Blind man claims McDonald’s drive-thru is discriminatory, files lawsuit

[Peter King]

Well yeah I think the accommodation is the frikken inside counter. I would so love to see the attorneys be liable for countersuits so people could recoup their losses in defending against stuff like this.

The court complaint cites a specific instance in August 2015 when Magee went through a McDonald’s drive-thru on foot and attempted to order a meal after the lobby had closed.

Except, that the lobby/counter inside was CLOSED! So there was no other option to get some food except the drive thru.

 

[Peter King]

Retarded is a perfectly good word which brilliantly describes the moron who brought the lawsuit.

re·tard·ed
less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.

Why is he a retard for wanting a McD's meal?

Personally I think he is a bit of an idiot because I am not a fan of McD's food but that is another issue.

The man was hungry and wanted something to eat. He had money and was willing to go through the difficulty of going through the drive thru option to get his meal.

 

[Peter King]

If you're going to walk then go inside. No reason for a walking pedestrian to use a drive through. Having someone standing around in line outside with moving vehicles does present a safety issue was well as possibly obstructing other traffic.

The issue was that he could not get inside because inside was closed already. And that would make it very reasonable for a hungry person to at least try to get some food through the drive thru option.

 

[Peter King]

When you're on foot you go INSIDE THE RESTAURANT to order your food TO GO.

When you're in a vehicle you DO NOT GO INSIDE the restaurant.

This guys wants - what - an outside window to STAND AT and ORDER from? So he can stand in the blistering sun for 20 minutes? And the rain? And the snow? What is the sense in that?

If some places want to put a walk-up window that's totally fine. But to sue for one? That's an abuse of the court system.

He could not go inside, inside was closed. So he was unable to get his food from the inside so he tried the outside.

This guy wants to get served when the only option to get food is the drive thru window, something a blind, deaf or handicapped person (who are unable to drive) can never use. What he wants is to be served.

And it may not win in court, but I do not think it is an abuse of the court system.

 

[Peter King]

I don't either. They're not discriminating against blind people, just pedestrians.

I think he may find it discriminatory to all those people who are unable to drive a car (like the blind, physically handicapped and the deaf).

 

[ludin]

again we live in a society of stupid.

there is a reason that people don't take walkups to the drive through. it is a risk to the person.
sorry you can't get your cheeseburger at 2:00 in the morning because you are blind.

that is not mcdonalds issue and I bet if this guy gets hit then he will sue them for getting
hit as well.

society has as a whole has gone stupid and unfortunately no one stands up to shout the stupid down.

his guys cases should be thrown out of court and he ordered to pay their legal fee's.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I think he may find it discriminatory to all those people who are unable to drive a car (like the blind, physically handicapped and the deaf).

The dude's just one of the many random people who only target McD's because they have a harshed reputation and are an easy lark target.

 

[Fearandloathing]

From what I read it was the only option to get food at that McD's. The lobby had closed and the only thing open was the drive thru.

OK, for the fourth time, how does that make McDonald's responsible? It was he who chose not to eat sooner when the store and others were open,. why should they be forced to take a risk of being sued by someone who actually gets injured to meet this one man's idiosyncratic behavior?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Reasonable, sure have a car, you can use our services, no car, no service.

Not under ADA if reasonable accommodation is possible and if the defendants policy has the effect of broadly discriminating against the disabled.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

OK, for the fourth time, how does that make McDonald's responsible? It was he who chose not to eat sooner when the store and others were open,. why should they be forced to take a risk of being sued by someone who actually gets injured to meet this one man's idiosyncratic behavior?

You seem to keep ignoring the point being made. The plaintiff is not arguing for a walk up service in the drive-through, the plaintiff is arguing reasonable accommodation for his disability under existing US law.

You are simply being dense at this point.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

OK, for the fourth time, how does that make McDonald's responsible? It was he who chose not to eat sooner when the store and others were open,. why should they be forced to take a risk of being sued by someone who actually gets injured to meet this one man's idiosyncratic behavior?

lol

Yeah really -how does 'oh ****, the place is closed' turn into 'I'll SUE!'

A popular lawyer-client sniping scheme is to systematically target stores with frivolous disability oriented lawsuits, banking on an easy win to gain money. The actual argument doesn't mean anything to people who do this.

But in this day and age who knows - this could easily turn into some stupid ****ing SCOTUS case in which they determine all restaurants must have a drive-through, a walk-up, and be open 24/7 . . as well as helipad access for those that cannot drive or walk but only fly.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The dude's just one of the many random people who only target McD's because they have a harshed reputation and are an easy lark target.

A company as large as McDonalds is not an easy target, furthermore the plaintiff does not stand to gain financially from this lawsuit, ADA only entitles a successful plaintiff to get policies changed, The plaintiff cannot receive punitive damages under ADA

 

[EMNofSeattle]

lol

Yeah really -how does 'oh ****, the place is closed' turn into 'I'll SUE!'

A popular lawyer-client sniping scheme is to systematically target stores with frivolous disability oriented lawsuits, banking on an easy win to gain money. The actual argument doesn't mean anything to people who do this.

