Whole Foods’ Mask Policy Is Not “Part of a Satanic Ritual”

A district court judge dismissed a Boston-area man’s complaint that Whole Foods Markets Group’s mask policy violates his religious beliefs, that masks “are part of a satanic ritual,” and that he “cannot slowly commit suicide by lowering his immune system and depriving himself of oxygen.”

In early 2020, the supermarket chain instituted a policy that required all customers to wear face coverings while shopping in order to help protect employees, shoppers, and the community from spreading Covid-19, according to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs’ January 21 opinion.

The plaintiff, Ryan Manning, entered a Whole Foods store in Dedham, Massachusetts, on January 4, 2021, without wearing a mask. A store employee told Manning that he needed to put one on, but Manning objected, claiming that “it was in direct violation of federal laws and that they could be held personally liable for committing federal crimes,” according to his pro se complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 

Store managers Greg Palladino and David J. Filippone maintained that Manning would not be permitted to shop without a mask, per the store’s policy, according to Burroughs. After the exchange, Manning left the store and called police, explaining to arriving officers that he was being discriminated against and that he wished to make a citizen’s arrest.

At this point, Filippone offered to do the shopping for Manning, but he rejected the offer because he “wanted equal and fair access to go shopping for himself,” his complaint stated. Manning further rejected Filippone’s offer to allow him to shop if he underwent a health screening and temperature check, “since no one at Whole Foods was a qualified medical professional,” and that asking him to undergo a health screening was in violation of state law regarding unauthorized and unregistered practice of medicine, the complaint said.

Manning filed the lawsuit against Whole Foods and the managers on May 19, claiming that his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion were violated, among other allegations, including that he was falsely imprisoned when the managers restricted his movement into the supermarket.

“Plaintiff has a religious belief that the masks are part of a satanic ritual that he refuses to be part of,” Manning wrote in the suit. “Plaintiff has a religious belief that he cannot slowly commit suicide by lowering his immune system and depriving himself of oxygen.

“Plaintiff’s body is his temple and no one can tell him what to do with it or what to put on it,” he added.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in July for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Manning did not allege facts establishing his standing under the Constitution. They argued that the plaintiff failed to allege an “injury-in-fact,” because he did not show any “invasion of a legally protected interest.”

“Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant is not a private business and that it cannot arbitrarily deny service to Plaintiff. Defendant cites the well-known phrase: No shoes No Shirt No Service. While the alliteration may ring well in the mind, however, Plaintiff does not breathe through his toes or his nipples and Defendant may not capriciously violate standing federal law the way it plays with alliteration,” the defendants added.

While Burroughs dismissed the complaint in its entirety Friday, she said the defendants do not clearly explain how their argument—that Manning’s allegations are insufficient to show a state actor violated his constitutional rights—is relevant to standing. Burroughs cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s 1998 ruling in City of Hope Nat. Med. Ctr. v. HealthPlus, Inc., which found the standing inquiry does not focus on the merits of the dispute, rather “whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute.”

“As the Court understands it, Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of the Mask Policy violated his rights to freedom of speech or freedom of religion because Whole Foods is a private business not limited by the Constitution under the circumstances presented here,” Burroughs wrote. “After considering these arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendants’ enforcement of the store policy resulted in a concrete injury to him and that he therefore has standing to sue.”

However, Burroughs said, Manning’s claims regarding state action are inadequately pled and, therefore, must be dismissed.

“It is undisputed that Whole Foods and its employees are private entities. Plaintiff admits that Whole Foods is a ‘retail food marketplace,’ and he has not put forth any facts that allow for the plausible inference that Defendants are themselves governmental entities,” Burroughs wrote. “He also failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Defendant could be considered state actors under any of the First Circuit’s tests.”

The three tests to determine “if a private party can be characterized as a state actor” include the state compulsion test, the nexus/joint action test, and the public function test. Burroughs further found that Manning did not allege any facts to show that Massachusetts coerced Whole Foods into implementing or enforcing their own mask mandate, and there was no allegation that the defendants enforced their internal policies while performing a public function.

Burroughs further rejected Manning’s religious discrimination allegations and false imprisonment because he failed to allege that he was not free to leave during his interaction with the defendants.

“Plaintiff states that his religious beliefs prohibit him from wearing a mask, but the complaint lacks any allegation suggesting he was treated differently than others who do not share his religious belief or that Defendants’ actions were motivated by his religious beliefs,” she wrote in Friday’s order. “In fact, the complaint reads that Defendants treated everyone the same and that everyone was subject to the Mask Policy. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to show that he was treated less favorably than others who did not share his religious beliefs.”

The judge added that there were no alleged facts to support that Whole Foods was practicing medicine by implementing a mask policy. Burroughs referenced a Florida state court’s ruling which found that requiring facial covers to be worn in public “is not primarily directed at treating a medical condition of the person wearing the mask/shield”; rather, covering their nose and mouth in public is intended to prevent the transmission of Covid-19.

“In closing, the Court cannot help but note the following: Despite the myriad of claims brought by Plaintiff, there is not constitutional, statutory, or common law right to jeopardize the health of others by shopping in a Whole Foods, without a mask, in contravention of its prudent policy, during a mass pandemic,” Burroughs wrote in a footnote. “If your heart is set on products from a market with a mask requirement, and you can’t or won’t wear a mask, your choices are to get your food delivered, have someone else shop for you, or reconsider wearing a mask for your own health and the good of other shoppers.”

Messages seeking comment from Manning and Brian Blackman, of Blaxter Blackman, on behalf of the defendants, were not immediately returned.

From: law.com