Here’s why In-N-Out banned employees in Utah and other states from wearing masks
Employees of the In-N-Out Burger chain in five U.S. states are no longer allowed to wear masks in order to better communicate with their customers.
In-N-Out’s internal company memo announcing the ban was leaked online, which said that the new policy has been determined in order to achieve the goal of providing “safe and customer-centric Store and Support environments that balance two things that In-N-Out is known for — exceptional customer service and unmatched standards for health, safety, and quality.”
Related
Why did In-N-Out ban masks?
The memo announcing the new policy reportedly said, “We are introducing new mask guidelines that emphasize the importance of customer service and the ability to show our Associates’ smiles and other facial features while considering the health and well-being of all individuals.”
Despite reported backlash the new policy received from customers on social media, the company detailed that employees are still able to wear masks under a new condition.
The memo also states that employees “who have a specific medical condition or health concern that requires them to wear a mask must provide a valid medical note to their Store Manager, Divisional Manager, Manager, or Human resources. Without disclosing the medical diagnosis or confidential medical information, the medical note should clearly state the reason for the exemption and include the estimated duration, if applicable.”
The Hill further reported that employees who have received medical exemptions and will be planning to wear masks are “required to wear a company-provided N-95.”
Related
Where has In-N-Out banned masks?
Utah locations are included in the mask ban that is set to take place beginning Aug. 14, along with locations in Arizona, Texas, Colorado and Nevada, according to CBS News.
In-N-Out’s compliance policy detailed that “failure to comply with this policy may result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment, based on the severity and frequency of the violation.”
The Los Angeles Times reported that employees in California and Oregon are not included in the new policy.
The memo concludes, “This policy is subject to local health authority guidelines and regulations. In case of any conflicts or inconsistencies, the prevailing health guidelines will take precedence. In addition, we will continue to evaluate and approve (where appropriate) reasonable accommodations for medial, religious, and other protected reasons of our grooming guidelines.”
