It is not unlikely, however, that litigation may occur in the future, and it is therefore useful to review the legal analysis that would apply in such a case. More importantly for the purposes of peanut cases, these laws require reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodations are those that are not unduly burdensome either administratively or financially. The first issue is whether a particular program is covered by these laws. Virtually all of the major programs currently subject to the media attention are covered by one or more of these statutes.
Airlines are subject to the Air Carrier Access Act.
The second issue is whether allergies to peanut butter are disabilities within the definitions of applicable federal law. It is less clear whether individuals with moderate reactions would be covered. The courts have distinguished between degrees of limitation in cases involving depression, mobility, and other impairments, so it is not impossible to imagine a program challenging the coverage of discrimination law to at least some individuals, although to do so might not be wise from a public relations perspective. The consequences of not making some accommodations might be that these individuals are not able to participate in a wide range of activities that most people take for granted, such as attending school and traveling on airplanes. There has been backlash to some of the efforts that may go too far and may be counterproductive to ensuring protection.