well-temperedforum.groupee.net The Well-Tempered Forum Off Key A Boy, A Chicken Sandwich, and a Federal CaseGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| A Boy, A Chicken Sandwich, and a Federal Case | Login/Join |
Has Achieved Nirvana |
How many times does a kid that age eat out without his parents? I bet you can count the times per month on one hand, if not one finger. I am resisting the tendency to ramp up in response to this sort of unreasonably ballistic drivel. | |||
|
| Has Achieved Nirvana |
Gee, if only there was a method of engaging in fact-finding during litigation. A way of asking questions and demanding information. | |||
|
| Has Achieved Nirvana |
The ADA requires a reasonable accommodation. Preparing food that is safe for the kid to eat is a reasonable accommodation. The ADA does not require that the kid be accommodated in the way in which he insists on being accommodated. I hope this case is taken by the Supreme Court. The restaurant will win (5-4, I'd guess), and the kid will lose. | |||
|
| Pinta & the Santa Maria Has Achieved Nirvana  |
Hey, I work with ADA a fair amount. There isn't one reasonable accommodation. There are often many, and the challenge is finding the correct one. "Correct" usually means effective, truly addressing the situation at hand, and inexpensive or free for the company to implement (no "undue hardship"). You (and the restaurant) seem to have landed on the notion that the restaurant's offer to prepare their on gf meal was the only reasonable accommodation out there. There was at least one other--let the kid bring in his sandwich. The restaurant, imo, made a stupid error by sticking to their guns over what was a trivial situation in the big picture. It's not at all clear to me that the restaurant would win. It is on the employer to provide the reasonable accommodation. Seems like the restaurant wasn't exactly reasonable. I don't see how they would suffer "undue hardship" by letting this kid eat his sandwich in the dining room. What is interesting, though, is that most restaurants and other public areas' requirements for ADA have to do with access (ramps, elevators, yada yada). Private restaurants aren't required to provide access--they just have to decide if they're willing to lose the business (and possibly suffer a black eye in the PR world). I'm unaware of any ADA issue that has been raised relative to whether a restaurant must accommodate dietary restrictions. That part will be interesting. Here's the argument for the restaurant winning: Can an observant Jew sue a restaurant for not having a Kosher kitchen when they come to dine? Hmmm, now I'm talking myself into multiple points of view  | |||
|
| Has Achieved Nirvana |
No, I pointed out that there were other alternatives, too. The kid's the one who is assuming there is one and only one possible accommodation. And, as far as I am aware, and I've worked with the ADA too, the ADA does not require an establishment to offer the patron a choice of reasonable accommodations. They are required to offer a reasonable accommodation.
Please try to remember who's on the Supreme Court.
Well, that might be the source of our disagreement. As I understand the ADA, the restaurant doesn't have to be reasonable, only the accommodation has to be reasonable. Serving food that the kid can eat seems like a reasonable accommodation. It's not the only possible reasonable accommodation, and allowing him to eat his sandwich is another, but I can find no language in the ADA requiring a restaurant to offer the one single accommodation that the patron requests, as long as it's reasonable.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the "undue hardship" standard only comes into play if the restaurant refuses to provide a reasonable accommodation. Is that incorrect? So, we're back to whether offering a gluten-free meal is a reasonable accommodation.
There's also state law, which can impose a higher authority (yes, I'm riffing on the Hebrew National commercials of our youth). | |||
|
Minor Deity |
The difference for me is that the kid was on a school trip. If not for that I'd side with the restaurant.
| |||
|
| Has Achieved Nirvana |
I am curious. In what way is the type of trip the kid is on relevant to the restaurant? If anything, I can see how the school might be liable ... if they didn't arrange to take the kid to a place where he could eat (although, yeah, he could). But I don't see how the restaurant's liability changes if the kid is there on a school field trip, versus there with his soccer team. | |||
|
Has Achieved Nirvana |
Quirt - I don’t think Bernard is arguing the law. More like his judgement of the relative douchbaggery of the parties involved.
| |||
|
| Has Achieved Nirvana |
How does that change if the kid's on a field trip, versus with his soccer team? | |||
|
| Minor Deity |
Ditto soccer team, as long as he's still a kid. Any underage group outing.
| |||
|
| Has Achieved Nirvana |
 | |||
|
| Does This Avatar Make My Butt Look Big? Minor Deity  |
I don't want to speak for Bernard, but I will. It matters that it was a school trip because it was not the patron's choice (i.e. the kid) to go there. I don't eat meat by choice, but let's say I actually have a disability (like I was in an accident and now have dietary limitations). If I go to a steakhouse, they may not have a vegetarian option that I like. Do they have to let me bring in my own vegetarian lasagna to eat there? Of course not. I have options, like getting up to leave and selecting a different restaurant in the first place. This child was on a school trip AND being at that restaurant was part of the educational experience. As I read the article, it was one of those places where you pay a fee for a meal and some re-enactment of historical events. Now, does the ADA require the restaurant to fix a special meal for everyone with a dietary restriction? Probably not. Does the ADA require the restaurant to let the kid bring what he can eat? I agree with Nina. There are several reasonable accommodations that might solve the problem, including having the restaurant fix the meal or letting the kid bring some food. Letting the kid bring some food does not cost the restaurant extra money or staff or food costs or time or *anything.* Geez-o-flip, if anything, the restaurant *saves* money if the kid eats his sandwich because that is one less meal they have to provide. And I also agree with Steve about it being nuts that courts have to deal with cases like this. But stupid people/companies will always be with us, so we have to have courts to keep them in line. | |||
|
| Does This Avatar Make My Butt Look Big? Minor Deity |
One more thing, for those interested in arguing the law. It looks like this thread is about to spiral into a nit-picky, circular, annoying argue-fest, like so many others do on this board. I think we can avoid all of that. I do not think any competent attorney, had they been consulted before the restaurant acted as it did, would advise the restaurant to tell the kid he couldn't eat his sandwich alongside his classmates. No, a competent attorney would not be thinking about the current composition of the Supreme Court or anything like that. A competent attorney would tell the restaurant that what the kid is proposing is a reasonable accommodation. A competent attorney might also add that it is *WAY* better that the kid brings his own food than if we prepare something and he gets sick -- then we really may have some exposure. | |||
|
What Life? |
Did one of those class trips w the historical experience, meals etc. The place does these for schools every week all year long. We had a kid w peanut allergies along. There was no special meal w his name on it, the teachers ask, the staff said the entire meal was peanut free. His reaction started within 15 min of the meal and he went off in an ambulance because even w an epipen on hand, that is district policy. So, yeah, I think the restaurant could have reasonably accommodated that one kid. I cant read the actual article so I dont know how blatant the kid was about waving his food around. Is it his RIGHT ? No. Would it have been sensible to allow it? Oh yeah
| |||
|
Has Achieved Nirvana |
Exactly. But the SC arguments will be different if it comes to that. At issue here is the God-Given right of a restaurant owner to wring every single nickel of profit out of every individual who occupies space in his restaurant. Never mind the fact the kid went out of his way not to inconvenience the kitchen. Gorsuch is gonna eat this up.
| |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
well-temperedforum.groupee.net The Well-Tempered Forum Off Key A Boy, A Chicken Sandwich, and a Federal Case