rather than the situation inside of a given business. There are certainly some businesses operating with smart and effective management, confidence in their legal standing, a clientele that demands masks being worn, and assertive employees who will enforce policies effectively. But most businesses are missing one or more of those factors, and due to that, I think we'll see the majority of places trend towards spotty compliance in general.
They don't need to -- ADA requires accommodation, not the wild west.
In my state, emergency order requires masks in public spaces, and exempts retailers/others from any state liability. The Feds have the power to do the same.
I don't doubt the problem is difficult and it has only been made more difficult by the fact what is a public health issue has somehow morphed into a party political issue.
But I'm not sure just giving and not trying to do anything is the answer?
People would prefer not to have to pay their taxes or drive the speed limit either, but the government has ways of forcing people to do so. At the end of the day it doesn't require willing cooperation, just enforcement.
