Roughly a year and a half after the Ohio Supreme Court eliminated the state’s version of Chevron deference, the same conservative majority recently issued a decision declaring that “boneless wings” can legally contain bones. The court, in a 4-3 opinion, argued that the term “boneless wings” refers to the style of cooking rather than a guarantee of the absence of bones (for more details, see the full opinion here).
Michael Berkheimer, the plaintiff, had ordered boneless wings at a restaurant and ended up ingesting a 1-3/8 inch chicken bone, which led to severe health complications. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the restaurant, the supplier, and the chicken farm. However, the court ruled against him, opining that no reasonable jury could be led to believe that “boneless” signifies the complete absence of bones.
“A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings,” the court stated, likening the term to “chicken fingers,” which clearly do not contain actual fingers.
In contrast, the liberal justices dissented, arguing that the majority’s interpretation essentially defied common sense. They pointed out that the plain meaning of “boneless” should imply the absence of bones, especially given the well-documented testimony that “boneless wings” are made from pre-butterflied, boneless chicken breasts.
“Does anyone really believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course they don’t. When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people,” the dissenting opinion reads.
The case has sparked further debate on textualism in the judiciary, particularly when common language interpretations clash with legal rationalizations. This decision adds to a series of contentious rulings by the conservative majority that seem to prioritize policy aims aligning with specific political affiliations, similar to other controversial interpretations such as federal mask mandates and presidential immunity.
For legal practitioners and corporate legal teams, this ruling serves as a stark reminder of the unpredictable nature of textualist interpretations in contemporary jurisprudence. It underscores the necessity for meticulous attention to the seemingly straightforward language in legal documents and commercial labeling.