https://www.washingtonpost.com...1KPqNU&noredirect=on

I think this ruling is wrong, for one reason only: the restaurant was willing to cook him a gluten-free meal. He just didn't trust them to do it properly (even though they had a history of being able to accommodate gluten-free diners).

I am of mixed minds here. His disability is severe, and I don't blame him for being unwilling to trust the restaurant to not goof up. On the other hand, restaurants do accommodate all sorts of dietary restrictions. It seems like there was a solution here, which the restaurant offered.

I don't know what the restaurant was going to serve him, but it seems easy enough to cook a gluten-free meal.

What does seem stupid, though, is that the restaurant made a frickin' huge deal out of this. Had they just let him and his sandwich in, there would have been no issue, no lawsuit, no potential "loss of control" of their food. People need to lighten up. The courts are a horrible place to resolve this type of thing.

On the other hand, if the kid didn't trust them, he could have just not eaten.

He had choices. Let them cook food for him. Eat his own food outside. Eat later.

The only choice acceptable to him was my food, on your premises. Changes your rules for me.

The kid was the one with no willingness to compromise.

What restaurant would be so pedantic about this? Not like a family bringing their own food, but a group of 60 and one kid has a brown bag? Seriously?

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
What restaurant would be so pedantic about this? Not like a family bringing their own food, but a group of 60 and one kid has a brown bag? Seriously?

You've fallen into a typical left-wing trap. They could have been nicer, therefore it's against the law.

Their restaurant, their rules.

They aren't required to do exactly what the kid wants them to do. They are required to accommodate his disability, and they offered to do that. They're prepared to cook gluten-free food. They've done it before without incident.

The only accommodation the kid would accept was his way.

(And I will note that a lot of this could have been avoided if the parents had thought to call ahead and ASK. It's a lot easier to work something out when you aren't forced to do it on the spot, in the heat of the moment. They could have, for example, had food on hand that everyone would agree had zero risk of contamination. Or they could have told the parents what they do to ensure no contamination.)

Actually, I didn't Quirt. Nowhere did I say they've broken the law. I was just surprised they'd do this in the first place.


Imagine you own a restaurant. 60 kids come in as for a prearranged meal. One has a brown bag, and the teacher says he has allergies.

Would you really go interrogate the kid about the allergies and push back? Or would you go serve 59 meals and be happy for the business?

I had a feeling you’d say that. If that’s what you meant, you only said half of it. It seemed a reasonable assumption.

Ahem.

quote:

What does seem stupid, though, is that the restaurant made a frickin' huge deal out of this. Had they just let him and his sandwich in, there would have been no issue, no lawsuit, no potential "loss of control" of their food. People need to lighten up. The courts are a horrible place to resolve this type of thing.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the restaurant’s reaction actually was?

It could vary from a stormtrooper reaction to a polite, “I’m sorry, we don’t allow outside food, but we’d be delighted to make something gluten-free for you.”

Asking, since clearly some people are assuming the former.

Media coverage: https://www.courthousenews.com...ds-gluten-free-meal/

4th Circuit opinion: (had to edit link - this case is the first one in the search results)

http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.go...3059/-datetime/sort/

Original link, doesn't work correctly.

http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.go...-a3d973d1e71f/1/doc/

One item from the opinion:

quote:

Shields Tavern has a policy against allowing outside food into its restaurant. This
policy is subject to two general exceptions: (1) parents may bring baby food or snacks for infants and toddlers, and (2) patrons may bring cakes and wine for events subject to a plating and corkage fee. Shields Tavern also appears to allow outside food at the discretion of the manager.

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Media coverage: https://www.courthousenews.com...ds-gluten-free-meal/

4th Circuit opinion: http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.go...-a3d973d1e71f/1/doc/

One item from the opinion:

quote:

Shields Tavern has a policy against allowing outside food into its restaurant. This
policy is subject to two general exceptions: (1) parents may bring baby food or snacks for infants and toddlers, and (2) patrons may bring cakes and wine for events subject to a plating and corkage fee. Shields Tavern also appears to allow outside food at the discretion of the manager.

And that's why hard facts make bad law.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
What restaurant would be so pedantic about this? Not like a family bringing their own food, but a group of 60 and one kid has a brown bag? Seriously?

I wondered the same thing, and wonder if this is some vigilante group trying to make a point.

The ADA requires reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities.

Letting a kid with a food allergies eat his own food seems like a reasonable accommodation.

Letting the kid go to the restaurant kitchen and make his own food would also work.

What doesn’t work under the ADA is telling the disabled patron to eat outside.

Yes, the accommodation of letting people bring in food is subject to abuse, but many accommodations are.

I’m glad the kid sued. The restaurant was beyond ridiculous.

EDIT: Wait, the kid paid to be in the restaurant?

So the restaurant wasn’t going to lose a penny by letting him eat his sandwich?

Good lord.

And I think it is nuts to blame the kids parents. The kid brought a sandwich. What are the parents supposed to do? Try to find out each place the kid might eat, then try to reach someone at the restaurant beforehand? Good luck with that.

One more thing.

We don’t know that the restaurant has made other gluten free food “without incident.” And the restaurant doesn’t know either. If someone gets an improperly prepared gluten free meal and gets sick, the restaurant might not even learn about it. And if the patron complained, the restaurant would probably say something else the person ate was the problem.

Is this restaurant really training their minimum wage food prep staff on the finer points of gluten free food preparation? I doubt it.

What annoys me is that the courts have to get involved in adjudicating this level of stupid.