A 20-year-old Oregon man has accused Walmart and Dick’s of age-discrimination

[zenkai]

source

A 20-year-old Oregon man has accused Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods of age-discrimination for refusing to sell him a rifle.

Tyler Watson filed Oregon county court lawsuits against the retailers on Monday, six days after they announced they would not sell guns to buyers under 21.The companies added the higher age restriction after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

Oregon law allows state residents to buy shotguns or rifles as of age 18. Federal law also allows people 18 and older to buy rifles or shotguns from licensed dealers.

Watson's lawsuits may be the first of their kind in the U.S., his attorney, Max Whittington, told The Oregonian/Oregon Live, media outlets that first reported the cases on Monday.


Watson went to a Field and Stream store owned by Dick's Sporting Goods in Medford, Oregon on Feb. 24 "for the purpose of buying a .22 caliber Ruger 10/22 rifle," according to the lawsuit filed in state Circuit Court for Jackson County.

He left after being told the store would not sell him any firearm, including rifles, shotguns or ammunition for the weapons, unless he was 21, the lawsuit alleged. The refusal came four days before the retail chain publicly announced its new sales policy for firearms.

Watson encountered a similar scenario when he went to a Walmart store in Grants Pass, Oregon on March 3 "for the purpose of buying a rifle," according to the separate lawsuit filed in state Circuit Court for Josephine County.

Watson did not know about the new age policy for gun sales when he went to the Field and Stream store, Whittington told The Oregonian/Oregon Live. It was not immediately clear whether Watson learned about the change before he went to the Walmart store.

"He was really just trying to buy a rifle," Whittington said of the initial purchase attempt. The attorney also said Watson was not part of any organized movement taking action against retailers that have enacted tighter restrictions on gun sales.

The lawsuits seek legal injunctions ordering the retailers "to stop unlawfully discriminating against 18,19, and 20-year-old customers at all Oregon locations," as well as unspecified punitive damages because of "the willful nature of the discrimination."

Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove said Tuesday that the company, one of the nation's largest gun-sellers, reviewed its policy on firearm sales in light of recent events.

"As a result, we raised the age restriction for the purchase of firearms and ammunition to 21 years of age. We stand behind our decision and plan to defend it," said Hargrove. "While we haven’t seen the complaint, we will respond as appropriate with the court."

Dick's Sporting Goods did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Separately, the National Rifle Association last month criticized legislative proposals to ban people under age 21 from buying rifles or shotguns.

"Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20- year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or an adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals," the gun rights organization said

I kind of wondered how legal this was myself. At first I thought it might be legal to do it because I have been to places where you couldn't rent a motel room unless you were 21 or rent a car until 24. But unlike those things there are laws saying you are allowed to buy a rifle at 18.

[Endus]

I knew this was gonna happen when Dick's announced it. Age is a protected class, so this runs afoul.

They can make up new store standards for sales, but they can't discriminate against people based on membership in a protected class. So they could require, for instance, a signed form from your psychiatrist confirming that you are of sound mind and not a danger, before selling you a gun. It may not be a LEGAL requirement, but it can be a STORE requirement. As long as said requirement itself doesn't break the law.

Now, they can't FORCE you to give them that document. But they don't have to sell you anything until you do, either.

[Rustedsaint]

Now will Walmart try to settle or fight this
Also who would use a rifle in self defence...

[zenkai]

Now will Walmart try to settle or fight this
Also who would use a rifle in self defence...

Most riffle owners I know are hunters, they use hand guns for self defense.

[Elegiac]

I'm sure he had such urgent need of a rifle that it couldn't wait a year. Huh.

[Endus]

I'm sure he had such urgent need of a rifle that it couldn't wait a year. Huh.

Hey, there's a way to make it legal. Mandatory three-year waiting period. Can't file for it until you turn 18. Just make EVERYONE wait the three years.

[Ryneon]

I knew this was gonna happen when Dick's announced it. Age is a protected class, so this runs afoul.

