Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
McD's sued for "discrimination" against blind people at drive-thru
Topic Started: May 31 2016, 07:23 PM (1,221 Views)
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

http://www.eater.com/2016/5/31/11818730/mcdonalds-blind-lawsuit-drive-thru

The lawsuit claims "McDonald’s violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by prohibiting visually impaired pedestrians from ordering at drive-thru windows after restaurant lobbies are closed," CBS Chicago reports. The court complaint cites a specific instance in August 2015 when Magee, who is blind, attempted to order from a McDonald's drive-thru on foot after the restaurant's lobby had closed; Magee says he was refused service and the employees laughed at him. McDonald's company policy is not to serve any drive-thru customers on foot.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

Another dispatch from the bizarre "discrimination-free" world we are building.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

The blind should not be walking on the street at night, because they are more likely to be run over by a car.... Then again, they may not know it is night time........... :dunno:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Two a.m.
May 31 2016, 07:23 PM
Another dispatch from the bizarre "discrimination-free" world we are building.
Could you imagine if this were Oregon and this guy were a blind, homosexual, transgender, black person? McDonald's might as well just sign over ownership of that franchise to it.
Edited by Demagogue, May 31 2016, 07:57 PM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Now, what might happen from this idiotic suit in the real world is the rest of us may lose the privilege of going to McDonald's after the lobby closes.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Thanks to leftism nevertheless.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Hang on a moment. First is this a lawsuit for cash or access?

Now frankly I don't think a lawsuit should be the direction - this could have been handled between the individual with the entire board of directors and much more effectively but that aside, this person and other blind individuals most certainly should be able to order at a drive up if the access to the counter is closed and that should be solidified into restaurant policy along with the law.

The shift manager should have had some common sense and simple decency and permitted the transaction to take place and even assist the person if needed.

There seems to be an odd instant rejection of the issue because the word "lawsuit" comes up. There is a greater wrong here and that is what should be keyed in on.





Edited by Coast2coast, May 31 2016, 09:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
Demagogue
May 31 2016, 07:56 PM
Two a.m.
May 31 2016, 07:23 PM
Another dispatch from the bizarre "discrimination-free" world we are building.
Could you imagine if this were Oregon and this guy were a blind, homosexual, transgender, black person? McDonald's might as well just sign over ownership of that franchise to it.
Hey now...lets cease the shots across the bow there. Oregon may have its moments, but it isn't *that* bad.
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
May 31 2016, 09:07 PM
Hang on a moment. First is this a lawsuit for cash or access?

Now frankly I don't think a lawsuit should be the direction - this could have been handled between the individual with the entire board of directors and much more effectively but that aside, this person and other blind individuals most certainly should be able to order at a drive up if the access to the counter is closed and that should be solidified into restaurant policy along with the law.

The shift manager should have had some common sense and simple decency and permitted the transaction to take place and even assist the person if needed.

There seems to be an odd instant rejection of the issue because the word "lawsuit" comes up. There is a greater wrong here and that is what should be keyed in on.





Greater wrong? I guess I'm not seeing it. The lobby is closed to everyone, even sighted people. The drive through is restricted to vehicles for everyone, even sighted people. This is because it is inherently dangerous for a pedestrian to walk in the drive through lane.

So, there is no reasonable way the drive through lane can be made "blind person" accessible, without putting them in harms way. And just because you're blind, doesn't mean you have to have food made available on demand at any time or place of your choosing.

The same rules apply to people who don't have a driver's license or are unable to drive for any number of other reasons. Does the restaurant now have to keep it's lobby open all night because some people, including the blind, don't drive?

This isn't a case of discrimination unless it can be shown that the service is being provided to other people who don't drive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
May 31 2016, 09:07 PM
Hang on a moment. First is this a lawsuit for cash or access?

Now frankly I don't think a lawsuit should be the direction - this could have been handled between the individual with the entire board of directors and much more effectively but that aside, this person and other blind individuals most certainly should be able to order at a drive up if the access to the counter is closed and that should be solidified into restaurant policy along with the law.

The shift manager should have had some common sense and simple decency and permitted the transaction to take place and even assist the person if needed.

There seems to be an odd instant rejection of the issue because the word "lawsuit" comes up. There is a greater wrong here and that is what should be keyed in on.





It is dangerous for pedestrians to use the drive-thru. While it is unfortunate that blind people are unable to drive, that isn't McDonald's fault. It is simply a reality of blindness and pedestrians not being able to use the drive-thru is a reality of drive-thru safety.

McDonald's is in a no-win situation. If someone gets hit in a drive-thru, they get sued for negligence. If they keep everyone safe and limit it to cars only - as they should - they get sued for discrimination.

Like Demagogue said, the ultimate result would just be to close down the restaurant for everyone after hours depriving the employees of their hours and the customers of their food.

Thanks to frivolous lawsuits, opportunity is limited for everyone and everyone suffers.
Edited by Two a.m., Jun 1 2016, 12:58 AM.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Opinionated
May 31 2016, 10:31 PM
Coast2coast
May 31 2016, 09:07 PM
Hang on a moment. First is this a lawsuit for cash or access?

Now frankly I don't think a lawsuit should be the direction - this could have been handled between the individual with the entire board of directors and much more effectively but that aside, this person and other blind individuals most certainly should be able to order at a drive up if the access to the counter is closed and that should be solidified into restaurant policy along with the law.

The shift manager should have had some common sense and simple decency and permitted the transaction to take place and even assist the person if needed.

There seems to be an odd instant rejection of the issue because the word "lawsuit" comes up. There is a greater wrong here and that is what should be keyed in on.





Greater wrong? I guess I'm not seeing it. The lobby is closed to everyone, even sighted people. The drive through is restricted to vehicles for everyone, even sighted people. This is because it is inherently dangerous for a pedestrian to walk in the drive through lane.

So, there is no reasonable way the drive through lane can be made "blind person" accessible, without putting them in harms way. And just because you're blind, doesn't mean you have to have food made available on demand at any time or place of your choosing.

The same rules apply to people who don't have a driver's license or are unable to drive for any number of other reasons. Does the restaurant now have to keep it's lobby open all night because some people, including the blind, don't drive?

This isn't a case of discrimination unless it can be shown that the service is being provided to other people who don't drive.
What you are describing is discriminatory against a blind person. That makes the case for the plaintiff.

As for the inherent danger of the drive thru for a walk-up... that describes every intersection with or without a crosswalk.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Two a.m.
Jun 1 2016, 12:56 AM
Coast2coast
May 31 2016, 09:07 PM
Hang on a moment. First is this a lawsuit for cash or access?

Now frankly I don't think a lawsuit should be the direction - this could have been handled between the individual with the entire board of directors and much more effectively but that aside, this person and other blind individuals most certainly should be able to order at a drive up if the access to the counter is closed and that should be solidified into restaurant policy along with the law.

The shift manager should have had some common sense and simple decency and permitted the transaction to take place and even assist the person if needed.

There seems to be an odd instant rejection of the issue because the word "lawsuit" comes up. There is a greater wrong here and that is what should be keyed in on.





It is dangerous for pedestrians to use the drive-thru. While it is unfortunate that blind people are unable to drive, that isn't McDonald's fault. It is simply a reality of blindness and pedestrians not being able to use the drive-thru is a reality of drive-thru safety.

McDonald's is in a no-win situation. If someone gets hit in a drive-thru, they get sued for negligence. If they keep everyone safe and limit it to cars only - as they should - they get sued for discrimination.

Like Demagogue said, the ultimate result would just be to close down the restaurant for everyone after hours depriving the employees of their hours and the customers of their food.

Thanks to frivolous lawsuits, opportunity is limited for everyone and everyone suffers.
If McDonalds wants to advertise "after lobby hours access unless you are blind than too bad so sad for your condition" then they should do so in a jingle.

Its already the policy; which in that case is discriminatory.

And no, you don't have to limit access for all in order to block a blind person. You just have to appreciate the condition and do something right about it.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

One of the interesting things about this case is that it shows the rather substantial change in the way we've come to view the very concept of "discrimination." We used to understand discrimination as one party directly denying benefits to another party due to some characteristic the latter possesses which engenders ill will, bigotry or animus in the former.

But our modern conception of discrimination is markedly different - and far more all encompassing. Today, we define it as virtually any action which might deny a benefit to someone with a given characteristic - even if said denial is completely incidental to a totally neutral policy and no ill will, bigotry or animus is present at all. Even the most ardent foe of discrimination in 1960 would have thought this blind litigant's claim ludicrous since McDonalds' policy clearly wasn't set up to deprive blind people of late night Big Macs. It is merely an unavoidable effect of a completely neutral and reasonable policy. There are shades of the recent Elauf Supreme Court decision here. The Court fully agreed that Elauf's potential employer had no animus toward Muslims. But - rather ridiculously - the majority still ruled that the employer's completely neutral and reasonable policy on headwear might disadvantage a Muslim so it was still "discrimination."

In modern America, you can now be convicted of discrimination even when you can clearly establish no intent to discriminate.

Want to know what sort of bitterness is driving Donald Trump? Here's a good object lesson.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Two a.m.
Jun 1 2016, 02:11 AM
One of the interesting things about this case is that it shows the rather substantial change in the way we've come to view the very concept of "discrimination." We used to understand discrimination as one party directly denying benefits to another party due to some characteristic the latter possesses which engenders ill will, bigotry or animus in the former.

But our modern conception of discrimination is markedly different - and far more all encompassing. Today, we define it as virtually any action which might deny a benefit to someone with a given characteristic - even if said denial is completely incidental to a totally neutral policy and no ill will, bigotry or animus is present at all. Even the most ardent foe of discrimination in 1960 would have thought this blind litigant's claim ludicrous since McDonalds' policy clearly wasn't set up to deprive blind people of late night Big Macs. It is merely an unavoidable effect of a completely neutral and reasonable policy. There are shades of the recent Elauf Supreme Court decision here. The Court fully agreed that Elauf's potential employer had no animus toward Muslims. But - rather ridiculously - the majority still ruled that the employer's completely neutral and reasonable policy on headwear might disadvantage a Muslim so it was still "discrimination."

In modern America, you can now be convicted of discrimination even when you can clearly establish no intent to discriminate.

Want to know what sort of bitterness is driving Donald Trump? Here's a good object lesson.
First of all I'm calling "foul" to the Trump thing you ended with. What drives the Trump manure is exclusion, not inclusion.

Now, if you prefer, remove discrimination and call it "inequity".

The case here is still one of (in your words not, your whole statement) "...denying benefits to another party due to some characteristic the latter possesses..." in this case blindness. I'm touched that McDonalds holds no ill will against the blind, now perhaps they can do better.

There are certain thing that a blind person in 2016 cannot do. Drive for instance. But what they can do is eat a burger and a "not that we don't welcome you but no blind after hours" policy should not be an acceptable exclusion.

McDonalds added the fish sandwich for dietary reasons, in particular no meat on Fridays. They didn't say too bad, don't eat here on Friday - they found an accommodation. Willingness to consider some accommodation for special needs but not others is discrim... sorry an inequity.

Keep in mind, I don't support a lawsuit, just a wrong being corrected and the right thing being done.







Edited by Coast2coast, Jun 1 2016, 04:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

Coast2Coast
 
First of all I'm calling "foul" to the Trump thing you ended with. What drives the Trump manure is exclusion, not inclusion.

What's driving Trump - in part - is a backlash toward left-wing policies that seem to place "inclusion" above virtually every other value in society from religious liberty to freedom of speech to the importance of meritocracy. Moreover, that inclusion has turned out to be remarkably exclusive - even vindictive - when it comes to certain groups - particularly white heterosexual Christian males who feel increasingly besieged by a society that doesn't seem to value their input into the national conversation.

Now, if you prefer, remove discrimination and call it "inequity".

The case here is still one of (in your words not, your whole statement) "...denying benefits to another party due to some characteristic the latter possesses..." in this case blindness. I'm touched that McDonalds holds no ill will against the blind, now perhaps they can do better.

Their policy at present is entirely rational and completely non-discriminatory unless one views it as discrimination to limit drive-thrus designed specifically for cars to only serving people who are driving them.

There are certain thing that a blind person in 2016 cannot do. Drive for instance. But what they can do is eat a burger and a "not that we don't welcome you but no blind after hours" policy should not be an acceptable exclusion.

No such exclusion exists. McDonald's has no policy prohibiting the blind from eating at the restaurant at any time of day or night. They have DO a policy that during certain hours only the portion of their restaurant serving vehicles remains open. Blind people are not prohibited from being in vehicles. They can get a ride with a friend or family member. If this is not possible for a given individual, that's regrettable but it is - bluntly - not McDonald's problem. McDonald's is under no more requirement to find a blind person a ride than it is for me if my car is out of gas or in the shop. That's my difficulty to solve, not theirs. If I do not have enough money to pay for one of the restaurant's menu items, I can't demand that they give me free hamburgers to avoid discriminating against the economically disadvantaged.

Restaurants have policies for the safety of customers, employees and guests. As long as those policies aren't maliciously targeted at any particular group, then they aren't discriminatory. That members of a given group might be affected unintentionally by a given policy is not discriminatory. It is simply the unavoidable reality of the way life operates sometimes. There might be many reasons I can't have a burger at three in the morning. Maybe I'm drunk or broke or my car is in the shop or the restaurant is closed. Whatever the case, I need to learn to live with disappointment. Not everything bad in my life is the fault of someone else's failure to accommodate my needs.

McDonalds added the fish sandwich for dietary reasons, in particular no meat on Fridays. They didn't say too bad, don't eat here on Friday - they found an accommodation. Willingness to consider some accommodation for special needs but not others is discrim... sorry an inequity.

