Court Cases Giant Eagle

Plaintiffs Reply to Giant Eagle Motion to Dismiss, Translation for non-lawyers*

Follow us on Facebook


Connecting The Dots – Untangling The Web – Fake Exemptions – What We Know

We started out with a goal of understanding the following: Who was behind the fraudulent ADA exemption cards Why persons responsible are not yet prosecuted considering: The impersonation of a government office- namely the US Department of Justice, DOJ is led by the nations top law enforcement official, Perpetrators created and SOLD fraudulent exemptions using…

As you likely know, this page is following an ADA case Pletcher v. Giant Eagle (Western District of Pennsylvania).  Today, Plaintiffs filed their sur-reply to Giant Eagle’s motion to dismiss – and friends – it made me laugh out loud.

It might be time to talk about Plaintiffs attorneys, Thomas B. Anderson, Esquire and Thomson, Rhodes, & Cowie, P.C. because the argument they put forward on behalf of their clients boils down to:

  • There’s no real pandemic.  Because ya know -prove it.
  • Facemasks don’t work – again, prove they do.
  • Our clients don’t have covid – ha ha, really prove this!
  • NO MASKS – Hey we won’t accept anything else – duh
  • Businesses are but peasants that should bend to our whims – don’t dare set your own safety requirements during a pandemic – especially if they exceed minimum government standards
  • English word definitions are wrong – don’t you know – COULD actually means MUST

*Note: Don’t just believe what you read on social media, check the original source.  Actual filling is attached.

They actually wrote, and this is where the real laughing started, they actually – wait for it – claim that Giant Eagle’s no-exception policy is illegal, illegitimate, and unnecessary in part because:

…Pennsylvania Human Relations Act & Order of the Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Health Universal Face Covering Requirement” that was published on July 1, 2020. Guidance on COVID-19 and Universal Face Covering Order.pdf.  The PHRC guidance discusses the Pennsylvania mask requirement and its exceptions and then states: “Accommodations 👉could include, but are not necessarily limited to, entry to a public space or place of employment without a face covering…”  Id. at p.1 (emphasis added).

Case 2:20-cv-00754-NBF Document 41 Filed 09/22/20 Page 3 of 7

Yes, they actually argue – that PHRC guidance says business COULD allow persons in without a face covering – that somehow translates to MUST.  If business MUST allow maskless into private business, then by golly, the guidance MUST say exactly that!  It doesn’t.  But thanks for the laughs. 

The legal profession is a wily beast, ain’t it!

Download Filing Below

Follow us on Twitter

Court Cases FTBA Giant Eagle Lenka Koloma Peggy Hall

Giant Eagle’s Attorney – Clapback at Peggy Hall and Lenka Koloma in Their Motion to Dismiss ADA Claims

As expected, Giant Eagle filed a motion to dismiss ADA claims made by several individuals that attempted to maskless shop at their stores. It is an interesting if not entertaining read.

In the motion brief, attorneys for Giant Eagle state:

Download motion here

Despite these defects on the face of their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs contend that the ADA gives anyone claiming a disability a pass to ignore Giant Eagle’s Policy. Their theory echoes a debunked Internet scheme, which claims that individuals who are ideologically opposed to wearing masks can misuse the ADA to further their agenda. The United States Department of Justice, responsible for enforcing portions of the ADA, denounced the scheme as fraudulent. 1 But whether they have an ideological agenda, a legitimate disability or both, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Giant Eagle has no merit. It should be dismissed.

Case 2:20-cv-00754-NBF Document 34 Filed 09/02/20

In Their reply brief they break it down:

Third, the issue is not, as Plaintiffs contend, whether Giant Eagle can require individuals with a disability to wear a face covering. Opp. at 8. Giant Eagle does not seek to do that. The issue is whether Giant Eagle can require anyone entering its stores to wear a face covering. It can. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, no government entity currently mandates, or even recommends, that businesses allow customers to enter their stores without wearing a face covering. The CDC and Pennsylvania Department of Health merely advise that anyone who cannot wear a face mask because of a medical condition should not wear one. That is far from a recommendation that people should circulate in public places without a face covering. See, e.g., Pa. Dept. of Health Universal Face Coverings Order FAQ, 7/3/2020 (ECF 34-2), pg. 7 (“The wearing of face coverings, such as a mask, ensures that we as a society can limit the spread of COVID-19 and successfully combat this pandemic; therefore, it is in everyone’s best interest that all Pennsylvanians comply with this order.” (emphasis in original)).

