undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDannyBee7y ago0 comments

It's likely legal for states to do it It would not be legal for the feds.

There are fun loopholes though. Here's the text of the condition for facebook.

"CAFETERIA CONDITION: In order to foster synergy between office, restaurant, and retail uses in the Center and realize the economic vitality of the project, the project anticipates employees in the office space will utilize food and retail services available in the Center. The applicant will encourage tenants and employees of tenants to utilize food and retail services available in the Center. Neither the applicant nor tenant(s) will subsidize meals by more than fifty percent (50%) or provide free meals for employees in the office space on a regular daily basis. An employer can subsidize or pay for employee meals as long as they are patronizing restaurants in the Center.

In addition: The applicant may make a request to amend this condition. The City Manager or a designee may make a recommendation to the City Council on this matter."

So for example:

Facebook could open a restaurant in the center. If it does, it cannot legally choose to discriminate in who they serve (in california, anyway. In a lot of states you often can).

It can, however, legally price discriminate in various ways (AFAIK, if someone has case law otherwise, love to see it). This is in fact, quite common.

So for example, it could charge the public that walks in 1 million a meal. It could offer advance tickets to employees at no charge, and no one else.

This is also non-discriminatory on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin (which is what the 1964 civil rights act covers), disabilities (covering the ADA), etc.

I don't believe it would be found discriminatory to a protected class in most states (a lot of states add political affiliation, etc).

(this is just an example, and one i'm sure the IRS would have fun with :P)

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

lainga7y ago

There's a law in certain states that you can't serve alcohol in an establishment that doesn't also serve food. So, many breweries have tasting rooms where at the bottom of the menu, it makes it clear that, by law, they are required to have a food section - with a single token item which they will serve you, like a Pizza Pop or a single M&M - with jocular disdain.

dunpeal7y ago

> Facebook could open a restaurant in the center.

How would that work for a huge complex like the Googleplex?

They'd have to provide public access to all parts of their complex to comply.

> So for example, it could charge the public that walks in 1 million a meal.

Not a lawyer, but I think that will break the law. Otherwise, "public access" will become completely meaningless: if I don't like you, all items on the menu are no $1m, and of course you cannot stay on premise without ordering...

I'd love to hear a real lawyer analyzing this, but imho, both your suggestions constitute attempts to completely circumvent a law based on technicalities, which is a dangerous game to play when you're a corporation with offices in the jurisdiction of the legislative body you're trying to circumvent.

Your simple solution will also not work for very large businesses (due to the need to open up their entire campus for public access), nor small ones (who can't afford the cost in funds and labor of creating a separate public-access restaurant).

In my estimation, this will make any company think twice about starting a big office in MTV.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse