## Facts

- Franklin Johnson, who is blind, sought to participate in a free public tour offered at the Spoetzl Brewery in Shiner, Texas, accompanied by his guide dog.
- The brewery’s tour route included a gift shop/video area and multiple production-adjacent areas involving active machinery and beer-processing operations.
- Gambrinus Company/Spoetzl Brewery enforced a blanket “no animals” policy and refused to admit Johnson’s guide dog, asserting that federal food-safety rules required exclusion of animals from the premises.
- The brewery offered to provide Johnson a human guide as an alternative; Johnson declined and requested access with his guide dog.
- Johnson sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Texas law, alleging denial of full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodation.
- The district court found that applicable federal regulations did not require total exclusion of guide dogs, that substantial parts of the tour could accommodate a guide dog without contamination risk, and that the blanket ban violated the ADA.
- The district court entered judgment for Johnson and issued injunctive relief requiring modification of the policy to permit guide dogs on tour segments where they would not create a legitimate health or safety risk.

## Issues

1. Whether a brewery that offers public tours is a “place of public accommodation” covered by Title III of the ADA.
2. Whether a blanket “no animals” policy violates Title III when applied to a blind patron’s guide dog, absent a reasonable-modification analysis.
3. Whether asserted sanitation concerns and federal food-safety regulations establish a “direct threat” or “fundamental alteration” that justifies excluding a guide dog from the tour.
4. Whether injunctive relief requiring a tailored service-animal policy was permissible and appropriately scoped.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and injunction.
- The court held that offering public tours brought the brewery within Title III as a public accommodation.
- The court held that admitting a guide dog was a reasonable modification of the brewery’s no-animals policy, necessary for a blind visitor’s access, and that offering a human guide was not an adequate substitute on this record.
- The court held that generalized contamination concerns and overstated regulatory interpretations did not establish a significant, unmitigable risk; the brewery failed to prove a direct threat or fundamental alteration.
- The court approved injunctive relief requiring a modified policy allowing guide dogs in tour areas where their presence would not compromise legitimate health or safety interests.

## Legal Principles

- Title III applies to private entities that invite the public onto their premises for covered goods or services, even if the premises also function as an industrial or manufacturing facility.
- A public accommodation must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to afford individuals with disabilities full and equal enjoyment, unless the entity proves the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the service.
- Excluding a service animal based on health or safety requires evidence of a significant risk that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable policy modifications; speculation or generalized fears are insufficient.
- A public accommodation may adopt tailored restrictions for genuinely sensitive areas, but a categorical ban on service animals is unlawful when partial access can be provided consistent with safety and sanitation.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a brewery operating public tours must reasonably modify a blanket no-animals policy to admit a blind patron’s guide dog where feasible, because unsupported contamination concerns and misread safety regulations do not establish a direct threat or fundamental alteration under Title III.


Johnson v. Gambrinus Co./Spoetzl Brewery, 116 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir. 1997)