Case 2:20-cv-00754-NBF Document 39 Filed 09/16/20

Court Cases Giant Eagle

ADA Case Pletcher V. Giant Eagle – Plaintiffs Want Unmasked Accommodations to Access Private Businesses

👉This page is following an ADA legal action filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pletcher V. Giant Eagle, Inc.

This case represents the very reason it is necessary to shine a spotlight on fraudulent disability exemptions.

Although this case consolidates many plaintiffs into one case, this post focuses on the claims made by Debbie Vidovich of Sewickley Pennsylvania. (Also see last weeks post about Josiah Kostek)

🧕Debbie claims she “received” a medical facemask exemption (no mention as to who gave her this “exemption”). The complaint explains, Debbie “has several health conditions that substantially affect her major life activity of breathing and her respiratory and immune systems.”

On 📋April 23, she attempted a maskless entry of a store (Giant Eagle), claiming she had received a medical exemption. The store called the police and reported her for trespassing.

On 📋May 1st, she attempted another maskless entry at a different location. This time she complied when asked to wear a mask. Before leaving the store, she claims she became short of breath and passed out in the checkout line. (no mention of emergency response). She claims the mask caused dizziness, headaches, back and leg pain and a burning sensation in her lungs for days thereafter. (no mention of where she got the mask that allegedly gave her all these problems).

👉Debbie claims all the following injuries:

  • 🤕 Blunt force trauma to the head, neck and body;
  • 🥵 Hypertension;
  • 🤯 Headaches;
  • 🤭Shortness of breath;
  • 😴Fainting;
  • 🤮Gastritis;
  • 🤢Esophageal spasm and inflammation;
  • 🥺Exacerbation of her underlying health issues;
  • 😔Depression; and
  • 😬Anxiety.

Per the complaint, the store’s policy to protect its customers and employees is a problem because Plaintiffs believe the store is playing 🤦‍♀️politics – and has no health concerns.

⭐️Giant Eagle Policy

“Moving forward until further notice in order to shop our store (or any other Giant Eagle location) you must be wearing a mask. There will be no exceptions regardless of any reason or medical condition. We thank you for your compliance and understanding.”

Giant Eagle

👩‍⚖️They want a jury trial…..and an injunction to stop the stores mask policy….welp, good luck with that.

Information regarding cases filed in federal court are accessible to the public via Pacer

Court Cases Giant Eagle

Get Your Legal Advice From Social Media – Go To Jail – ADA facemask case Pletcher V. Giant Eagle, Inc.

👉This page is following an ADA (facemask) legal action filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pletcher V. Giant Eagle, Inc.

This case represents the very reason it is necessary to shine a spotlight on fraudulent disability exemptions. Although this case consolidates many plaintiffs into one case, we are currently focusing on the claims made by Josiah Kostek.

Per the complaint, a maskless Josiah Kostek entered a store that required facemasks (Giant Eagle). The store did not allow him to shop and called the police. Josiah was arrested. He returned and again entered the store maskless while claiming he was protected under the ADA. The police were called and Josiah was told that he was not welcome back.

The complaint alleges that Josiah suffers from numerous physical and mental conditions that prevent him from wearing a mask.

👨‍⚖️In July Josiah was convicted of the charges filed under the arrest.

The store, in its response to Josiah’s legal filing, expose his Facebook activity which does not align with his claims. He states, “I don’t mind wearing a mask, if someone asks me polite. I’m in excellent health…” He goes on to discuss what he believes are his legal rights not to buy masks. He claims he will not wear a mask or social distance. “Anyone that tries to take that for me is a tyrant.” In a recording supplied to the court, Josiah compares face covering policies to baby killing women who get away with the “murder” of “innocent babies”. He says, “My body. My Choice.”

This information takes us beyond the question of whether Josiah has a legitimate disability that would allow special treatment inside a private business. Josiah’s disability claims and the subsequent information that was uncovered, causes damage to the disabled community as a whole. It inspires a belief that individuals with disabilities take advantage of their status to seek accommodations they do not deserve. And in this case, are perceived by many as harmful to the public interest. In its August 3 filing, the store indicates it will pursue a motion to dismiss.

Information regarding cases filed in federal court are accessible to the public via Pacer