Interesting hypothetical: Is it legal to deny service to a customer in a children&#39;s dentistry if he is scaring other kids based on his appearance? A child has gone to a children's dentistry since he was 5. He is now 18, 6'9", 300 pounds, and bearded, resembling Andre the Giant. During each weekly orthodontics visit, the other children in the waiting room are clearly shaken and parents report that their 5 year olds are becoming scared to go to their dentist. They ask if the owner of the practice could kindly talk to the parents of the 18 year old and ask if he could attend an adult dentistry. The owner obliges, not wanting to upset and possibly lose customers. The owner explains the situation to the "giant's" parents and offers an alternative practice, one run by the owner's friend from dentistry school who happens to have worked with children for 20 years before opening a general practice, i.e. whose service is equal with that of the current dentists. The parents refuse. Would the owner of the practice be able to deny service to this individual without losing a discrimination lawsuit? I think this is a pretty interesting question. One, we are dealing with children, who can't expected to be rational actors (e.g. observe that the giant is peacefully going about his business and is perfectly innocuous by the determination of any sane adult), but are also in a sense "customers". In addition, there are perfectly viable alternatives available that would only enhance the experiences all involved parties if exercised. This feels like discrimination; if we replaced the giant with a black child, or anyone else with "abnormal" but immutable features, it seems the answer would be clear. We would say that the children need to learn how to live with others in their society that don't look like themselves. But this is maybe a bit more acute, considering it would seem much easier to convince a 4 year old who hasn't been exposed to Nazi propaganda or "Birth of a Nation" that a random African American is harmless than it would given the real-world manifestation of the cartoon antagonist of the latest Disney flick. After all, on top of the desired for specialized care, part of the ethos of the children's dentistry is the desire to create a sort of dental "safe space", a friendly environment that assuages the anxiety of this otherwise possibly frightening experience. Should we really expect children to learn life lessons while dealing with the immediate fear of the dentist? TL;DR: Kids at a children's dentist are scared because an 18yo who has been going there since he was 5 looks like Andre the Giant. The dentist denies service to the 18 year old and his family, saying that of course it would be discriminatory if everyone involved were rational, but that little children can't be expected to be rational actors, and that if the 18yo keeps coming, it will hurt the business of the dentist. Is there any sort of precedent that firmly classifies discrimination against an individual based on immutable characteristics as illegal, or can this take place under certain circumstances?
Discrimination is not illegal per se Some discrimination is illegal, details vary by jurisdiction, for example discrimination on the following bases is illegal in Australia: race colour sex sexual preference age physical or mental disability marital status family or carer’s responsibilities pregnancy religion political opinion national extraction social origin Some of these apply only in particular circumstances (e.g. employment) and not in others (e.g. consumer rights). Physical appearance is not one of the illegal ones, unless it is as a result of a physical disability. Age discrimination is illegal but not universally. For example, you are allowed to treat children different to adults. If the practice was a genuine paediatric one then moving adults onto an adult practice would be fine.
The liability shield is the big one, and it can't be achieved with a contract. Just because the contract says you're not liable, that doesn't make it true. If I sign a contract with my friend that says "Nate Eldredge is hereby the King of France", that won't make me the king, nor will it force anyone except maybe my friend to acknowledge me as the king. By its nature, a contract can only bind the parties to the contract, and has no effect on the rights of anyone else. Suppose, then, that Alice and Bob agree to start a pizza delivery business, using a contract like you suggest. Their delivery car crashes, injuring Carol, a bystander, who incurs medical bills that exceed the assets of the business. Carol decides to sue Alice and Bob personally. Sure, Alice and Bob have a contract, and maybe it prevents them from suing each other, but it certainly doesn't prevent Carol from suing them; Carol never signed it. So Carol can still go after Alice and Bob's personal assets. Thus contract law cannot give them a liability shield. However, the government can, since it makes the laws about who can sue whom under what circumstances. And it has made laws saying that Alice and Bob can be protected from such suits, but only if they form a company according to the process that the law sets forth. So that's what they have to do.
