Hobby Lobby went to the Supreme Court to avoid covering contraception for its female employees because … Christian! Then they had their lawyers defend discrimination against a customer with an intellectual disability. Christian?
The company told the Supreme Court that
Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the [owners] to “[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” Each family member has signed a pledge to run the businesses in accordance with the family’s religious beliefs and to use the family assets to support Christian ministries. … The businesses refuse to engage in profitable transactions that facilitate or promote alcohol use; they contribute profits to Christian missionaries and ministries; and they buy hundreds of full-page newspaper ads inviting people to “know Jesus as Lord and Savior.”1
I bet you’re all wondering how those Biblical principles applied to a Hobby Lobby customer with an intellectual disability. Fellowship? A bit of adaptive Bible study? Common courtesy? Nope.
Following a decade of friendly interaction and accommodation, the store got a new manager.2
[Plaintiff Charles] George asked a cashier to tally the cost of certain items and said that he would return later in the day when he had the money to pay. George alleges that [Manager Heather] Ford told him he could not do that because the “cashiers are wasting time on” him and that if he continued to ask for help she was going to call the police. Ford also supposedly stated that she wanted George “to stay out of this store and off of the property never to come back.”3
New manager Heather Ford, rather than continue to accommodate Mr. George’s intellectual disability, called the police. I’d love to hear from Hobby Lobby how this constitutes “operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.”
My fellow ADA nerds will be either shocked or relieved to know that the court held Mr. George had stated a claim under Title III:
George has alleged sufficient facts to state a Title III ADA claim and he has standing to pursue it. It is undisputed that George has a disability, and that Hobby Lobby is a place of public accommodation. And George has alleged that Hobby Lobby, through Ford, discriminated against him because of his intellectual disability by refusing to provide an allegedly reasonable accommodation (tallying items) that it had provided to him in the past. Further, George has alleged that he would return to Hobby Lobby’s store if he could, which is sufficient for standing.4
A very long time ago (2010) I suggested a new rule for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 1.5 “Don’t be a dick.” Given our current fraught legal times, I propose another addition: Rule 30.1 “Deposition to Call Bullshit.” Under Rule 30.1, any member of the bar can notice the deposition of a litigant in any case to make its hypocrisy a matter of record.
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 703 (2014) (emphasis added; internal citations omitted). ↩︎
- Seasoned civil rights lawyers will now hear “Jaws” theme music in their heads. “Then they hired a new manager” is how the vast majority of civil rights intake interviews start. ↩︎
- George v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 721312, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 6, 2025). ↩︎
- Id. at *5. ↩︎




