Did &quot;stay at home&quot; signs during COVID unlawfully discriminate against people with conditions like asthma? During the COVID era, it was very common to see signs posted outside of businesses and probably public buildings, saying things like: Please do not come in if you are coughing, have a fever, or are short of breath. The problem I see is that, whether it's the exact three symptoms above, or whether it's another, similar list, these are extremely generic symptoms that are quite frequent for people with asthma or with other common, but non-contagious diseases. For example, an adult asthmatic may be fine 95% of the time, but if they were just visiting a friend's house where several cats and dogs live, they may have a brief, minor issue with &quot;shortness of breath&quot; or &quot;wheezing&quot;. And it gets worse if they have OCD and are analytical. An individual like that might, for example, notice that their breathing is 99%, not 100%. (Of course, most people with OCD know and are perfectly able to just ignore the sign at that point, but it can make one flinch for half a second and be slightly unwelcoming.) So this not only affects people with common physical problems, but common psychological ones as well. The bad thing is that these signs were practically everywhere during the pandemic - grocery stores certainly included - and things like the two conditions mentioned above are only example of a much larger list which affects a large swathe of the general population. But these conditions are not contagious, and they are often genetic. On the other hand though, they are also chronic. Now, I want to highlight this: Common sense is common sense, and normally these signs would be ignored. However, if we use the example above about the cats and dogs, the asthmatic might cough a couple of times, which would be noticeable; but in this case, it does not suggest COVID, and the problem is something that is chronic. And while that's a temporary matter, they may be very slightly &quot;short of the breath&quot; all the time. Despite being practically everywhere, were/are these signs and rules illegally discriminating against a large swath of the population with common, chronic, and non-contagious conditions? To the extent a specific country is required, let's use the US and regulations like the ADA, though I'd be interested to hear about other countries as well. UPDATE: The currently accepted answer (as of 2021-7-23, at which point it was the only answer) was a little hard for me to follow at first, because I believe there was some context I didn't see initially. Without that context, the rationale and flow behind the answer didn't seem to follow logically. In particular, when it was mentioned that people are expected to know the law, usually I think of that as mainly applying to the offender, as opposed to the victim. An offender can always still say or do something illegally though, and a victim's knowledge or ignorance of the law doesn't grant the offender a free pass to impede their rights. However with the proper context, the answer does seem to follow. I could be misinterpreting something, but per a few comments back and forth, I think this is a rough paraphrase/summary, context included: Basically the dividing line is a matter of how clearly the alleged offender is addressing the alleged victim. In the case of a typical COVID sign, there's typically supposed to be context that the sign doesn't apply to people who just have things like asthma, unless, for example, a store employee actually addresses the individuals directly. Therefore it is not clearly and unambiguously barring them for symptoms clearly attributable to asthma (or whatever the condition is). In this way, it is similar to how a &quot;DO NOT ENTER&quot; sign at the gate of a private property does not apply to friends and family who have previously been welcomed by the owner. Also, the precise manner in which the sign is worded can weigh against this, but it doesn't single-handedly decide the case. However a &quot;Please do not enter if you are &lt;race/color/ethnicity X&gt;&quot; sign, for example, is illegal, because even in the proper context, it is still quite clear it applies to the people literally mentioned.
You have to start with the pertinent ADA regulations, 28 CFR Part 36, and esp. subpart B which gets to the prohibition. Under §36.201(a), No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any private entity who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. After that under activities, it is stated that A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation. and also A public accommodation shall not afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. moreover &quot;separate but equal&quot; is not allowed. The sign does not articulate any denial of opportunity, so that should be the end of the discussion. OTOH I suspect that a sign saying &quot;Please do not enter this store if you are white&quot; would be held to be discriminatory, as an indirect denial of permission to enter based on race. §36.208 introduces two important exceptions. First, This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. That means that (irrespective of the fact that covid is not a legal disability) it is legal to exclude direct threats to the health of others. And furthermore, In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: The nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk. Based on reasonable medical judgment and innumerable official government proclamations, it is reasonable to believe that a person with covid symptoms pose a threat to public health. The law doesn't require you to be omniscient and actually know that customer A has covid and customer B has asthma. §36.301 then says more about possible screening requirements. It is generally expected that everybody knows the law and will follow the law: ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor is it a cause for a discrimination claim. It would not be legal to exclude a person from a public accommodation when they pose no threat to public health. The customer with asthma is expected to know this law, and is expected to not infer incorrectly that the sign implies that he is being illegally excluded. The customer with covid is also expected to know this law, and is expected to know that it refers to him – as is allowed under the law. Potentially illegal discrimination enters the picture once actual exclusion happens, getting you back to &quot;individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment&quot;. A rule that &quot;anybody who coughs gets thrown out&quot; is most likely to not pass muster as a reasonable health-based criterion. Including a temperature scan is likely to put the practice within the realm of the reasonable.
