“MCAD RULES THAT EXCLUDING CHILD WITH AUTISM & HIS FAMILY FROM THE SWANSEA MALL WAS BASED ON LEGITIMATE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS REASONS.”

Difficulty For Autistic Boy Transitioning From the Swansea Mall Leads to A One Year "No Trespass Notice" Being Issued to The Family  by Pearl H. Jacobowitz

     The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) ruled on August 31, 2012, in the case of Jacobowitz, obo minor children v. Swansea Mall security (Mydatt Services, Inc. dba Valor Secuity Services), Carlyle Swansea Partners, LLC., that excluding children diagnosed with autism is appropriate when based on “legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons.”

     Sabrina Acloque, Karen Erickson, and Julian Tynes (Investigating commissioner) rendered a decision regarding a one year no trespass notice that was issued on August 24, 2011, by the Swansea Mall and the Swansea Police, banning the Jacobowitz family from the Swansea Mall in Swansea Massachusetts. 

     On August 17, 2011, while visiting the Swansea Mall, Arizona Jacobowitz found transitioning from the mall at closing time very difficult and began to tantrum.  The shopkeeper would not permit Mr. Jacobowitz to initiate a “five minute countdown” behavioral procedure that would have assisted with transitioning.  As Mr. Jacobowitz began to escort Arizona from the Swansea Mall, a crowd gathered hurling verbal threats at Mr. Jacobowitz and one man threatened to hit him with a wrench just purchased from Sears.  As Mr. Jacobowitz attempted to escort Arizona out of the mall in one hand and the service dog out of the mall in the other hand, the angry crowd followed him out of the mall to his vehicle.  The Swansea Mall Security, Mydatt Services, Inc.(dba “Valor”), did not assist Mr. Jacobowitz, although cameras were located in the mall to capture events taking place throughout the mall.

     The Jacobowitz family filed a complaint based on discrimination due to the mall issuing the one year ban, the mall failing to provide accommodations that would assist a child diagnosed with autism or other special needs, and the mall’s security failing to protect.  By the issuance of this decision, places of public accommodations, such as, the Swansea Mall, could ban individuals with autism and other special needs from their facilities based on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons.  Although, the term “legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons” remains undefined by MCAD, it could simply mean for any reason the facility deems necessary.  MCAD was asked by Mr. & Mrs. Jacobowitz to issue an order requesting the Swansea Mall to provide reasonable accommodations, such as, a quiet area in which the caregiver and individual with autism and other special needs could retreat to, as necessary, a registry at customer services, provide Picture Exchange Cards (PECS) of places within the mall, personnel training, and a portable emergency alert system (beepers) if assistance is required.

     By administrative agencies, courts, and other law agencies rendering decisions, such as, the one described in this post, stores, movie theaters, gyms, libraries, and other public accommodations can ban individuals with autism or other special needs from their establishments at any time and for whatever reason, as it will be deemed, a “legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason.”  We must continue to file complaints, protest the establishments, write letters, and petition for change, otherwise accept exclusionary practices and regress back to the day when the only answer to treating individuals with special needs, such as, autism, was institutionalization and/or lobotomies.