J.D. by Doherty v. Colonial Williamsburg Found.
925 F.3d 663
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- J.D., an 11-year-old with severe gluten sensitivity (possible celiac or non-celiac gluten sensitivity), requires a strict gluten-free diet; ingestion of trace gluten causes significant medical symptoms.
- On a school trip to Colonial Williamsburg, J.D. and his father brought a homemade gluten-free meal to Shields Tavern, which has a general policy prohibiting outside food but allows limited exceptions.
- Tavern staff refused to permit the homemade meal inside and offered to prepare a gluten-free meal; J.D. declined due to past incidents of getting sick from commercially prepared "gluten-free" meals and ate outside.
- J.D. sued Colonial Williamsburg under Title III of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Virginians with Disabilities Act, alleging denial of reasonable modification (allowing outside food) and exclusion from the restaurant.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Colonial Williamsburg, finding J.D. did not show discrimination because the Tavern offered an in-house gluten-free meal; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether J.D. is "disabled" under the ADA | J.D.'s gluten sensitivity substantially limits eating and major life activities without a strict diet; ameliorative measures cannot be considered. | Colonial Williamsburg argued avoidance (dietary modification) means no substantial limitation. | Genuinely disputed; viewing unmitigated impairment (per ADAAA) a jury could find J.D. disabled. |
| Whether allowing J.D. to eat his homemade meal inside was a "necessary" modification | J.D. needed to bring his own food because he repeatedly became ill from commercial gluten-free meals; Tavern's offer might not provide a "like experience." | Tavern argued its offered gluten-free meal provided full and equal enjoyment, so J.D.'s specific request was not necessary. | Error to decide as matter of law for defendant; factual dispute exists whether offered accommodation was sufficient—remand. |
| Whether the requested modification was "reasonable" | Request imposed no cost or work on Tavern; prior examples (infant food, another accommodated child) show reasonableness; lack of advance notice not dispositive. | Tavern argued lack of advance notice, operational disruption, safety/liability, and state health code concerns make request unreasonable. | Genuine factual dispute; reasonableness is fact-specific and for a jury. |
| Whether allowing outside food would be a "fundamental alteration" | Plaintiff: occasional individualized accommodations would not change essential character or business model; other patrons could still purchase food. | Defendant: permitting outside food undermines food service, atmosphere, safety, and revenue—could fundamentally alter operation. | Genuine factual dispute remains; defendant bears burden but issue is for jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (framework: whether requested modification is necessary, reasonable, or a fundamental alteration)
- Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Lamone, 813 F.3d 494 (4th Cir. 2016) (burden allocation and reasonable modification analysis)
- Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2012) (reasonableness standard; individualized inquiry)
- Argenyi v. Creighton Univ., 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2013) (necessity shown where disability makes participation beyond capacity)
- A.L. ex rel. D.L. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc., 900 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2018) (existing accommodations may still be inadequate if they do not address specific impairments)
- Montalvo v. Radcliffe, 167 F.3d 873 (4th Cir. 1999) (defendant may show requested modification would fundamentally alter program)
- Summers v. Altarum Inst., Corp., 740 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2014) (ADAAA breadth; consider impairment without mitigating measures)