Notwithstanding the current COVID-19 regulations, I cannot find any Scottish law, regulation or rule that prevents a lawful tenant from having long-term visitors. However, it may (or may not) be a breach of the tenancy agreement depending on its terms which is where one should look for a definitive answer.
Questions about whether a certain action is "just" tend to be maters of opinion, politics and philosophy, but it can be addressed from the perspective of legal theory (especially following the model of common law, where legal principles are based on concepts of just and proper action). Whether or not a certain action is actually legal in a certain jurisdiction depends on the laws of that country -- I suspect that the answer is different for the US versus China. The first question would be whether those government officials have the legal authority – I assume they do. Such authority is generally governed by some specific circumstances, for example, "poses an imminent and grave threat to public health". It is basically not a legal question whether quarantining in the face of this viral threat is necessary from a public health perspective, that is a medical question. What the law would say is that if this is a serious threat, then a person's liberty can be curtailed to a limited extent, because a person does not have the right to harm others because they don't want to do some thing that protects the rights of others (be vaccinated, stay in quarantine until it is safe). However, principles of legal justice also say that the government's response should be proportionate, e.g. shoot-on-sight in response to a sneeze is not proportionate. Quarantining has long been recognized as a valid, just and legal response to such extreme medical threats. Historically speaking, quarantining used to be the only effective action that a government can take against e.g. smallpox, plague, Spanish flu, Ebola.
The Equality Act (2010) lists the following protected classes (emphasis mine): age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. It is unlawful for businesses to discriminate against anyone, in the goods or services (or physical access) that they offer, based on any of those characteristics. Some disabilities may prevent people from wearing masks, and those people cannot be discriminated against. I couldn't find a source in the law that says this explicitly, but according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission there is no legal requirement for people who have disabilities to be able to prove that they are disabled in order to receive accommodations for their disabilities. While you could, theoretically, ask people to prove that they have a disability if you don't believe them, you'd basically just be setting yourself up to have to pay a bunch of money in compensation when you eventually run in to somebody who actually does have such a disability, and doesn't have proof with them, who then takes you to court for discrimination and wins.
First of all, even if it is not allowed to test them, you can also refuse to service someone untested - and that is not illegal discrimination, as &quot;untested for COVID 19&quot; is not a protected class. Public Schools however are not companies in the normal way, and the CDC can only advise in the rulemaking of local legislators and executives. And in the current health crisis, the school board and health authorities can order things for the protection of others and this can be enough justification to exclude individuals or several people from groups. After all, being teste or not is clearly not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, and neither is easily regarded as a form of first amendment speech - unlike a black armband (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community). Being untested is much more akin to being a person on a ship and then attempting to disembark in a quarantine zone - which was decided in Compagnie Francaise &amp; Lousiana Board of Health (there are two of those btw). The majority opinion in the SCOTUS case (1902) writes (emphasis mine): 24 True it is that, in some of the cases relied on in the argument, it was held that a state law absolutely prohibiting the introduction, under all circumstances, of objects actually affected with [a contagious] disease, was valid because such objects were not legitimate commerce. But this implies no limitation on the power to regulate by health laws the subjects of legitimate commerce. 34 [A]ssuming that all the treaties relied on are applicable, we think it clearly results from their context that they were not intended to, and did not, deprive the government of the United States of those powers necessarily inhering in it and essential to the health and safety of its people. Using a similar vein as in Compagnie Francaise, the public health interest might be enough for even a public school to only allow presence in the building with a test and otherwise demand online or remote learning (which isn't always an option) or even just suspend people that are not tested until such a time their presence is deemed safe. A private school is vastly more free in rulemaking, and as even a public school can muster strict scrutiny regarding presence teaching, a private school surely will get away with it. But nothing can force a private school to suspend teaching, switching to online classes or demand to test, unless they like to or their accreditation hinges on it - and here religious schools come in: There are religious groups that to an extent of not allowing medical procedures on their members, including COVID-testing. Those schools could ban people from attending that are tested. Endnote Public Health Interest is a hammer that can be rather heavy. It can't be used to discriminate against HIV, as that doesn't spread from touch and sneeze, but it can be used to ban people from buildings that have Communicable Diseases. While nobody classed COVID 19 as such yet, having such an illness [Plague, Cholera, Botulism, and others] allows the government to isolate you under strict scrutiny or even has been used to quarantine whole areas in the past (see the Compagnie Francaise case). And as you see in the current pandemic, legislative bodies globally do dish out rules for schools and public places in short order, some of which include testing strategies, and ways to overwrite consent via a state order. Some are struck down: some of them on procedural grounds (e.g. wrong body), others on grounds of equality (e.g. religious bias).
