In the Halcion days of my youth, there was an entertaining television distraction, the "re-run." While we enjoyed the new and modern on our three broadcast networks, there were also opportunities for reviewing older offerings, and among the best was The Lone Ranger. From its days as a radio show (early 19030s to 1950s) through the early age of television (late 1940s to 1950s), the vigilante cowboy would often depart with a "hi yo Silver," and as he faded from the screen some bit character would ask "who was that masked man, anyway?" The hook was for the viewer; we had superior knowledge of the masked man, his identity, and were thus, ourselves, intertwined into the show.
Masks remained exceptional in America. Wearing one was seen as troublesome. As I noted early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there are even laws that preclude the wearing of masks. See Masks Illegal? Not Generally (April 2020). But, you will tell your grandchildren, that there was a time when masks were virtually unheard of in America, outside of medical facilities. In fact, when we encountered someone in a mask, we tended to give them a wide berth.
As an aside, I spoke in the summer of 2020 with an older person who suffers from medical fears. She has worn masks throughout flu season for several years due to various medical conditions. She enjoyed that people would perceive her mask and stay distant in the supermarket and other settings. She laments that with masks becoming ubiquitous, that distancing has been discontinued. The safety she perceived from semi-isolation in public places has evaporated as her "exceptional" mask use has faded into the commonplace in our COVID world. In a larger sense, masked or not, why not give us all a little personal space back?
There have been those who rushed to masking, and those who have not. The same has been true of the miracle vaccine, of which readers will likely know I am a big fan. See Vaccination Tribulation (February 2021); Vaccination Implications (February 2021); Its Simple Economics (March 2021); and The Futures' so Bright (February 2021). I am a big fan of vaccination, but mask use continues to present questions.
We are currently in the midst of the evolution of the vaccination, with the President moving to mandate vaccine acceptance. Mandatory vaccination is not new in America, and that subject is addressed in another post. With the mandates, however, come objections. There are those who have both medical and philosophical objections to taking the vaccine. Those issues are beginning a path through the courts.
I recently heard about a business that is supposedly separating everyone who is not vaccinated; one employee at least complained that there were no religious or other exceptions honored. Thus, the issue may be coming soon to someone you know. This will be a difficult legal issue for businesses. Should businesses mandate vaccines, masks, and other pandemic responses? In the courts, will it matter that there are or are not particular governmental regulations or orders that support or detract from such decisions?
Similarly, there have been many settings in which mask use has been mandated. Some have been excluded from businesses for refusal to wear a mask. Others have been arrested for such refusal at banks, stores, entertainment venues, and otherwise. Generally, it has been up to businesses to decide whether they will require masks, but a fair few elected leaders have ventured into mask mandates with varying reactions from applause to ridicule.
Despite the airlines mandating masks reasonably uniformly throughout their pandemic efforts, the government saw some imperative to add its imprimatur. Early in 2021, the Transportation Security Administration imposed a mask mandate for all airline travel, according to the Washington Post. There have been many reports of poor passenger behavior over masks. Some fear violence over the topic. Some airlines have seen a connection between contentiousness and alcohol, electing to discontinue serving it in some instances.
In June 2021, Business Insider reported "Man sues 7 airlines including JetBlue, Southwest, and Delta, which he accuses of discriminating against travelers who can't wear masks because of medical conditions." That is a lengthy headline and almost relieves one of the need to read the actual article. But, some detail helps. The Plaintiff claims that he his "anxiety condition means he can't wear a mask." And, after visiting his mother in Florida, he says he is "stranded" and unable to return home to Washington D.C.
He accuses the various airlines "of discriminating against travelers who can't wear masks because of medical conditions." This may be a similar issue to the one discussed above with vaccine mandates. Some may also see similarities in airline reaction to the comfort "cats, ferrets, spiders, and pigs" as noted by the Wall Street Journal in "Emotional Support Animals are Banned on Airplanes but Service Dogs can Still Fly Free." You just have not lived until someone's dog spreads out at your feet and leaves you without the tiny bit of legroom modern air travel sometimes provides.
These issues all run into the concept of public accommodations and various federal laws regarding the rights and responsibilities of people in those settings. Is employment really any different regarding exceptions?
So, this plaintiff is suing both the airlines and "government agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention" for their mask mandates. These mandates are in place, according to one former small-town mayor "as a 'matter of respect' for flight crews and others." Curiously, the Transportation Safety Administration, and others, have not been quick to provide any science regarding the benefits of masks.
In fact, some airlines have banned certain masks, such as cloth, according to the Washington Post. What is the science behind that distinction? If cloth masks are not effective, then why does wearing one equal compliance in any setting at all? In other words, why is a fabric mask good enough for some states with mandates, but not for a particular airline? The Post article says that these airlines have concluded: “fabric masks are slightly less efficient at protecting people from infection than surgical masks.”
One may wonder "how slightly?" How "slightly" is "slightly enough?" More on masks in The Science of Consensus and Masks Again (June 2021). Some will remember when the U.S. Surgeon General said not to wear masks. Others will remember when the Surgeon General published an August 2020 video to show people how to make their own mask, out of fabric if you can believe it. Is fabric effective? Are masks effective? Perhaps like the famous Tootsie Pop question, "The world may never know."
Back to this Plaintiff, he bought tickets for eight flights in his attempt to reach home in Washington (the article later clarifies he really wants to get to "the Rocky Mountains - or anywhere else"; essentially, he wants out of Florida. He asked the various airlines for "a mask waiver" based on the medical condition he alleges. He apparently met with no success. The Plaintiff alleges that the airlines' "no exception" mask posture "violate(s) the Air Carrier Access Act, which protects passengers with disabilities from discrimination."
Some will see a question, "Why not catch a train to D.C.? or rent a car?" However, in the world of disability accommodation that is our modern era, the question is not whether one can find viable alternatives when denied accommodation, but simply whether there was such a denial. That there are reasonably simple alternatives does not excuse discrimination. Does a pandemic excuse discrimination? So, in the coming months, he may get his day in court. The legal issues of discrimination, mask mandates, and perhaps even science will potentially be laid bare to a court. It will be curious to see how the story ends.
Perhaps, as he departs the courthouse one day, someone will even utter those now infamous words: "Who was that (un)masked man?"
In the meantime, for the rest of us, maybe we could just give each other a little space, masked or not? And, while the rest of us wait for clearance for the third shot, why not reconsider getting your first? It is a small thing, but would likely be a benefit.
