The restaurant chain is prohibiting employees in five states from wearing masks unless they receive a medical note from a doctor.
The new rules apply to employees in five red or purple states — Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Texas and Utah. Meanwhile, employees in two blue states — Oregon and California — may still opt to wear a mask as long as it's a company-approved N95.
According to a company-wide memo, these new rule are designed to "emphasize the importance of customer service and the ability to show our Associates' smiles and other facial features."
Because In-N-Out is specifically exempting employees with a medical note, there's nothing illegal about the mask ban. But legal doesn't necessarily mean prudent. The ban tells its employees that it doesn't care about their wellbeing because they are banned from masking, while simultaneously telling its customers that it also doesn't care about their wellbeing because someone with a cold (or worse) can cough, sneeze, and wheeze all over the customers and their food.
Moreover, given that 70 percent of In-N-Out's employees work in one of "N95 optional" restaurants, I question the legitimacy of its explanation for this policy in the first place. If it was really concerned about "customer service" and employees showing their "smiles and other facial features," the ban would be company-wide, and not just in red and purple states in which masks might still be controversial. This rule has everything to do about politics and nothing to do with "customer service."
Other than political optics, why is this even an issue? You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. You don't want to wear a mask? Don't wear a mask. I don't care. You shouldn't care. An employer shouldn't care. In-N-Out Burger shouldn't care. The fact that it does care tells me all I need to know about In-N-Out Burger as a business, and none of it is good.