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