Breathalyzer tests are distinct from blood tests because the former does not "implicat[e] significant privacy concerns" (see Birchfeld v. ND). A cell phone is like a blood test, because it implicates significant privacy concerns, especially the level of electro-snooping that would be required to determine if someone had recently committed a phone-use offense. As the court held, Because the impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for BAC testing is great, the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. A breath test might (but also might not) also satisfy the exigent-circumstances exception (waiting some number of hours for a warrant can easily result in the destruction of evidence), but a cell phone case could not give rise to such an exception. It should perhaps be noted that the "implied consent" laws are misnamed, because consent is not the issue. The 4th Amendment ban is on unreasonable searches, not unconsented searches. If you actually consent, it is reasonable for the police to search. I am not aware of any ruling to the effect that "because the defendant consented, the search is valid". In the context of breathalyzer law and case-law, an essential component of what makes the search reasonable is that it is incident to an arrest. With or without consent, or an implied consent law, Having assessed the effect of BAC tests on privacy interests and the need for such tests, we conclude that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. Extending "implied consent" to cause-unrelated searches of cars, homes, or body cavities might not pass strict scrutiny. The state has a legitimate interest in public safety which justifies some minimal intrusion, but adding a provision that "when you drive, you give implied consent to searches of everything" is not narrowly tailored. But since driving is a privilege and not a right, the state has much more leeway to give you an ultimatum: if you don't cooperate with the search, you can lose your license. On the other hand, SCOTUS has not actually approved of this slogan about driving being a privilege. Something noteworthy from Birchfield is that the court also disapproves of blood tests because a less invasive method of achieving the result is available, and they grant that "Imposition of a warrant requirement for every BAC test would likely swamp courts, given the enormous number of drunk-driving arrests, with little corresponding benefit". There being no less-invasive alternative means of realizing the legitimate state interest in stopping distracted driving, I actually expect that when this comes to pass and the matter ends up at SCOTUS, there will be another important change in search law (but "implied consent" will still be irrelevant).
You sat in the chair, you agreed to the treatment. By doing so you implicitly agreed to pay the dentist his fee. Now, the price was not agreed beforehand so the exact amount is subject to negotiation. This negotiation is usually best pursued when you have the fillings in your teeth and the money still in your wallet - this is called "leverage". The amount that your insurer reimburses you is a matter entirely independent of how much you pay your dentist. However, the difference in your ability to recover the costs are a valid point to raise in your negotiation.
Certainly, "Tortious interference" comes to mind. While it's a difficult one to prove, there are typically 6 elements: The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties (possible problem here). Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. (or refuse to enter one). Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. (no right to do so via some other aspect of law). The contractual relationship is breached. (the normally-accessible-to-anyone transaction is prevented). Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs The only real "stretch" here is that Tortious Interference is written for cases where you already have an existing business relationship or contract in place. You're talking about a situation where a vendor normally proffers its service to any member of the public, and you'd argue there's an implied contract that they do business with any comer. In real estate particularly, it gets a lot more complicated because of Fair Housing laws. The apartment could get in big trouble being caught refusing to do business with someone, if the reason for the refusal was sourced in something related to race, creed, religion, sexual orientation and a bunch of other no-no's. Even if that's not your motive, if they (plural: victim and attorney) can convince a judge or jury that it is your motive, you and the apartment could owe them a lot of money. Fun fact: conspiracy to commit a Federal crime is a felony, even if the crime isn't. Regardless... I think if you are paying the vendor to snub the customer, courts would find that to be a perverse and unjustifiable behavior, and would see harm in that, especially if it was part of a pattern of behavior that constituted harassment. They would tend to assume the worst motives unless you could show other motives. I suspect they could even get a restraining order blocking you from interfering in their business relationships anywhere. You would also be subject to discovery, and would be compelled to disclose anywhere else you interfered, and pretty much anything they want to ask you. You can't refuse to answer ... unless ... your answer would incriminate you of a crime. But that's the kiss of death in a civil trial, because the jury hears that, and infers you are a crook. Game over lol.
In the US the first amendment protections given to free expression make defamation claims significantly harder to pursue than in some other countries. o-called 'product defamation&quot; claims are generally harder yet. In the case of Dominion Voting Systems some of those sued seem to have made fairly specific allegations, which, if true, would involve probably criminal wrong doing. And please note that none of those suits have yet had a trial on the merits, to the best of my knowledge. We don't know if the statements complained of will be held to be defamatory or protected. Claims that a vaccine is not as safe as it should be, or the regulators were too quick to approve it, are harder to frame as defamatory of the drug companies. Since the government contracted in advance for enough vaccine to give a dose to everyone in the US (as I understand it) damages would be hard to prove. And there would be a risk of a PR backlash. It is not as if any of these companies has tried to file a suit and had it dismissed. They have not chosen to file, for which there could be many reasons.
It is legal for a doctor to charge for each procedure that they perform, so if it is necessary to remove more teeth, the doctor can charge for that additional removal. A patient may not fully understand what the scope of their contract with the dentist is, thus one might think that they have paid $18K for a &quot;complete solution&quot;, irrespective of what has to be done. More likely, the contract is for specific work, and if more work needs to be done, more money has to be paid. When a doctor (mechanic, contractor, lawyer...) gives you a ballpark figure for likely costs given their understanding of the work probably required – based on current knowledge – you should understand that as an estimate, which may be inaccurate given new discoveries. Of course, if a person knowingly and deliberately misrepresents the scope of work required, in order to persuade the customer to sign on with their service, that is probably legally actionable. If you can prove that the doctor actually knew that the scope of work was greater than what he claimed, you could have a legal case. Otherwise, you have the option of taking your business elsewhere, or paying the additional charges.
At a minimum, what the theater did was not a crime. When you are in a movie theater you have what is called a "license" from the theater to be present, which is revocable at will without due process (possibly subject to breach of contract damages) and not a property right to be in the theater the way that a tenant who must be evicted does. As a practical matter, given that the amount in controversy is, at most, $25 or so, and this is not a situation where the prevailing party would get their attorneys' fees, this is not cost effective to litigate, regardless of who is correct, even in small claims court without an attorney. Whether or not the theater breached its contract isn't perfectly clear, because usually, the contract between a movie goer and a movie theater is not spelled out in any writing provided to the movie goer, incorporated by reference in something disclosed to the movie goer, or signed by either of the parties, or even with an oral offer and acceptance setting forth all of the terms of the agreement. (Of course, if a written terms of service is actually provided to the movie goer, or a reference to where it can be found is provided to the movie goer, those terms will control and the contract will almost certainly be written to allow the movie theater to do what it did in this case.) In the frequent case where this is not done, the contract between a movie goer an a movie theater is usually a contract implied in fact whose terms at the edges aren't terribly well defined and there is little case law to tell us what the terms of the contract is, because the cases aren't worth litigating up to an appellate court where binding precedents are made. Indeed, one reason that movie theaters may have declined to put their implied in fact contracts with movie goers in writing is to leave the situation ambiguous so as to discourage someone whose case would be clear even if for a small dollar amount, if the terms of the contact were clear, from suing them over issues like this one. When the stakes are small and the outcome is always uncertain, it almost never makes sense to sue. There is certainly a colorable argument that you breached the contract by being present without an adult at an R-rating movie when the public statements about an R rating made available to the movie goers says that rated R means only admitted with a person over the age of 17, contrary to the theater's policies on that issue, although it isn't perfectly clear if this is a suggestion or a binding term of the agreement. Another fair interpretation of the contract between a movie goer and the movie theater is that a movie goer can be removed from any movie whenever, if in the reasonable opinion of the movie theater management, good cause exists to do so, and that its discretion should be upheld so long as it acts in good faith and in a non-discriminatory manner. I don't agree, however, that the question of whether or not you breached a contract was unambiguously clear, because the terms of the agreement are not well defined. I would give you at least a 20% chance of prevailing if you took the issue to court although I would agree that it is more likely than not that you would not prevail if you took the issue to court.