Starbucks’ recent move to limit restroom usage to paying customers has highlighted a broader issue surrounding restroom policies across the United States, revealing inconsistencies and generating debate about accessibility. Restroom access rules differ significantly by location, with legislation varying from state to city to county. For instance, New York mandates restroom availability for diners in establishments with at least 20 seats, while California imposes similar rules for larger restaurants, but only if they were constructed post-1984. In Chicago, however, eateries are not required to provide restrooms for patrons unless they serve alcoholic drinks.
“It’s a confusing mess,” commented Steven Soifer, who co-founded the American Restroom Association, an organization dedicated to promoting clean, safe, and well-structured public toilets. He pointed out, “When a business sells food and beverages, lacking restroom facilities poses a health risk.”
The conversation around this issue gained momentum when Starbucks announced a reversal on its previous seven-year policy, which allowed non-customers to utilize restrooms freely. The company is introducing a new code of conduct that will be displayed in all its North American locations, outlining a ban on discrimination, harassment, and various prohibited activities, including drug use and solicitation.
The response to Starbucks’ updated restroom policy has been polarized. Advocates of the change argue that it is within the company’s rights to control restroom access for the sake of maintaining a conducive store environment. Paul Skinner, a 76-year-old retired firefighter from Daytona Beach, Florida, expressed support for the decision, stating that he understands the desire to cater primarily to paying customers and noted he wouldn’t cease visiting Starbucks because of this rule.
However, Skinner also empathized with those experiencing homelessness, sharing that he occasionally treats them to breakfast and recognizes their desire for a warm place to stay. “I think about all the people who don’t have housing who would love to wander into a Starbucks and get warm,” he remarked, expressing concern over the implications of this policy for marginalized individuals.
Some customers have voiced their disappointment at the shift, suggesting it contradicts Starbucks’ image as a welcoming community haven. Norman Bauman, an 81-year-old semi-retired science writer from New York, recounted how he ceased visiting his local Starbucks for reading and social engagement after the restrooms were restricted to employees only. “I always wondered how they could survive with customers like me,” he reflected.
Reactions on social media were mixed, with some applauding the change, claiming it was necessary due to disruptive behavior under the more lenient policy. Others, however, expressed that they might think twice before frequenting Starbucks with the new restrictions in place.
In response to inquiries about restroom policies, Starbucks stated that its new guidelines align with those of other large retailers. While several major restaurant chains were contacted for their policies, they did not provide responses. The National Retail Federation asserted that businesses can regulate restroom access as they see fit, emphasizing that these establishments are private property and have the right to uphold certain standards of conduct.
Starbucks reassured that the new guidelines aim to curtail disruptive behavior while acknowledging that there may be instances in which a patron might require restroom access prior to purchasing. “We understand that there will be times when a customer needs to use the restroom before they’ve made a purchase, and that is perfectly okay,” said Starbucks spokeswoman Jaci Anderson.
Moreover, Starbucks committed to comply with local regulations that mandate restroom access for individuals not making purchases. However, the legal landscape regarding restroom usage is complex and ambiguous. Most states and the District of Columbia adopt the International Plumbing Code, which stipulates that restroom facilities should be available to customers, patrons, and visitors.
Yet, as Andrew Rudansky from New York’s Department of Buildings explained, some commentary from the code’s developers suggests that restrooms are primarily for individuals engaged in the establishment’s activities rather than random passersby. Other regulatory frameworks like the Uniform Plumbing Code and the National Standard Plumbing Code also have similar stipulations regarding restroom use.
Soifer noted that the term “customer” itself is vague, illustrating this point with the example of a potential customer hesitating to place an order but nonetheless being included in the definition. He also mentioned that a person experiencing homelessness might fit the customer description but could still be hindered from access due to the policy.
Complicated further by legislation, at least 20 states have adopted versions of the Restroom Access Act, which mandates businesses to allow restroom use for individuals with specific medical conditions, even if their facilities are typically reserved for employees.
Soifer highlighted the broader issue at hand: the insufficient number of public restrooms in the U.S., arguing that increased public facilities could alleviate pressure on businesses like Starbucks. “The primary complaint from tourists in the U.S. is often about the lack of public toilets,” he concluded.