Cite?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

A company as large as McDonalds is not an easy target, furthermore the plaintiff does not stand to gain financially from this lawsuit, ADA only entitles a successful plaintiff to get policies changed, The plaintiff cannot receive punitive damages under ADA

Yeah they are. They have money to toss around to get people to go away quickly and stfu through arbitration out of court. Happens all the time.

Cite?

Like such?

Yuba City Pays Man To Stop Frivolous ADA Lawsuits « CBS Sacramento

Yuba City Pays Man To Stop Frivolous ADA Lawsuits


...

This settlement agreement is the first of its kind in the state, and while it does give the city and businesses a moment of relief from one man, it also opens the floodgates for others to cash in on their decision.

The city agreed to pay George Louie $15,000 for him to stop bringing frivolous lawsuits against them and area businesses.

...

Louie can no longer file ADA lawsuits within Yuba City limits, and the agreement also dropped any lawsuits that were currently active. But the city says the agreement doesn’t mean they or businesses can slack on complying with the laws.

Anyone can turn something into a money-making scheme.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah they are. They have money to toss around to get people to go away quickly and stfu through arbitration out of court. Happens all the time.




Like such?

Yuba City Pays Man To Stop Frivolous ADA Lawsuits « CBS Sacramento



Anyone can turn something into a money-making scheme.

I think that man was using California state law which permits punitive damages. They keep throwing ADA around in the article, but I don't think it's the federal ADA they are referring to.

Big defendants also have money to go to court

 

[Renae]

Not under ADA if reasonable accommodation is possible and if the defendants policy has the effect of broadly discriminating against the disabled.

No, it has a discrimination against people without cars.

 

[Renae]

He could not go inside, inside was closed. So he was unable to get his food from the inside so he tried the outside.

This guy wants to get served when the only option to get food is the drive thru window, something a blind, deaf or handicapped person (who are unable to drive) can never use. What he wants is to be served.

And it may not win in court, but I do not think it is an abuse of the court system.

It also discriminates against people without cars.

Those demons, those bastards!!! What about the Carless out there? WHAT ABOUT THEIR ****ING RIGHT MAN!!!!!!??? WHAT ABOUT THEIR NEED FOR A BIG MAC ATTACK AT 0300???!?!?!? Will the horror never END?

 

[ludin]

I think he may find it discriminatory to all those people who are unable to drive a car (like the blind, physically handicapped and the deaf).

that isn't discriminatory.

 

[Hawkeye10]

that isn't discriminatory.

It is if the lobby is closed and there is no walk up window, you dont get to redefine words.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, it has a discrimination against people without cars.

Again, if a policy that can be reasonably amendment has the practical effect then it doesn't need to specifically be intended to discriminate against the disabled

 

[ludin]

It is if the lobby is closed and there is no walk up window, you dont get to redefine words.

it isn't re-defining anything.
there is a reason that people are not allowed to walk up to a drive through.

1 being safety.

nothing entitles you to a hamburger.

 

[ludin]

Again, if a policy that can be reasonably amendment has the practical effect then it doesn't need to specifically be intended to discriminate against the disabled

good thing it isn't because it doesn't just go for blind people it goes for anyone that is walking up to the drive
through therefore by default it is not targeting a specific group of people based on a disability.

 

[Hawkeye10]

it isn't re-defining anything.
there is a reason that people are not allowed to walk up to a drive through.

1 being safety.

nothing entitles you to a hamburger.

Food for thought:

A diabetic man says he feared he was about to slip into a coma after McDonald’s staff allegedly refused to serve him a burger or call him an ambulance.

Teacher Matt Brown, 38, was on the verge of collapse from a hypo*glycaemic attack but claims drive-thru staff turned him away because he was not in a car.

And he says he begged the duty manager to at least phone an ambulance but was told: “It’s not my problem.”

Matt, from Coventry, said he had been walking home from his mum’s house in the early hours of Christmas Eve when he fell ill.

He said: “I usually carry Lucozade for emergencies but had run out.

“I decided to head for the McDonalds on my route to get my sugar level back safe.

"I was left slumped outside for over an hour.

“I just needed some help and goodwill.”

A source at the restaurant claimed Mr Brown asked staff to call a taxi, not an ambulance.

A McDonald’s spokesperson said: “For safety, we cannot serve people on foot in our drive-thrus.”

Diabetic sufferer's McDonald's snub coma fears as he was left slumped in a restaurant - Mirror Online

 

[Hawkeye10]

good thing it isn't because it doesn't just go for blind people it goes for anyone that is walking up to the drive
through therefore by default it is not targeting a specific group of people based on a disability.

Physical disability.

If it is economic disability nobody cares?

Things in this country have gotten so whacked out, we need Trump, and more like Trump.

 

[ludin]

Food for thought:
]

no food for thought at all. it is not McDonald's responsibility to ensure that he has food or whatever for his medical condition.
he just left his mom's house he should have grabbed something from there.

again makes no difference. if he would have been hit by a car then he would have sued mcdonalds for being hit by a car.
that is why they have the policy.