They found a way to make a profit on Fridays by boosting sales with a new menu item. This wasn't a grand moral choice or a way to be inclusive. It also wasn't in response to any sort of discrimination any more than their disastrous attempts at McPizza or the Arch Deluxe. It was a way of generating more money which is why McDonald's exists. It worked. If it hadn't made money, it would have been discontinued.

Keep in mind, I don't support a lawsuit, just a wrong being corrected and the right thing being done.

The only wrong here was a universe which made an individual blind, not a company policy that requires cars in a drive-thru.

Edited by Two a.m., Jun 1 2016, 05:33 AM.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Jun 1 2016, 01:51 AM
Opinionated
May 31 2016, 10:31 PM
Coast2coast
May 31 2016, 09:07 PM
Hang on a moment. First is this a lawsuit for cash or access?

Now frankly I don't think a lawsuit should be the direction - this could have been handled between the individual with the entire board of directors and much more effectively but that aside, this person and other blind individuals most certainly should be able to order at a drive up if the access to the counter is closed and that should be solidified into restaurant policy along with the law.

The shift manager should have had some common sense and simple decency and permitted the transaction to take place and even assist the person if needed.

There seems to be an odd instant rejection of the issue because the word "lawsuit" comes up. There is a greater wrong here and that is what should be keyed in on.





Greater wrong? I guess I'm not seeing it. The lobby is closed to everyone, even sighted people. The drive through is restricted to vehicles for everyone, even sighted people. This is because it is inherently dangerous for a pedestrian to walk in the drive through lane.

So, there is no reasonable way the drive through lane can be made "blind person" accessible, without putting them in harms way. And just because you're blind, doesn't mean you have to have food made available on demand at any time or place of your choosing.

The same rules apply to people who don't have a driver's license or are unable to drive for any number of other reasons. Does the restaurant now have to keep it's lobby open all night because some people, including the blind, don't drive?

This isn't a case of discrimination unless it can be shown that the service is being provided to other people who don't drive.
What you are describing is discriminatory against a blind person. That makes the case for the plaintiff.

As for the inherent danger of the drive thru for a walk-up... that describes every intersection with or without a crosswalk.

Discrimination would be if McDonalds was refusing to serve blind people under the exact same circumstances that they DO serve sighted people. For example, if a sighted person came into the lobby during the restaurant's normal business hours and could order a Big Mac yet a blind person coming in during the same time period was refused. Then that's discrimination. This is clearly not that. If the blind person can drive, or has someone drive them, through the drive through lane, they'll be served like any other customer. And any other customer who attempts to walk up and order using the drive through lane will also be refused service. So clearly this is not discrimination.

Now, on the other hand, what the blind person might be able to sue them for is a violation of the ADA whereby the restaurant has not made a "reasonable accommodation" for their disability. That would be an interesting argument to make, but might have some merit.

Claiming discrimination, however, requires that they receive "disparate treatment", which is clearly not the case here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Member013

Demagogue
May 31 2016, 07:59 PM
Now, what might happen from this idiotic suit in the real world is the rest of us may lose the privilege of going to McDonald's after the lobby closes.


That would be a good thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Sunshine Superman
Jun 1 2016, 09:45 AM
Demagogue
May 31 2016, 07:59 PM
Now, what might happen from this idiotic suit in the real world is the rest of us may lose the privilege of going to McDonald's after the lobby closes.


That would be a good thing.
Well, for me personally I always preferred a place like Famous Amos, Denny's or IHOP after I close down the bars so it is not a loss to me. Others might feel differently. The bottom line in reality though is that I don't know of any fast food joints that will serve anything other than a motor vehicle at the drive through. This policy is not discriminatory as anyone with a car is welcome to use the drive through but the bottom line is that you must drive through and you must be in a vehicle as not even a bicycle will be served.

So they are not discriminating against the blind. They are discriminating against everyone who does not have a car.

On the bright side, the blind guy could got o Denny's, IHOP, or Famous Amos and get a better meal.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
May 31 2016, 09:07 PM
Hang on a moment. First is this a lawsuit for cash or access?

Now frankly I don't think a lawsuit should be the direction - this could have been handled between the individual with the entire board of directors and much more effectively but that aside, this person and other blind individuals most certainly should be able to order at a drive up if the access to the counter is closed and that should be solidified into restaurant policy along with the law.

The shift manager should have had some common sense and simple decency and permitted the transaction to take place and even assist the person if needed.

There seems to be an odd instant rejection of the issue because the word "lawsuit" comes up. There is a greater wrong here and that is what should be keyed in on.





There are safety issues for clerks doing that C2C, that's why they are in place.you also don't want some car coming around now knowing some guy is 10 feet away and you don't seen him til it's too late.

Not to mention potential for robbery exists.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
edro14

Drunk drivers at the drive thru window visiting MCD's late at night should have to pass a sobriety test before they are allowed to order.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply