१ जून, २०१६
Blind man sues McDonald's for its no-pedestrians-at-the-drive-thru policy.
He can't drive because he's blind, so he's arguing that a policy enforced against all pedestrians at the drive-thru window is discriminating against him. Federal law requires reasonable accommodations for the disabled, and the restaurant has hours when there is only drive-thru service available, so the man isn't able to come inside to order.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
And McDonald's liability when someone gets run over at the drive-thru window is.....
This is what happens when Scientific Progressives are allowed to work as lawyers.
"Magee's brother Emmett, who is also represented by Costales, last year sued Coca-Cola in Louisiana in a similar case about soda machines."
So his brother is blind, too?
What drunken teenager hasn't tried to walk up to the drive-through making car noises and order food? It seemed like an overlawyered blog post until I got to the end. This outlet has drive-through-only hours, he can't drive because he's handicapped, ergo he is discriminated against.
I say it survives a motion to dismiss.
Does the word "reasonable" in "reasonable accommodations" have no meaning? Or did I answer my own question?
Obviously if they start serving pedestrians at the drive thru, the first one to get accidentally run over is going to sue for enabling such a hazard.
Blind guy walking into an area with cars where pedestrians are not expected? What could go wrong.
"And McDonald's liability when someone gets run over at the drive-thru window is....."
The requested accommodation is: The man is allowed to phone in an order and a worker brings it out to him when he arrives.
I don't like lawsuits like this, but, seriously, why doesn't the particular restaurant just accommodate him? It's not necessary to go all rules-are-rules on a blind person. It's normal human instinct to do something to help. Why not just do it?
Maybe the window-only idea deals with a crime problem in the area at night and they're afraid that if one pedestrian can call and get a worker to come to the door, the door will be forced in for some criminal activity that isn't possible through the window.
What you said at 1:37 PM. The McDonalds is in Chicago.
It does appear that this family makes a living by suing.
Crazy. Do they want to stay in business? If they do, they need more common sense in dealing with customers. You get a blind customer, you make accommodation. Send somebody outside to take care of him.
Don't know if he can sue them, but who wants that kind of restaurant?
Is there a safety issue that keeps employees from going outside after the dining room doors are locked? They may know him and recognize him but they won't know everyone who calls asking for them to unlock the door and come outside.
Not quite, Althouse. The article actually says: "Costales [plantiff's lawyer] said the burger chain could fix the problem by installing a phone that allows customers with disabilities to call in their orders from outside the restaurant, Costales said. Orders could then be brought out to those customers by staff, he said."
So they'd have to install the phone first. Then someone on the staff would have to venture outside, give him his food, accept payment, make change, get robbed, etc.
"Magee's brother Emmett, who is also represented by Costales, last year sued Coca-Cola in Louisiana in a similar case about soda machines. Though that case was thrown out, it is now being appealed."
Rapidly losing all sympathy.
The requested accommodation is: The man is allowed to phone in an order and a worker brings it out to him when he arrives.
How does he prove ON the phone that he is the extra special blind guy and entitled to this accommodation as compared to anyone else who just wants to avoid the hassle of driving and waiting at the drive through? How will McDonald's avoid being exploited and abused by others for this service thereby creating extra work for the employees and delays at the drive through for the rest of the population.
The answer is, of course, to punish everyone because of this one guy who feels entitled to extra special service and close the drive through to everyone. Just like the trans bathroom stupidity.
Inconvenience everyone, cause all kinds of economic harm to businesses by having to remodel or close restrooms, put other people in danger, make everyone uncomfortable and make everyone else change their lives and morals to cater to a minuscule minority.
The requested accommodation is: The man is allowed to phone in an order and a worker brings it out to him when he arrives.
Well shit..I want car service too..and if they won't give it to me, I'll sue and say they are discriminating against me because I'm not blind.
I don't like lawsuits like this, but, seriously, why doesn't the particular restaurant just accommodate him? It's not necessary to go all rules-are-rules on a blind person. It's normal human instinct to do something to help. Why not just do it?
I see that two minutes of thought gave you a likely answer as to why not just do it. That is two minutes more thought than most jurors seem capable of. How much will it cost the franchise owner to defend their reasonable practice, even assuming they prevail?
