Can a restaurant legally refuse to serve someone?
Q
We were at the counter of a coffee shop. This one guy nearby was loud and antagonistic. He seemed out of it. The manager finally told him they were refusing to serve him and asked that he leave. I just wonder, when can a restaurant refuse to serve someone?
A
You have probably read a sign posted at a restaurant that reads: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
As simple and straightforward as that seems, there are factors to be addressed: Under federal and state law, for example, it is not legal to discriminate against someone based on race, color, religion, citizenship, disability, sex or gender identification, sexual orientation, marital status, or medical or genetic information. Hence, the key in addressing your question is on what basis did the establishment refuse to serve the person? If he or she is indeed breaking some rule(s), or acting irrationally, or being truly disruptive, the business may exercise the right to refuse service. The business, however, should make sure its conduct is uniform.
As an example, let’s say the business has a dress code. If White kids in tank tops are not asked to leave (even though that violates the dress code), but Black kids in tank tops are told to leave, that obviously is illegal. But if a person with a disability who would have protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act drinks too much and becomes loud and unruly? As stated, the key is the actual, demonstrable reason why that person is told to leave, and thus why the business will not serve him or her. Research (and common sense) emphasize that informing a person he or she is going to be refused service, and to leave the premises, should be done, if possible, in a professional and calm manner. It also is advisable to have one or more witnesses, and to document the incident. If the situation is particularly volatile, calling the police for help is prudent as well.
Q
To what extent can a restaurant be liable if a fight breaks out and an innocent party gets hurt?
A
When you are a customer at a restaurant open to the public, you have a reasonable expectation of safety. The owner has a basic duty to provide a safe environment. This can mean something as routine as making sure the floor is not slippery or cracked.
There are circumstances where the owners of a restaurant that is open to the public can potentially be held liable for the criminal conduct of a third person. This is referred to as “negligent security.” The California jury instruction sets forth that the business/property owner may be held accountable for another’s criminal behavior if: 1. he or she failed to use reasonable care to protect customers, patrons, tenants or other guests from criminal conduct, and 2. he or she should have anticipated that such a criminal act was a risk.
Claims of this nature often turn on the facts. Issues that arise include: Was there a lack of working locks on doors or windows? Were there insufficient security cameras? Can you show a failure to screen entrances? Did you find broken or poor lighting? Was there any security personnel on hand and if not, should there have been? If security was present, was the guard untrained or undertrained?
Each of the questions addressed in today’s column ultimately involve a careful assessment of what happened, what are the facts, and in each instance the property owner should take prudent, reasoned actions that comply with the law.