Yes and no In Germany, the first case where vaccination was mandatory was Smallpox. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht had adjudicated back in Juli 1959 – I C 170.56 - that mandatory Vaccination (Impfpflicht) against Smallpox follows the Impfgesetz of 1874 (RGBl. S. 31) which was declared a) still good law and b) in line with the Grundgesetz and so enforced vaccination of everybody who had no counterindication was inside the law. Currently, the measles are under mandatory vaccination with the MasernschutzgesetzInformation, german aka IFSG § 20law, german (Measles are listed in Abs 8). The same rationale and legal basis from those two can be applied to theoretically any other vaccination - if it is comparably terrible. The Masernschutzgesetz declares that without MMR vaccination you can't work in some jobs, like as a medical care worker, teacher or in a Kindergarten, and you can't be enrolled in a school or Kindergarten, unless you have a counterindication. Note that you do need to visit a public school, so the Masernschutzgesetz is total mandatory vaccination against measles for kids. The 2020 update on the law of infectious diseases (Gesetz zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Infektionskrankheiten beim Menschen. short: Infektionsschutzgesetz/IFSG, see above) still (and actually did since the measles change in 2019) open the door to make some vaccination mandatory exceeding the measles in IFSG §20 Abs 6 - for especially vulnerable parts of the population: Das Bundesministerium für Gesundheit wird ermächtigt, durch Rechtsverordnung mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates anzuordnen, dass bedrohte Teile der Bevölkerung an Schutzimpfungen oder anderen Maßnahmen der spezifischen Prophylaxe teilzunehmen haben, wenn eine übertragbare Krankheit mit klinisch schweren Verlaufsformen auftritt und mit ihrer epidemischen Verbreitung zu rechnen ist. Personen, die auf Grund einer medizinischen Kontraindikation nicht an Schutzimpfungen oder an anderen Maßnahmen der spezifischen Prophylaxe teilnehmen können, können durch Rechtsverordnung nach Satz 1 nicht zu einer Teilnahme an Schutzimpfungen oder an anderen Maßnahmen der spezifischen Prophylaxe verpflichtet werden. § 15 Abs. 2 gilt entsprechend. The general gist of that paragraph is: Following a regulated process, people that are vulnerable and under a present and current risk of an epidemic and that do not have counterindication can be mandated to undergo prophylactic treatment, which can include or be a specific vaccination. TL:DR So yes, there is mandatory vaccination in germany, but currently not for everyone but based on certain criteria.
This is a legal question, a business question, and an ethical question more than it is a bike question. Obviously there are risks when anyone rides a bike. And some people might have invisible conditions that would place them at special risk when riding a bike. But, as a shop owner, if a special risk is immediately visible, you open yourself up to a charge of negligence if you fail to take that risk into account. This happened in Canada, and I'm not knowledgeable about Canadian law. It's also interesting that this happened at a Giant company store, not a mom-and-pop bike shop. The fact that the store is operated by Giant may have made the operator more liability-conscious, but it also means they were better prepared to deal with liability than a mom-and-pop store. If I were in the position of selling a bike to someone who exceeds its load rating, I might want them to sign a document acknowledging that fact, and indemnifying me for any damage or injury sustained as a result, but I wouldn't make them promise to lose weight. But I'm in the USA, not Canada, and jurisdiction matters.
CNBC's explanation is simply wrong. The law says that a vaccine manufacturer is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued and there was a declaration under subsection (b). This immunity is not conditioned either way by being approved, indeed the declaration states To be a Covered Countermeasure, qualified pandemic or epidemic products or security countermeasures also must be approved or cleared under the FD&amp;C Act; licensed under the PHS Act; or authorized for emergency use under Sections 564, 564A, or 564B of the FD&amp;C Act The liability immunity is not perpetual, the declaration says: Liability immunity for Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction begins with a Declaration and lasts through (1) the final day the emergency Declaration is in effect, or (2) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first. That doesn't mean that there can't be another declaration in the future. Immunity of a manufacturer to liability is not related to a patient being &quot;covered&quot;. There are other ways in which a patient could be &quot;covered&quot;. One of them is the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program and the other is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which presently redirects you to CICP.