After they close the dining room and are drive-through only, how many employees are there? There's the one who take the order, at least one cook, and the one who passes the order out to you. I doubt there are too many extra workers standing around waiting for something to do. Which one should have to stop doing what they're doing to take an order outside?
Has anyone here worked in food service? Or at a fast food place?
This is a nightmare in every way. Try calling your local Wendys - nobody will pick up the phone because they are all busy and the phone is in the back. If the manager has a phone on their belt they will not pick it up unless it is the owner or the next shift manager.
Then imagine who carries the food outside, wait, they need the money first, wait, he wants extra napkins. And on each trip locking the door, etc.
Why can't Blindy McBlinder come in? Because then you have to clean up the dining area again and turn on all the customer lighting. Then he wants the bathroom, etc, etc.
Heck, the guy can probably get McDonalds to pay for a pizza delivery just to leave them alone.
_XC
On one hand, he sounds like an ambulance chaser. On the other hand, they could have reasonably accommodated him given his circumstances.
Inconvenience everyone, ..... to cater to a minuscule minority.
But it's all about the feels DBQ...
McDonald's is being a big ole meanie....and if a few restaurants have to get robbed so people can feel better about themselves...what difference does it make?
Here's an accommodation:
Guy calls Uber. Uber drives him through the drive-through. Problem solved.
There are clearly too many lawyers. The policy was made to avoid lawsuits from pedestrians getting hit by cars. Now they are getting sued for not allowing a blind person, who could just walk to the counter, to enter an area they will get sued if he gets hit in.
We need to start rounding them up.
"Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I don't like lawsuits like this, but, seriously, why doesn't the particular restaurant just accommodate him? It's not necessary to go all rules-are-rules on a blind person. It's normal human instinct to do something to help. Why not just do it?"
I'm sure the issue is that insurance won't cover the liability.
"Ann Althouse said...
"And McDonald's liability when someone gets run over at the drive-thru window is....."
The requested accommodation is: The man is allowed to phone in an order and a worker brings it out to him when he arrives."
How do they know the person is blind over the telephone?
I don't agree that this lawsuit is reasonable, but how different is it from any other disproportional (or disparate) impact claim?
"but, seriously, why doesn't the particular restaurant just accommodate him? It's not necessary to go all rules-are-rules on a blind person. It's normal human instinct to do something to help. Why not just do it?" But, seriously, why don't law profs try to run an actual business and deal with actual grifters, instead of lecturing other people what to do? It's not necessary to go all-humanitarian just-help-it's-human-instinct. Why not not set a positive example?
Psychiatrists recommend:
“People with disabilities are individuals with families, jobs, hobbies, likes and dislikes, and problems and joys. While the disability is an integral part of who they are, it alone does not define them. Don’t make them into disability heroes or victims. Treat them as individuals”
"I don't like lawsuits like this, but, seriously, why doesn't the particular restaurant just accommodate him? It's not necessary to go all rules-are-rules on a blind person. It's normal human instinct to do something to help. Why not just do it?"
***********
I'm surprised Althouse didn't come right out and say, "The restaurant acted stupidly".
Never mind that every sort of lowlife gets wind of that number and calls in for special service. How the EFF is the person in the restaurant supposed to know over the phone that the caller is blind?
I hope loses badly.
Althouse said...
"I don't like lawsuits like this, but, seriously, why doesn't the particular restaurant just accommodate him? "
For fucks sake. Are you going to answer the phone for the restaurant? You people are ridiculous. You have no idea what it is like running a business. "Why don't they just accommodate him." Seriously we have to accommodate EVERYONE. And we pay most of the taxes that prop up the governments at all levels.
And the tax that is assessed specifically in this case is the lawyer tax. Seriously Lawyers add negative value to this economy. You are everywhere attacking people who actually produce things and add value to peoples lives. We would be so much better off without lawyers.
Here is another issue. If he is BLIND and the restaurant is closed at night other than a drive through......how is the blind guy getting safely to the restaurant? Mabye we need to have a special taxi service to drive him so he won't be inconvenienced by a Big Mac Attack at 11 pm. ANYthing for you Sir!!!
The liability and danger to the employees by having them go outside at night, with money, with food, opening and closing the door where there is also cash inside the building....completely outweighs the desire of some guy to be catered to after restaurant hours.
Yes, sometimes there is Law or Regulation which requires something, and another Law or Regulation which prohibits the identical thing. Not surprisingly, happens when the solution to every problem is to write another law.
Hammond scores his elected Legislators by the number of laws repealed during the past session, not by the number of laws passed. Since implementing this plan, no Legislator has received an acceptable grade.
It's called Drive thru. It doesn't discriminate against him because there isn't a restriction on him driving. He could get his daughter to drive. He could be a passenger and order food while someone else drives. In short there are plenty of ways for him to get access to the drive thru. I for example dint own a car. Can I use the drive thru? Well If I walked through they would probably say no. But my family has a car and so if we needed to go through the drive thru, they'd probably be driving.
Oh, and there is a way to access food without going through drive thru. Like say walking into the restaurant.
The drive thru also has a speaker system where they ask " can I help you?" What if you are deaf. And can't hear the question. What then?!?!
What if you're mute and can't respond. How will they know what you're trying to order. What if you're deaf dumb and blind, like Tommy. But can play a mean pinball. What then?!?!?
What if you have no legs? And have to crawl to the drive thru? Shouldn't we accommodate you? What if you're the guy from My Left Foot and only your left foot works? But you don't want to be driven around so your brother lugs you around In a wheel barrow. Should we accommodate the My Left Foot guy?
What if you're mute and can't respond. How will they know what you're trying to order. What if you're deaf dumb and blind, like Tommy. But can play a mean pinball. What then?!?!?
That made me laugh :-D
Thanks for really point out the absurdity.
"The requested accommodation is: The man is allowed to phone in an order and a worker brings it out to him when he arrives."
That does not really sound reasonable, considering the way most fast food joints work. At late nights with skeleton staffs, having anyone field phone orders, going outside (where crime can be a problem--one of the justifications for not opening the inside of the place to customers that late) and verifying the customer and making change--that could be quite unreasonable for a shoestring business like a fast food joint.
Here's a reasonable accommodation--eat something healthy at home.
The reasonable accommodation is: eat in the restaurant when the main dining area is open.
There are many things a blind person just can't do and, while I don't doubt that might be frustrating, not being able to obtain service from drive-up windows seems a mighty small one. Why, some businesses don't even offer drive-up service!
"It's normal human instinct to do something to help. Why not just do it?"
That was my initial reaction, but there's a big difference between thinking another should do X and forcing another to do X because I think he should.
One of the employees going outside to deliver the food opens up a whole set of problems. It is not a reasonable accommodation.
I suppose the restaurant could have both drive-thru and a walk-up windows, but they would have to be in separate areas which would be difficult to manage with a skeleton crew if there is any significant traffic. The arrangement might be difficult since fast food restaurants tend to be ringed by the drive-thru. The walk-up traffic would probably be insufficient to justify the cost, not to mention the security concerns of pedestrians vs. cars.
Ann, you're assuming that the blind guy really wants an accommodation. He doesn't. His brother sued Coca-Cola over vending machines using the same attorney. Get a clue, already. If you accommodate him on this, he'll just find something else to sue over, and then something after that, and so on, until you pay him off. This is just using the legal system as an extortion tool. The fact that his attorney wasn't instantly disbarred for bringing this case or the one against Coca-Cola is one reason why lawyer jokes are so popular.
If he knocked on the door and they didn't let him in, and that was corporate policy, to not let anybody in under any circumstances whatever, and after talking to McDonalds, they refused to budge? Otherwise this seems like more fucking lawyerly scumbaggery to me.
"It's not necessary to go all rules-are-rules on a blind person."
~ Said the lawyer.
Seriously, if you want society to run itself by a common-sense, rules-are-more-suggestions, then you've probably got to wipe out 90% of the lawyer class. Otherwise the above is the predator telling the prey that there's nothing wrong with stepping away from the herd just for a little while.
