[donutte]

“Intensely terrible” is one way to phrase “illegal under the ADA”...

I would assume there will be accommodations made for folks with dietary restrictions that require them to eat meat, whether that’s through a simple waiver or a massive lawsuit.

[curo]

No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy. They don't have an obligation to reimburse, and this falls so far outside of fair employment laws. HN is going nuts on this one.

[dragonwriter]

> No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy

I wouldn't be so sure.

> They don't have an obligation to reimburse

They don't have an obligation to hire people, either, but if hiring doesn't make reasonable accommodations for disability, it's still illegal.

[smsm42]

Well, they don't have an obligation to reimburse, but reimbursing in a discriminatory fashion could still be legally suspect. There's a difference between not reimbursing at all and reimbursing in a way that excludes certain people. Just like that case with Uber and jackets only for male team members - nobody is required to give out free jackets, but if you only give ones to males and not females, you'll end up in trouble. If not legal one than certainly PR one.

[donutte]

Why do you say that? It’s certainly in line with the spirit of the ADA, and a cursory Google suggests that lawsuits related to dietary restrictions have been successful.

For what it’s worth, I’m a vegetarian and broadly in support of this policy, assuming it can be made compliant with the law.

[brianpgordon]

It says in the article that "Individuals requiring “medical or religious” allowances are being referred to the company’s policy team to discuss options."

[apple4ever]

"I'm a meatarian, an obscure religion. I'm going to expense meat."