Search the Community

Celiac.com 03/29/2023 - We get a lot of questions from people about celiac disease, and celiac-related issues. One question we've seen a lot lately is: Is celiac disease is a disability? The short answer is yes. Celiac disease is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but the longer answer is more complex. Here's the rundown. ADA Became Law in 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act is a law that aims to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities. The act was passed in 1990 and has since been expanded to cover a variety of disabilities, including those that are not immediately apparent to others. The ADA contains four main provisions that make it easier for people with disabilities to participate fully in society: The ADA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities at the local or state government level. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability from businesses that offer goods, services, facilities, or accommodations to the public. The ADA requires telecommunications companies to take steps to make sure they can offer "functionally equivalent services" to individuals with disabilities. ADA Expanded in 2008 In 2008, the ADA was expanded to include "major life activities" such as eating, which means that individuals with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity are covered under the ADA. However, it is not always clear what accommodations are required under the law. The law requires public places and companies to provide access to people with disabilities, and prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. The ADA covers people with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity, and in theory, guarantees access to safe food. For example, in situations where safe food is not readily available, such as in jail or on a cruise, the ADA should require that accommodations be made for individuals with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity. Additionally, if an employer requires employees to attend a lunch meeting where the only food available is provided by the employer, the employer may be required to provide a gluten-free meal. In theory, public schools should also have to offer gluten-free lunches to students with celiac disease, although this is clearly not yet happening in most public schools. Many colleges now offer gluten-free menu options, and hopefully this will also spread to public elementary and high schools as well. Celiacs Often Have to Fight for Protection However, the reality is that people with celiac disease may still have to fight for accommodations, like gluten-free food, even if they are covered by the ADA. People with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity may need to advocate for themselves to receive accommodations under the ADA. They may need to provide extensive guidance to those preparing their food and potentially fight to force the institution in question to meet their needs. The ADA can help people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity in certain situations, like requiring safe food in an emergency shelter or in prison, and allowing people to bring their own gluten-free food to places where safe food won't be available. However, it cannot force a private restaurant to provide gluten-free food. While it may not always be clear what accommodations are required under the law, it is important for individuals with disabilities to do their best to understand their rights, and to advocate for themselves as necessary. Read more at verywellhealth.com

Celiac.com 09/02/2020 - In a recent blog post, the Toronto law firm, Himelfarb Proszanski LLP, noted that people with any of a number of long-term disabilities are routinely denied coverage for their conditions by medical insurance. Chronic mental and psychological disorders, which lack clear visible evidence, are the most commonly denied conditions. These include mental and psychological conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, chronic anxiety and sleep disorders. Generally speaking, the post notes, physical disabilities, like serious back and spinal problems, paralysis, or blindness, are easier to spot and see fewer denials. However, the list of physical conditions that see frequent insurance denials of coverage includes celiac disease, fibromyalgia and chronic arthritis, among others. The post notes that such conditions are often hard to diagnose, and sometimes difficult to prove in court. To qualify for long-term disability insurance benefits, the post says, people with serious depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia often need diagnoses from more than two physicians. People denied coverage for these hard-to-diagnose long-term disability conditions face can face an uphill legal battle. “Many insurance and legal experts say the situation is equivalent to discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness or ‘invisible’ disease or ailment,” the firm noted. Even people who have qualified, and are currently receiving benefits are subject to review and sudden denial, said the firm's post. Have you or a loved one faced an uphill insurance battle because of celiac disease or any of the conditions listed above? Be sure to share your story in the comments section below. Read more at the LATimes.com

Celiac.com 01/11/2016 - Is celiac disease a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act? The Department of Justice says not necessarily. On the heels of a federal lawsuit that claiming that restaurants are violating federal disability laws by charging more for gluten-free food than for non-gluten-free counter parts, a Department of Justice spokesperson has stated that a 2012 civil rights settlement on behalf of Lesley University students with celiac disease does not make the condition a disability in all cases. DOJ public affairs specialist, Patrick Rodenbush, said settlement at Leslie University did not set a legal precedent, because the "…settlement enforces the rights of students whose food allergies were disabilities, [but] it doesn't necessarily make celiac disease a disability in all cases." This is relevant to a case in California, where federal judge recently denied a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging P.F. Chang's violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because it charges more for gluten-free items. In the P.F. Chang's case, Judge Ronald Whyte denied P.F. Chang's motion to dismiss because, he wrote, that, although the court had not found specific information proving that celiac disease constituted a disability under the ADA, the "plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support her claim that she has a disability that impacts a major life activity." Whyte noted "on a more complete factual record, the court might reach a different conclusion." He also stated that it may be difficult, or impossible for Phillips to prove her claims. "The ultimate question is whether P.F. Chang's, in providing gluten-free meals, is providing different products or whether the price differential with regular meals is a pretext for discrimination against those with celiac disease," Whyte wrote. At stake is whether or not food vendors, such as P.F. Chang's can charge higher prices for gluten-free foods than they do for non-gluten-free items. The results of this case are being watched closely by celiacs and by restaurant companies, because a ruling that establishes that people with celiac disease are covered under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act could conceivably have a serious impact on how the restaurant industry approaches gluten-free food. Stay tuned for new developments. Source: legalnewsline.com

