Really, In-N-Out? A mask ban for employees?
Since news leaked out this week that In-N-Out, the $3 billion hamburger empire, will next month start enforcing an outright ban against employees choosing to mask at work, don’t feel alone if your first reaction was pure confusion. Who would possibly want a return of the bitter mask battles of 2020, the shouting matches in the public square, the frightening threats to public health workers?
For better and worse, Americans settled on regarding masking against COVID as a personal choice based on personal assessments of risk, and everyone is encouraged to respect one another’s choices as valid. Although some rejected that shift as a surrender to preventable disease, others welcomed it as a much-longed-for truce.
ADVERTISING
Yet, suddenly this summer, here comes In-N-Out treating the decision to mask not as a valid personal decision well-rooted in the realities of an ever-mutating virus, but as some kind of threat to having a burger.
The company claims its motivation is good customer service, demanding “clear and effective communication” while showing off an employee’s “smiles and other facial features.” Yet, interestingly, In-N-Out’s company no-mask policy won’t apply in two of its biggest markets: California and Oregon, where employer mask bans have been forbidden by law. The five states where In-N-Out management is ready to sacrifice their employees’ ability to protect their own health in the name of customer service are Texas, Utah, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona.
The inconsistencies of the company policies appear to be driven by fears of litigation. The leaked company memos also carefully slice and dice a fundamentally discriminatory policy to give the appearance of reasonably accommodating workers whose medical histories place them at highest risk from COVID. Any In-N-Out worker will be permitted to mask if they can provide a doctor’s note detailing for management a medical reason.
In-N-Out employees whom management deems at sufficiently dire risk in the five states with bans, as well as California and Oregon workers who choose to mask, will be required to wear a company-provided N95 — which In-N-Out’s policy practically shouts “provide the highest level of protection for COVID-19 and other viruses and are recommended by OSHA for other respiratory protections.”
It’s less clear what will happen to the In-N-Out employees who don’t have a doctor’s note on file but come face to face with an ominously hacking customer, or are called into a meeting with a manager who doesn’t stay home despite knowing he’s infectious, or who take seriously the safety warnings issued by health authorities if and when community transmission spikes. In-N-Out says noncompliant employees can be fired, meaning employees will be faced with a choice of risking their jobs or risking their health.
Whatever fate befalls In-N-Out’s ill-considered policy, it could embolden other business managers to take a hard stand against masks, or employee litigation could tie up new bans for years. Three years after the start of pandemic, what ought to make headlines is that we actually don’t have to doom ourselves to fighting these forever mask wars.