You're asking employees, managers, owners,companies, et. al to take the risk of bankruptcy that your own kind will thrust upon them, because he itsjustthisonce!
Kinda like "if you see something, say something... unless it's an arab with a fake bomb 'clock', in which case we'll smear you in the national news and sue you for more than you'll make in a lifetime."
Jeff said...
" Ann, you're assuming that the blind guy really wants an accommodation. He doesn't. His brother sued Coca-Cola over vending machines using the same attorney."
This attorney and these people are despicable. But calling an attorney despicable is redundant.
"Guy calls Uber. Uber drives him through the drive-through. Problem solved."
Exactly. Not everyone who goes through the drive-thru is driving, but they are all in an auto. Not sure how this guy proves discrimination.
Anyone remember drive-in movies?
I wonder how many people claimed "discrimination" because they didn't have cars?
And suppose I'm a quadriplegic and I get a hankering for a Big Mac.
Wouldn't it be a "reasonable accommodation" for Mickey D's to drive it over to him?
Sebastian at 1:57 PM
.... why don't law profs try to run an actual business and deal with actual grifters, instead of lecturing other people what to do?
Well put.
Many lawyers are parasitical, blood-sucking leeches on the economy.
We allow people who can see to drive cars and we don’t allow blind people to drive cars? That’s discrimination. Either we provide blind people with free car service or all people should be forced to use public transportation.
Every hour of lawyers time would pay for how many uber or cab rides?
jr565
What if you're mute and can't respond. .... What if you have no legs? And have to crawl to the drive thru? Shouldn't we accommodate you? What if you're the guy from My Left Foot and only your left foot works? But you don't want to be driven around so your brother lugs you around In a wheel barrow. ....
Some leech-on-the-economy lawyer would require McDonald's to accommodate Joe Bonham, the protagonist of Dalton Trumbo's novel Johnny Got His Gun.
Here is the Wikipedia summary:
Joe Bonham, a young American soldier serving in World War I, awakens in a hospital bed after being caught in the blast of an exploding artillery shell. He gradually realizes that he has lost his arms, legs, and all of his face (including his eyes, ears, teeth, and tongue), but that his mind functions perfectly, leaving him a prisoner in his own body.
Joe attempts suicide by suffocation, but finds that he had been given a tracheotomy which he can neither remove nor control. .... Joe successfully communicates these desires with military officials by banging his head on his pillow in Morse code.
I have walked through the drive-through of McDonalds a few times. I had been biking, backpacking or running and did not want to subject patrons to my sweaty, stinky self. The teller thought I was weird, but gave me no problems.
In the old days we used to hit him with a spotlight and announce "blind guy with money" on the loudspeaker. The problem was always sorted out quickly.
"It's normal human instinct to do something to help."
A poor use of the word instinct. How many people have you instinctively helped this year? Helping others is a learned behavior not an instinct, in some places trying to help will get you killed.
I used to say I'd rather my neighbor grab a lawyer than a shotgun if he has a dispute with me, but stories like this are making the shotgun look like the more honorable and least risky option of the two.
Yeah, right on, why not just give in to each and every demand any tiny minority might make? Why the fuck not? Why not do whatever some third party with no skin in the game FEELS must be the nice thing? Why give a shit about your own profit, or liability, or worker safety? Yeah,obviously the people getting sued are the assholes, not the guy who brought the suit. Normal ideas about who is the aggressor are weirdly inverted in law professor land...but we already knew that.
Hey, just wondering: how many blind people are there in the US vs how many transgendered children in public schools???
Just kidding. Give in! It is the anti-Churchill motto, it is the only nice thing to do. Always give in, always acquiesce to whatever demands a person or group sympathetic to the Left demands. Pay that Danegeld! Problem solved.
What a coincidence, by the way, that the people who are required (by the Professor's idea of decency and niceness) to give in are always the people the Left opposes!
The people asking the religious bakers to make a cake for their gay wedding could have easily moved on to another bakery. The transgender people could have easily kept doing what they have presumably been doing for years w/r/t the bathroom. No one needed to make a big deal about it, to "make a federal case" of it, etc. Wouldn't that have been the simple thing for a tiny minority to do? To realize they are in the minority and. Of demand that everyone else be forced to adopt the values and mores of the minority under threat of law? Isn't that the most reasonable accommodation???
