"Restroom Access Act"; enact
SB 219, the “Restroom Access Act,” would require certain retail establishments in Georgia to allow a customer to use an employee-only toilet facility during normal business hours when the customer has a qualifying medical condition and meets several conditions. The customer must present a written statement from a healthcare provider confirming an eligible medical condition, such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, another condition requiring immediate toilet access, or the need for an ostomy device. Access is only required when no public restroom is immediately available, at least three employees are working, and the employee restroom is located in an area where access would not create an obvious health, safety, or security risk.
The bill also creates exceptions for certain businesses, including pharmacies or other retail establishments that sell prescription drugs if access could expose pharmaceuticals, and businesses that maintain HIPAA-protected records if access could expose those records. It further provides that retail establishments and employees are generally not liable for acts or omissions related to granting access unless the conduct amounts to gross, willful, or wanton negligence, and it states that no physical changes to the employee restroom are required. Violations of the chapter would be treated as a misdemeanor.
SB 219 would add a new chapter to Title 30 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, expanding the rights of certain customers with qualifying medical conditions to access employee restroom facilities in retail establishments. It would impose a new statutory duty on covered businesses, create limited liability protections for compliance-related conduct, carve out exceptions for sensitive business settings, and establish criminal penalties for violations. The bill would affect retail operators, employees, customers with qualifying conditions, and businesses handling pharmaceuticals or protected health information.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive and consumer-protective. The measure is framed as an access and accommodation bill for people with urgent medical needs, with multiple safeguards intended to limit burdens on businesses. No opposing arguments are documented in the supplied record, so there is no clear evidence of formal controversy in the available materials.
The main points of potential contention are the balance between customer access and business burden, and the scope of the required accommodation. Retail establishments may object to being compelled to open employee-only restrooms, especially where access could raise security, sanitation, or operational concerns, while supporters would emphasize the medical necessity for affected customers. The bill tries to address these concerns through exceptions for pharmacies and HIPAA-sensitive areas, a requirement that at least three employees be present, and a rule that no physical modifications are required, but those limits could still be debated as either too narrow or too broad.