Sen. Mrvan has introduced SB 33 which would make it a Class C infraction for a retail business to decline to allow a customer with Crohn’s Disease or Irritable Bowel Syndrome to use a bathroom on the premises if such a bathroom was available to employees and it would be safe for the customer to use.
If this goes forward, one item I’d like to see is some mention of an affirmative duty for the Customer to advise the business of the eligible medical condition. Also, the terminology is a little misleading. It defines a “retail business” as “a place of business that is open to the general public for the sale of goods or services.” So far, so good. But, it defines “Customer” as “an individual who is lawfully on the premises of a retail establishment.”
Taking my law firm as an example, I think regardless of the law, I’d let someone who had a medical condition use the bathroom. But, as a general rule, we have debtors come into our office to pay bills we’re collecting on behalf of our clients. Sometimes, they’ll ask to use our bathroom, and if we have no other experience with or connection to the individual, we’ll usually decline and tell them we don’t have any public bathrooms in our office. We have an arm’s length, often adversarial relationship with some of these individuals. They are not our “customers.” But, under this law, they are “customers” in the sense that we’d have to open up our bathroom. Like I said, no big deal if they have a medical condition, but the terminology could be clearer, and I’d like them to have some obligation to put us on notice of the condition. As it’s currently written, they could say nothing, we could decline, and I think we’d be liable for the $100 penalty if they had an eligible medical condition.
Sounds like another law written with someone in mind that could use some legal scrutiny. I’ll bet the legislative legal guys use Xanax at record levels.
Since your firm did my will, does that give me free use of your bathroom in perpetuity? Just curious.
Crohn’s and IBS will be your entitlement qualifications, but after that, Indiana, or its water closets, are all yours.
Sadly, the law is probably too narrow. My wife has a rare illness that was mushing misdiagnosed as Irritable Bowel for 10 years. So now we know that isn’t what she has but it obviously presents some of the same concerns, yet she would not be covered by this bill (though I guess she could lie to gain access to a bathroom).
Oops. Never mind. Just read the actual text (yeah, I know; my bad). My wife would likely be covered by the cat hall provision.
Sometimes I get lazy and my summaries here are not necessarily complete!
When I was still slinging a cash register, I used to work at an older store of a national chain. Most of the newer stores had public restrooms that are easily accessible. In this store, the restroom is only accessible through the warehouse/storage where ladders and high shelves and products are kept. I’m not a lawyer but I can imagine how that could be a liability. Hopefully this legislation addresses that because not all non-public restrooms are non-public out of spite.