They can make up new store standards for sales, but they can't discriminate against people based on membership in a protected class. So they could require, for instance, a signed form from your psychiatrist confirming that you are of sound mind and not a danger, before selling you a gun. It may not be a LEGAL requirement, but it can be a STORE requirement. As long as said requirement itself doesn't break the law.

Now, they can't FORCE you to give them that document. But they don't have to sell you anything until you do, either.

I like this. +1

Also, I think it would be ill-advised to walk that line of discrimination in a store setting. Mental health and the like should be examined well before they have the ability to buy.(Proper identification - background check, etc.) The store should not even have to think about it... I see why they would possibly worry about it though given the societal pressure.

My point would be that age is not going to change intent that drastically. A piece of me finds this "age-ism" to be very silly.

[Elegiac]

Hey, there's a way to make it legal. Mandatory three-year waiting period. Can't file for it until you turn 18. Just make EVERYONE wait the three years.

I honestly think a 250% sales tax on firearms would accomplish much the same, honestly.

[Tinykong]

The simple solution to this problem is to just simply not sell firearms in the store at all.

[Daedius]

Hey, there's a way to make it legal. Mandatory three-year waiting period. Can't file for it until you turn 18. Just make EVERYONE wait the three years.

Hah !

[Deleted]

This is the epitome of pathetic

[Hinalover]

so.....I wonder if he would say it's age discrimination that he cannot buy cigarettes as well until he is 21 as well (Oregan's minimum age to buy cigarettes is 21).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_age

[LiiLoSNK]

Keep the age requirement 21. As an Oregon man, I like to order a nice stiff gun after work from time to time and it's easier to relax without a bunch of young idiots who can't handle their guns running around and being annoying.

[XDurionX]

The simple solution to this problem is to just simply not sell firearms in the store at all.

QFT /tenchars

[Underbottom]

Age is only a protected class for 40 and older not under.

[jazen]

It's only ok to pick/choose who you sell to if you're conservative apparently. It's ok to not sell a cake to a gay couple, but god forbid you restrict gun sales.

[Stormdash]

In this case, it's a state statutory issue on which there is basically no wiggle room for Dick's.

Oregon is one of the states that bans retailers from discriminating based on age against customers age 18 and above. The Oregon statute says it generally applies to any person who is "of age," which appears to mean 18, the age of majority in Oregon, at least for those products that are legal to sell to 18-to-20-year-olds (as long guns are in Oregon). Indeed, the statute specifically mentions alcohol and marijuana sellers for special treatment, but makes no such special provision for gun sellers:

...

There are plausible arguments to be made about whether laws banning discrimination in public accommodations are generally a good idea, whether laws banning discrimination in retail sales are generally a good idea (federal law, for instance, doesn't apply to most retail stores), whether laws banning discrimination in retail sales based on age are generally a good idea (most states don't ban such discrimination), whether there ought to be exemptions to such laws for 18-to-20-year-olds, whether there ought to be exemptions to such laws for 18-to-20-year-olds who want to buy guns, and more. Those would be plausible arguments to make to state legislatures.

But this case isn't a common-law tort case, or a constitutional case, in which courts make decisions about what should or shouldn't be covered -- it's a case applying this particular statute in this particular state. And under this statute, the case seems open and shut for the plaintiff and against Dick's.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06...ainst-dicks-sp

[Ozzyorcborne]

Their rules. They chose to change them to something else and they appear to be enforcing them. This little prick needs to learn that not everything will be solved by crying foul about age.

[Stormdash]

It's only ok to pick/choose who you sell to if you're conservative apparently. It's ok to not sell a cake to a gay couple, but god forbid you restrict gun sales.

If a customer went to a custom gunsmith to commission a firearm with engravings or such that violated the smith's beliefs, I'd be on their side. Here, Oregon's public accommodation laws leave really no "out". Most likely outcome in this or the other states where state laws are going to confound Dick's general 21 rule is that they just don't apply it in those states. That's much more likely than them stopping sales altogether.

[AeneasBK]

Age is only a protected class for 40 and older not under.

I was also curious about this; age being a protected class, I thought meant that you can't eg. "not hire someone" because they are too old, rather than the other end of the scale.