No, nope, doesn't work that way. If the Left wants something and the Right doesn't surrender, the Right is mean and unreasonable. If the Right wants something and the Left disagrees, why, it is a matter of individual dignity and by God the majority (or more often the minority) must be heard!
Why the fuck is it never the other fellow's obligation to be reasonable, Althouse? You embrace this ratchet that only allows movement in one direction, and in the meantime you curse anyone who disagrees as unreasonable, hateful,etc.
The ones that offer drive-thru-only in the wee hours should close earlier and put up signs on the doors and the drive-thru windows saying, "Due to a lawsuit by Scott Magee, accusing us of discrimination, we have had to discontinue this late-night convenience for everyone. If you wish to register your unhappiness with this decision, please contact his lawyer, Roberto Luis Costales, at [phone number of law office and, if available, home number as well]."
I see this guy getting some extra "special sauce" next time.
"Special orders don't upset us!"
The same man, who apparently has 20/200 vision, and the same ambulance chaser, sorry, lawyer, filed another ADA lawsuit in Louisiana against Winn Dixie and sought class action status. Their complaint? Winn Dixie has water machines that one can use to fill your own container. There is no way for a blind person to tell when your own container is filled (seriously, this is what the complaint says) and there is no attendant to fill your container for you. Ergo, ADA violation.
What a crock.
And I agree there is no reasonable way for a fast food restaurant to accommodate pedestrians once the restaurant is closed except for drive-through traffic in vehicles. After that closing time, get a ride in a car or go somewhere else. A disability does not empower one to some special treatment. It is supposed to only allow equal treatment. So, no walk-up service? OK, that includes sighted customers, wheelchair customers, blind customers, ethnic minority transgender free-range pro-gorilla Libertarians customers in thongs, etc.
Some people have anxiety or other mental health disorders and are claimed by the presence of their small, well behaved dogs. The airline policy that only seeing eye dogs are allowed is mean and too rules-focused. Why not take the reasonable accommodation route and let the poor lady bring her little snookums on the plane?
Cut to one year later and there's a fucking llama behind me in coach. Thanks, assholes.
Uuuh, why not be niiiice?
Why not run your own business and put up with that kind of shit? No, o, you are right, after to judge from afar the businesspeople who actually have to make the decisions and live with the consequences. Much better.
BTW, before I retired and escaped a large, urban area, there was a well-known ADA troll, who would haunt martial arts studios and schools. He was morbidly obese and in a wheelchair, but would ask to sign up for lessons, in judo, karate, jiu jitsu and the like. He would also ask to see the bathrooms and changing rooms "to see if he could use them", but actually just to document any supposed issues with code. He and his pet lawyer would file lawsuit after lawsuit and shake down the businesses, usually for around $10 grand a pop to go away. Any number of well meaning instructors would try to tell this 350 pound whale that maybe judo wasn't his sport and that he risked injury, not realizing they were just playing into the man's business plan. No handicapped rails in the sauna or steamroom? No wheelchair access in the women's bathroom? That kind of thing...
Which sounds like Mr-Why-Can't-I-Get-Cheeseburger-Whenever-I-Want, who cares about the business's hours.
I was returning some books at the drive-through return at the Memphis central library. There was a library employee standing there smoking a cigarette, so I got to ask a question that had been bothering me:
Me: Why are the words "drive through returns" also written in Braille here on the returns box?
Library ee (rolling eyes because DUH!): So the blind people will know where to put the books.
Me: As they drive through? In their cars?
Library ee: ?????
Screw him.
Yes tell him to order a pizza. He is just trying to get a payday.
"why doesn't the particular restaurant just accommodate him?"
Where does it stop?
new policy: No pedestrians at drive through window -- unless it is late at night and you are blind.
My opinion is that the reasonable accommodation is that they have a dining room in which the man can place an order. Just because he has somewhat fewer hours in which to place an order than people with cars is not unreasonable, any more than the fact that 99% of seating in the average sports arena is not considered accessible seating. An option is offered in both cases. Is it as expansive or generous as the options offered to other patrons? No, but then it shouldn't have to be either.