08/01/2018 - A federal appeals court has ordered a new trial for a terminated worker who sued a staffing company for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by not accommodating her celiac disease. Laurie Peterson suffers from celiac disease, and worked as a staffing supervisor for Troy, Michigan-based Kelly Services Inc. until her termination in January 2014 according to court papers filed in Laurie Peterson v. Kelly Services Inc. Peterson had originally sued Kelly in U.S. District Court in Spokane, Washington, alleging failure to accommodate, discrimination and retaliation under the ADA. The original court issued a partial summary judgment granting Kelly’s motion on Ms. Peterson’s claims that the company had failed to accommodate her celiac disease and had fired her in retaliation for protected activity, but allowed related charges in the case to proceed. A jury later found that Kelly had not retaliated against Ms. Peterson. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a unanimous reversal of the district court’s original ruling. The panel wrote that the district court had “failed to construe the facts in the light most favorable to Peterson as the non-moving party as required on summary judgment.” The case originally arose out of Peterson’s work as interim district manager in fall 2013 while Kelly Services was looking for a new district manager. According to the complaint in the case, when the new district manager learned Ms. Peterson had celiac disease, he began treating her differently than other employees, including changing her work schedule. The change in work schedule allegedly caused Ms. Peterson stress and anxiety, which aggravated her celiac-related condition. Ms. Peterson sought to return to her previous 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. shift. According to the complaint, the district manager told Ms. Peterson to take unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act instead of seeking an accommodation from the company. Peterson and the supervisor were later fired. In reversing the lower court and remanding for trial the claims decided on summary judgment, the court found that the district supervisor’s statement “is direct evidence of retaliatory intent.” The ruling added that the supervisor’s declaration “also raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kelly Services engaged in the interactive process in good faith.” Ms. Peterson’s battle against Kelly Services, Inc., has important implications for how companies treat people with celiac disease under the ADA. To find out how the retrial turns out, keep an eye on Celiac.com Source: businessinsurance.com

Celiac.com 11/19/2013 - There's an interesting take on the precedent-setting ruling issued early in 2013 by the U.S. Justice Department, which found that celiac disease and other serious food allergies and sensitivities can be considered disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ruling arises from a settlement between the Justice Department and Lesley University in Cambridge, Massachusetts that came after Justice investigated the university in response to a student complaint that the school’s mandatory meal plan did not provide sufficient gluten-free food alternatives, and that the school did not accommodate the needs of those on gluten-free diets by excusing their participation in the meal plan or providing a reasonable alternative. The ruling has led a number of colleges and universities with student meal programs to make efforts to offer suitable options for students with celiac disease and other serious food allergies. However, Janet Raasch, points out in a blog entry on lawyers.com that the ruling applies more broadly to schools and restaurants at large. Raasch says that "…schools, restaurants and other places that serve food can be exposed to legal challenges if they fail to honor requests for accommodations by people with celiac disease." It's important to remember that Ms. Raasch is not a lawyer. So, while she has an interesting take, and it remains to be seen if gluten-free options become more numerous partly out of a push for restaurants and other food service establishments to follow in the footsteps of colleges and universities with student meal programs. What do you think will be the impact if schools, restaurants and food purveyors treat celiac and other food allergies as an ADA disability? Will it mean more gluten-free options? Better standards? Share your comments below. Source: blogs.lawyers.com Post by Janet Raasch

Celiac.com 01/04/2016 - Does P.F. Chang's Asian Bistro discriminate against people with celiac disease by charging more for gluten-free dishes than for their non-gluten-free counterparts? A complaint filed in federal court says it does, and a ruling by a federal judge means that the lawsuit against P.F. Chang's over its gluten-free menu won't be dismissed just yet. That means a class action lawsuit against P.F. Chang's for allegedly charging more for gluten-free menu items can continue. Judge Ronald Whyte's Nov. 23 order denied the company's motion to dismiss plaintiff Anna Marie Phillips' first amended complaint. "Neither party has cited, and the court has not found, any case specifically discussing whether celiac disease constitutes a disability under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or Unruh Act," Whyte wrote in his 13-page ruling. "However, accepting the additional detail in the FAC (first amended complaint) about the consequences of ingesting or being exposed to gluten, which plaintiff must guard against, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support her claim that she has a disability that impacts a major life activity. "The court notes that on a more complete factual record, the court might reach a different conclusion." Phillips sued P.F. Chang's in a California state court last December. Chang's then successfully moved the case to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Basically, the outcome of the move to dismiss hinges on whether or not celiac disease constitutes a disability under the state's Unruh Act. In his order last month, Whyte concluded that Phillips, in her new complaint, pled sufficient facts to claim that the immune reaction to eating gluten meets the definition of a "medical condition" under the state's Unruh Act for people with celiac disease. The law specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation. In her amended complaint, Phillips also claims that celiac disease is an "inheritable and hence genetic characteristic." P.F. Chang's argues that the plaintiff must allege that she actually inherited characteristics known to cause disease under the second prong of the "medical condition" definition. At stake in the lawsuit is whether or not P.F. Chang's, and, by extension, other restaurants can charge more money for gluten-free food than they do for similar, non-gluten-free menu items. The restaurant chain first moved to dismiss Phillips' class action in February, claiming her celiac disease does not make her a disabled person under the ADA. It urged Whyte to dismiss the lawsuit before the entire restaurant industry was impacted. Whyte heard oral arguments in May. According to the case's docket, the motion to dismiss was "tentatively granted" at the hearing, with a final ruling to be issued by the court later. In August, the judge granted P.F. Chang's motion to dismiss Phillips' original complaint. Whyte ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the restaurant chain discriminated against her and other guests with celiac disease or a gluten allergy/intolerance, by charging $1 more for some gluten-free menu items compared to non-gluten-free versions of menu items with a similar name but prepared and handled much differently. However, Whyte granted Phillips a leave to amend. In doing so, the judge expressed his "reservations" about whether the plaintiff could ever state a viable claim under her discrimination theory. Phillips filed her first amended complaint soon after. In September, P.F. Chang's filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint, arguing that it asserts the same disability-discrimination claims and offers "few additional facts" and "none that warrant a different result." But a detailed list of Phillips' symptoms and reactions when ingesting gluten forced the judge to change his mind. As to whether or not the lawsuit will gain traction, stay tuned.