Access to employee restrooms.
SB 131 creates a new chapter in the Indiana Code requiring certain retail establishments to allow customers with specified medical conditions to use employee-only restrooms during normal business hours, if a set of conditions is met. The bill applies only when the establishment has an employee restroom on the premises, at least two employees are working, the restroom is reasonably safe, no public restroom is immediately available, and allowing access does not create a health, safety, or security risk because of the restroom’s location. A qualifying customer must either have a written certification from a treating health care provider for Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, or ulcerative colitis, or use an ostomy device.
The bill also states that a customer who uses the restroom must leave it in the same condition as found, and it does not require any physical changes to the employee restroom. It provides civil immunity to owners, operators, and employees for acts or omissions in allowing access, so long as the conduct is not willful or grossly negligent and occurs in a non-public area. A violation of the access requirement is treated as a Class C infraction, but any civil judgment for that infraction is capped at $100. The bill also adds a related immunity provision to Indiana’s civil liability chapter.
The bill’s impact would be to create a limited statutory right of restroom access for customers with certain gastrointestinal conditions or ostomy devices, while preserving business discretion where safety, security, or availability concerns exist. It would affect retail establishments open to the public and their employees, and it would amend both trade regulation and civil liability statutes in Indiana. Because the bill expressly says no physical changes are required, its compliance burden is focused on access decisions rather than facility modifications.
Overall sentiment appears supportive of accommodating people with serious medical needs, though no committee transcripts or recorded votes are available in the provided materials to show debate or formal opposition. The structure of the bill suggests an attempt to balance customer access with business protections by limiting the rule to specific medical conditions and by including immunity and safety exceptions. The main points of contention likely center on whether the access mandate is too narrow or too burdensome for retailers, and whether the certification, staffing, and no-public-restroom requirements make the remedy practical in real-world settings.
SB 131 would add IC 24-4-14.5, creating a new legal obligation for retail establishments with employee restrooms to grant restroom access to qualifying customers with Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, or an ostomy device under specified conditions. It would also add an immunity provision to IC 34-30-2.1 for owners, operators, and employees who comply in good faith, and it would cap civil judgments for violations at $100. The bill would primarily affect retailers, employees, and customers with qualifying medical conditions, while leaving existing restroom design requirements unchanged.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or partisan alignment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as a consumer-access and medical-accommodation bill with built-in business protections, suggesting generally favorable treatment toward affected customers while trying to reduce opposition from retailers. The inclusion of immunity, safety exceptions, and a low penalty cap indicates an effort to make the proposal more acceptable to business interests.
The likely points of contention are the scope of the mandate and the conditions attached to it. Retailers may object to being required to open employee-only restrooms to customers, even in limited circumstances, and may be concerned about security, liability, and operational disruption. Advocates for patients with gastrointestinal disorders may argue the bill is too restrictive because it limits eligibility to certain diagnoses or ostomy use, requires written certification, and applies only when no public restroom is immediately available. The bill’s exceptions for safety, security, and staffing also create room for disputes over when access must be granted.