## Facts

- Plaintiffs (three children with severe asthma and one woman with lupus) alleged disability-based exclusion from McDonald’s and Burger King restaurants in Connecticut due to heavy indoor tobacco smoke.
- Each plaintiff alleged they could not remain in the restaurants without breathing problems and had experienced similar smoking conditions at other locations.
- After complaints to the restaurants and a state human rights agency produced no satisfactory resolution, plaintiffs sued under Title III of the ADA.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring defendants and their franchisees to prohibit smoking in all facilities they own, lease, or operate.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs stated a Title III ADA claim by alleging that restaurant smoking policies denied them full and equal enjoyment of the restaurants’ goods and services due to their disabilities.
2. Whether a total indoor smoking ban can be ruled out, as a matter of law, as a “reasonable modification” under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and remanded.
- The court held the complaints plausibly alleged discrimination under Title III based on failure to make necessary reasonable modifications to smoking policies.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that a total smoking ban can never qualify as a reasonable modification.
- Whether a smoking ban (or a lesser restriction) is reasonable, necessary, or would fundamentally alter the restaurant service requires factual development and cannot be resolved on the pleadings.

## Legal Principles

- Title III prohibits disability-based denial of full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation’s goods and services.
- Discrimination includes failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to afford access to individuals with disabilities, unless the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods or services.
- Reasonableness and fundamental alteration are context-dependent determinations that generally cannot be decided categorically on a motion to dismiss when the complaint plausibly alleges exclusion and a potentially effective modification.
- Courts must accept well-pleaded allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6) and should not dismiss when plaintiffs could prove facts entitling them to relief.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit reinstated ADA Title III claims alleging that indoor smoking policies excluded patrons with asthma and lupus, holding that a complete smoking ban is not categorically foreclosed as a reasonable modification and that the reasonableness and feasibility of requested smoking-policy changes must be evaluated on an evidentiary record.


Staron v. McDonald's Corp., 51 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1995)