In the case of Reinoehl v. Whitmer, No. 22-1343 (April 17, 2023), a federal appellate found that the trial court properly dismissed all an individual’s claims against government officials and a local YMCA stemming from an incident where the individual was denied entry for failure to comply with the YMCA’s mask requirement.
In this case, the individual argued that (1) the individual was discriminated against under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA’); (2) the individual’s First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion were violated because masks made the individual’s words difficult to understand and forced the individual to participate in a “pagan cult”; (3) the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures were violated, and; (4) the individual’s due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. In response, the government officials and YMCA argued that the dismissals were proper because the individual failed to allege any plausible causes of action. The federal appellate court agreed with the government officials and the YMCA.
In support of its decision in favor of the government officials relating to the ADA claim, the federal appellate court explained that Title II claims cannot be brought against public officials acting in their individual capacities.
In support of its decision in favor of the YMCA and government officials relating to the First Amendment claims, the appellate court explained that the individual’s arguments that her right to free speech was violated because the mask muffled her words and that wearing a mask is somehow akin to participating in a pagan cult a stretch plausibility beyond the point of breaking.
In support of its decision in favor of the YMCA and government officials relating to the Fourth Amendment claims, the appellate court explained that the individual did not allege any facts suggesting she was searched or forcibly restrained or that a reasonable person would have believed the individual was not free to leave after being denied entry to the YMCA.
In support of its decision in favor of the YMCA and government officials relating to the due process and equal protection claims, the appellate court explained that the individual’s due process rights were not violated because the individual failed to produce any case law establishing a constitutional right to enter a privately owned and ran recreational facility. The appellate court further explained that the individual’s equal protection rights were not violated because the individual did not allege that she was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.