Johnson v. Gambrinus Company/Spoetzl Brewery (1997)
- reannonrieder
- 6 minutes ago
- 3 min read
By Marcus Rosenberg
Overview:
In this Fifth Circuit case, Franklin Johnson sued Gambrinus Company after it refused to let him take his guide dog on a public tour of Spoetzl Brewery. Gambrinus cited a “no animals” policy supposedly required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the reason it acted in this way. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that this refusal violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Texas law because it is generally considered a reasonable modification to the rules to let a service animal accompany its handler. This, combined with the fact that the brewery failed to prove a valid defense that would justify excluding the dog from the tour, one can see how the court came to its decision.
Summary:
Spoetzl Brewery is a Gambrinus Company-owned entity which offers free daily tours through multiple active production areas, including brewing equipment, bottling/canning lines, and various keg operations. At the end of one’s tour, one will also visit a hospitality room where they can sample some of Spoetzl’s products. When Johnson, along with his guide dog, arrived on July 8, 1993, the brewmaster enforced the brewery’s blanket no animals policy, which was based on their interpretation of FDA regulations. As an alternative, the brewery offered Johnson a human guide, but he refused to separate from his dog, which led to his waiting outside while his companions toured the production areas and sampled in the hospitality room. As a result of these events, Johnson later sued under Title III and Texas law. After a bench trial, the district court held that the ban was not compelled by law and ordered the brewery to change its policies to give service animals the “broadest feasible access” that also remained consistent with a safe operation. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed the key ADA question: in a Title III reasonable modification case, the plaintiff must show a requested modification that is reasonable. Does the plaintiff do that here? And if he does, the public accommodation must allow it unless an affirmative defense is at play, which here would be the risk of jeopardizing the safety of the operation. In order to conclude on the plaintiff’s burden, the court relied on its Title I accommodation framework, as well as the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) service animal regulation, to conclude that it is reasonable in this instance to modify a no animals policy to allow a service animal alongside its handler on a tour. This then shifted the burden to the brewery, forcing them to prove why it could not do so here. The brewery attempted to justify its ban by arguing that allowing a guide dog through the production areas would violate food-safety rules due to the risk of contamination, specifically from dog hair, but the court found that the evidence supported the opposite of its intended argument. The court believed that contamination was unlikely and that inspectors would consider all factors. Since the brewery was unable to meet its burden on the ADA defenses, the injunction remained intact. Further, because Texas law specifically bars blind people from being excluded from a public facility due to the presence of a service dog, except in special circumstances, the statutory damages award was also affirmed.
Impact:
This case became the playbook for how Title III service animal disputes should be handled. If a person with a disability asks for the simple accommodation of keeping their service animal by their side, courts are likely to treat that as a reasonable request. From there, the burden is shifted to the business, which must show a specific reason, based on evidence, as to why they cannot allow the animal to continue with their caretaker. The argument that this is something that the business has always done or generic safety worries are not enough to satisfy their burden anymore. In particular, this case is extremely important for places that have sensitive settings such as manufacturing or food facilities. It draws a clear line in the sand between blanket bans that are in place just to look like there is compliance and real safety and contamination concerns which are backed by facts relating to the particular situation at hand. This case also forces these businesses to look for other options regarding safety measures rather than them just being able to say “we would have to shut everything down” as that argument will not succeed now. Whether that middle ground is partial access, protective measures, or service-animal-specific routes, businesses must now get creative with their touring operations. Finally, this decision reinforced the heart of an important ADA idea: service animals are not a luxury that businesses can deny or grant, unless there is a specific, fact-based reason that accommodation is not possible. These animals are protected by the ADA.
Court Documents:
Johnson v. Gambrinus Company/Spoetzl Brewery (1997)
