Gluten exposure claims revived over retirement community meals

Listen to this article

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a resident’s breach of contract and negligence claims against her retirement community may proceed based on an alleged gluten exposure in January 2021, while affirming dismissal of her remaining federal and state claims.

The plaintiff, who has celiac disease and must follow a strict gluten-free diet, sued the defendant retirement community after several incidents in which she allegedly became ill from meals she believed were safe. She alleged the defendant breached contractual obligations and acted negligently by failing to provide gluten-free food and by misrepresenting menu items as gluten-free. She also asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. On appeal, however, the 4th Circuit concluded that one incident raised factual disputes that should be resolved by a jury.

The court focused on a January 2021 episode in which the plaintiff ate chicken marsala labeled gluten-free and later became violently ill. According to the record, administrators for the defendant acknowledged that there had been a failure in the meal preparation process and indicated they would investigate. The appellate court held that a jury could interpret those statements either as admissions of wrongdoing or simply as investigatory assurances. Because reasonable interpretations differed, the court found genuine disputes of material fact on the plaintiff’s breach of contract and negligence claims related to that incident.

The court affirmed summary judgment on all other claims. It held the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief under the ADA because she no longer intended to eat at the defendant’s dining facilities. Her Rehabilitation Act and Fair Housing Act claims were time-barred because they accrued in 2019, and later interactions did not constitute new violations. The court also concluded earlier state-law claims, including a 2018 food incident, were barred by Maryland’s three-year statute of limitations.

The decision sends the January 2021 claims back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The 14 page opinion is McGinn v. Broadmead Inc., Lawyers Weekly No. 001-052-26.