The no pedestrian policy is almost certainly there for insurance reasons. Should it be found to not be enforceable when the dining room is closed, then the likely (and simplest) solution is to just close the drive-thru when the dining room is not open. Sure workers get less hours and the business likely loses sales, but it solves this particular legal problem. The blind man still doesn't get what he wants, but at least nobody else can enjoy a late night burger if he can't.
If the restaurant is anything like the ones here, the only times in which the drive-thru is open when the dining room is not are usually the last hour of business late at night or 24-hour restaurants that for safety reasons prefer to keep the dining room locked during the wee hours. Those are not situations in which it is reasonable for an employee to leave the locked restaurant to hand-deliver a meal. The blind man himself may not intend any harm, but if any criminal elements noticed the pattern of him showing up and vulnerable employee leaving building alone, it wouldn't be that hard to take advantage.
Gold Digger,
Probably Federal or state law. My brother was a F-4 pilot in the early '80's. The squadron Ready Room had Braille on the bathroom door.
Get a horse!
I'm clinically depressed and can't get out of bed to go through the drive thru.
Bitch, bring me my BigMacs!
I am Laslo.
richlb said...
So his brother is blind, too?
"Plaintiff is legally blind."
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by Defendant, Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant is DISMISSED with prejudice.
"The requested accommodation is: The man is allowed to phone in an order and a worker brings it out to him when he arrives."
Not reasonable. Especially after dark, late hours, when most robberies occur.
Guess it's tough to be blind with no friends who'll drive you SAFELY through the drive through. Maybe he needs to get the government to force other people to be his friends.
"It's not necessary to go all rules-are-rules on a blind person."
Heh. You're perfectly willing to go "rules are rules" on forcing ten year old girls to just deal with delusional and degenerate bearded cockswingers in the community pool changing room.
Look what you people have created.
The only way this is a story is because some ill advised lawyer ran with it (you know those piranhas sitting in a wait list to sue McDonald for anything (and law school students - you are waiting on that list as we are producing WAY too many of you to be bill collectors).
@bdp:
"I have walked through the drive-through of McDonalds a few times. I had been biking, backpacking or running and did not want to subject patrons to my sweaty, stinky self. The teller thought I was weird, but gave me no problems."
If you weighed enough to activate the sensor at the speaker box, you weren't biking, backpacking or running anywhere, pal.
Some truly wonderful comments, thanks. My favorite has always been the Braille at the bank drive-through window.
The blind guy's problem here will solve itself soon as the fast food industry automates. The hike in minimum wage (and other costs of labor, like compensation for employees injured trying to help blind guys or "blind" guys demanding service after restaurant hours) plus the exponential drop in cost of robotics --> few or no people to serve customers, but lots more pretty-good phone-enabled service. He can talk on his phone, pay on his phone, the robot will assemble the modules of food-like substance, microwave the assembly, wrap it, and excrete it it into an ATM-like pass-through for his dining pleasure. Those pictures of the old Automat self-serve food places? Y
His future, coming soon.
SO much cheaper and more efficient to find this fellow suddenly dead somewhere. It leads to excesses, but in this case seems legit.
ADA, continuing the shakedown scams by lawyer scum since its inception. A simple amendment, whereby a lawsuit could only achieve "reasonable accomodation" without any award personally to the plaintiffs, and no payments made to the plaintiff's lawyer, would sure stop most of this unethical conduct.
And suppose I'm a quadriplegic and I get a hankering for a Big Mac.
Wouldn't it be a "reasonable accommodation" for Mickey D's to drive it over to [me]?
And, presumably, to hand-feed it to you, too, what with your zero functional limbs.
...
"Just send one employee outside with his food."
All y'all realize that the after-hours employees at McD's are high-school kids? And, frequently, high-school girls? And the McD's is drive-thru-only at this hour due to potential crime problems?
No, wait, you do realize that, and you don't give a crap, just like the pervs-in-the-changing-room legislation. 'Tis better to burn down an entire healthy forest to save one wilting shrub...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा