## Facts

- J.D., an 11-year-old student, experienced serious symptoms when ingesting gluten; his physician stated a strict gluten-free diet was medically required.
- Because J.D. had repeatedly become ill after eating meals represented as “gluten-free” from commercial kitchens, he ate only food prepared at home.
- During a school field trip, J.D.’s class was scheduled to eat at a Colonial Williamsburg tavern restaurant.
- J.D brought a homemade gluten-free meal to the restaurant, seeking an exception to the restaurant’s no-outside-food policy.
- The restaurant refused to allow outside food, citing health-code requirements, and offered to prepare a gluten-free meal.
- J.D. and his father declined the offer due to concern the restaurant could not safely prepare food meeting J.D.’s needs; J.D. ate outside, separated from classmates.
- J.D. alleged humiliation and social exclusion from being forced to eat apart from the group.

## Issues

1. Whether J.D. presented a genuine dispute of material fact that he was disabled under the ADA.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the ground that allowing J.D. to bring homemade food was not a “necessary” reasonable modification under Title III because the restaurant offered to prepare a gluten-free meal.
3. Whether factual disputes existed regarding the reasonableness of the requested modification and whether it would fundamentally alter the restaurant’s goods or services.

## Decision

- The court vacated the grant of summary judgment for the restaurant and remanded.
- The court agreed there was a triable issue on whether J.D. was disabled under the ADA.
- The court held the district court erred by treating the restaurant’s offer to prepare a gluten-free meal as adequate as a matter of law.
- The court held that disputes of fact existed as to whether the requested outside-food exception was necessary for J.D. to have an experience equal to classmates, whether it was reasonable, and whether granting it would fundamentally alter the restaurant.
- A dissent would have affirmed, viewing the restaurant’s offered gluten-free meal as a reasonable accommodation and warning against expanding obligations to accept outside food.

## Legal Principles

- Title III requires public accommodations to make reasonable policy modifications when necessary to provide individuals with disabilities equal access, unless the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods or services.
- Whether a proposed modification is “necessary” and “reasonable” is often fact-dependent and may be unsuitable for summary judgment when the record permits competing inferences.
- Equal access under Title III may include the ability to participate in a shared social experience, not only physical entry or availability of some alternative service.
- The fundamental-alteration defense is fact-intensive; evidence of prior exceptions and disputed health-code constraints can preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that a restaurant’s refusal to allow a child with a gluten-related medical condition to bring safe homemade food, coupled with an offer to prepare a gluten-free meal, presented fact questions on necessity, reasonableness, and fundamental alteration under Title III, requiring further proceedings rather than summary judgment.


J.D. ex rel. Doherty v. Colonial Williamsburg Found., 925 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2019)