Starbucks accused of violating Americans with Disabilities Act by charging extra for non-dairy
Starbucks accused of violating Americans with Disabilities Act by charging extra for non-dairy
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs say they are lactose intolerant, and it is medically necessary for them to avoid milk.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm severely lactose intolerant, so you know what I do? I DON'T FUCKING DRINK LATTES. A restaurant is under no obligation to give me a non-dairy substitute at no cost. If you want what a restaurant sells, buy it. If you don't like what they sell or think it's too expensive, fucking don't and get on with your life.
According to the Americans with disabilities act, they apparently are under obligation to do it.
They're under obligation to make a reasonable accommodation. They accomplish this in 2 ways. You can either order it without milk, or you can pay extra for a milk substitute.
Restaurants aren't required to provide gluten-free pasta, fake seafood, or artificial peanut products just because some people can't eat everything on the menu.
The ADA has very specific language about not charging extra for reasonable accommodations, and dietary restrictions are mentioned.
Restaurants are not required to stock ingredients for all allergies, and they are not required to order in special ingredients on request. But starbucks does stock non-dairy milks. Using the non-dairy milk that they already stock is a reasonable accommodation.
The case is based on a good faith reading of title III of the ADA. It's not unreasonable to argue that charging extra is illegal in this case.
If I can't eat beef (that's a real allergy) is a restaurant obligated to substitute lobster if they happen to serve it? The fact is, oat milk isn't milk. Milk treated with lactase is milk.
Do you have a source? My understanding was that they were under obligation to not charge for the accommodations, hence the lawsuit.
Their accommodation is having product without milk at all. Requiring them to provide an alternative ingredient isn't a reasonable accommodation when they have plenty of existing products without dairy. The customer can order one of those items.
Having a milk substitute that costs more for the establishment is going beyond what is required under the ADA, so up-charging for it is fine.
Do you have a source for that? From what I've found, food allergies are generally not considered a disability and therefore no accomodation is obligatory.
The ADA is a complex law, like all laws. Food allergies are mentioned by the ADA.
Although food allergies don't require proactive accommodation, disabled people are entitled to equal access despite their disability.
If a restaurant offers no substitutions that's fine. But if a restaurant offers substitutions but refuses it for those with allergies, that's not fine.
If a restaurant doesn't stock non-allergic ingredients it doesn't have to. But if the restaurant will stock special ingredients upon request, they must do the same for disabled customers.
In this case, starbucks DOES stock and offer non-dairy milks. Using a different milk is probably a reasonable accommodation. The ADA has rules against charging extra for reasonable accomodations.
The conclusion that starbucks charging extra is a violation of the ADA is not an unreasonable one.
It is not a violation to charge extra for an accomodation if everyone has to pay the same for that accomodation. See the link I posted previously; it mentions this explicitly. Their case is charging more for plus sized clothing. The price for that size of item is the same regardless if the person is obese or normal, so it's not discrimination. It only becomes when you charge a person more because they're lactose intolerant and give lactose tolerant people soy milk for no cost.
God bless America, sometimes
I had to scroll down a lot to find a sensible comment. Apparently having milk in your coffee is a constitutional right..
Lol your wrong about restaurants having no obligation to provide a substitute.
Fwiw: 5 minutes of searching couldn't find any proof to support this comment.
That's such a sad point of view about what you think you deserve. You should treat yourself better.
Lol wut. Why is a restaurant obligated to give you special treatment or free things? If you are allergic to peanuts are they obligated to fry their fries in a separate oil just for you??
In certain circumstances, companies are obligated to prepare food on separate surfaces or in separate oil to avoid cross contamination in case of allergies. That's what we get for caring about our countrymen and wanting them to be able to eat at restaurants.
Allergens actually do have some regulations, but I'm not sure how they work.
Spoken like a restaurant owner!
Apparently, according to you; being considerate to a section of society is trumped by maybe $1 of extra cost per item to accommodate them? What kind of a selfish ass cheapskate restaurant owner are you?
Allergies are caused by proteins, not oils generally, so peanut oil is safe for almost all people with allergies, although culturally, peanut oil just isn't that used much anymore because most businesses want money from as many people as possible and don't want to risk people's lives out of economic principles.
This is the issue with libertarianism. The argument is always an attempt at framing the conversation to an acceptable level of death in the name of expanding markets, without realizing that death actually limits markets.
Damn, sucks to be you.
Stand up for yourself instead of putting a shitty corporation above yourself.
Wont someone think of poor multinational corporation starbucks?