The Brow Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-ap-ne-mcdonaldslawsuit,0,528150.story Thoughts? My thoughts are that any woman who feeds her autistic kids McD's is off her nut. Do they not respond better when given a quality diet? Also, if she knew that this particular branch would make her come inside yet THREE other branches accomodate her why not go to one of the other three? Why must everywhere on the planet accomodate disabled? I understand that yes, its not their fault and yes they should not be discriminated against or hindered BUT thats life, its harsh sometimes. Deal with it. Its not as though it is a life or death (i resisted the temptation to say life or deaf) situation. Its a bleeding McDonalds. They were doing her a favour! She's a money grabbing cow. Everything thats wrong with Britain and the USA in a nutshell. Makes me angry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Looks like she actually has a case. Leaving the austic kids out of it, she is being discriminated against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Whittaker's Tache Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Stupid litigous american culture Yes it's getting the same here although I believe there are steps being taken to limit this in the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Stupid litigous american culture Yes it's getting the same here although I believe there are steps being taken to limit this in the UK And that would then allow non-compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act? As I say, I think that the woman has a case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Whilst I'm a fierce critic of compensation culture, in this case, I'd like to see McDonald's flat out on their arses on this one. If there's one thing worse than petty com-pen-say-shun claims, it's service businesses who don't do "service". How difficult would it have been for the MickeyD ***** to take the bird's order at the window, ferchrissakes. Yet, the person responsible probably has 5 gold stars on his/her name badge - lucky get! It's time to find that comical job application for McDonald's where the guy answers pretty every question sarcastically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footieman Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I don?t understand the point of those electronic speaker drive thru machines. You just end up speaking to the person that would normally be standing at the window anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101229 "A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities. " The article doesnt say whether the drive through is wired for hearing aids so we can debate it all day but it would be pointless. Also, it doesnt say if her speech is impaired because of her disability if it was then the employees cant understand her then she would have to go inside. Although then she would claim discrimination towards people who cant understand her...... I liked this paragraph from the article tho... "Tumeh is physically capable of walking inside to order, but that's not the point, her attorney, Shirley Ann Mora James, said Tuesday. " So....to summise. She has other McDs she can use, and she could just walk in. Seems to me shes after a big fat pay day. Its folk like these that give genuine discrimination cases a bad name. Anyone ever heard of this woman? http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/05/05252008_Advocate-for-disabled-not-hesitant-to-sue-for-access.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 i agree with mcdonalds on this one. but only because i think the deaf lady is being a boot. as her lawyer stated, she IS capable of going into the shop and ordering. yes she had autistic kids, but they weren't discriminated against. she was offered two acceptable means of ordering food which she didn't take on. mcdonalds probably should've been a little more accommodating but 1) they probably have h&s issues with people walking up to the drive thru counters and 2) this woman probably annoys the hell out of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 i agree with mcdonalds on this one. but only because i think the deaf lady is being a boot. as her lawyer stated, she IS capable of going into the shop and ordering. yes she had autistic kids, but they weren't discriminated against. she was offered two acceptable means of ordering food which she didn't take on. mcdonalds probably should've been a little more accommodating but 1) they probably have h&s issues with people walking up to the drive thru counters and 2) this woman probably annoys the hell out of them But if you offer a service it is incumbent on the service provider to make this as accessible to all (under the DDA in this country anyway). If you can't or rather don't explore it you can be in breach of DDA. Regarding this case though, the point is why should people with hearing impairments be denied a service? Why should an individual be forced to use another shop of the same franchise, simply because the one she wants to use is discriminating against her impairment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsmak Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 get her pumped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 She's not being denied service, she is being given alternatives which she is refusing to do. Its not McDs fault she has autistic kids she cant leave in the car. Thats neither hear or there as far as they are concerned. Is she being given bad service? Yes, no doubt. The lazy staff COULD go out and serve her at her car but thats not the point. Her case is against denail of service, which isnt the case here. Theres too much ambiguity in the article though. I want to know if the drive through is wired for the deaf (those loop things for instance). Can she speak clearly? Cant she leave the kids in the house? Cant she get someone else to go for her? Next you'll have housebound people sueing because McDs dont offer delivery (in most places, they do it in Thailand) therefore denying them service. Where does it end? Does every restaurant have to cater for every disibility? Of course not, thats absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 She's not being denied service, she is being given alternatives which she is refusing to do. Its not McDs fault she has autistic kids she cant leave in the car. Thats neither hear or there as far as they are concerned. clever... I saw what you did there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 She's not being denied service, she is being given alternatives which she is refusing to do. Its not McDs fault she has autistic kids she cant leave in the car. Thats neither hear or there as far as they are concerned. Yes she is because those without impairments are being offered a drive through service which she is unable to use as she has an hearing impairment. Is she being given bad service? Yes, no doubt. The lazy staff COULD go out and serve her at her car but thats not the point. Her case is against denail of service, which isnt the case here. Theres too much ambiguity in the article though. I want to know if the drive through is wired for the deaf (those loop things for instance). Can she speak clearly? Cant she leave the kids in the house? Cant she get someone else to go for her? Given the article it would suggest that the drive through is not wired for the deaf. What relevance has letting someone else go for her to do with it? The whole point of disability discrimination legislation is so that those with disablities can intigrate into society and do whatever (within reason) able-body people can. Next you'll have housebound people sueing because McDs dont offer delivery (in most places, they do it in Thailand) therefore denying them service. Where does it end? Does every restaurant have to cater for every disibility? Of course not, thats absurd. Within the remit of the DDA then yes they do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bindy Badgy Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 If I was her I wouldn't go back to that McDonald's again. I would have thought that the chances of her getting a few free extras the next time she orders were fairly high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 She was offered a perfectly reasonable alternative and therefore can't really have any complaints. Yes she couldn't use the drive thru but she could still have got her food. Like if somebody is in a wheelchair and need to get the top floor, they can't use the stairs but they can use a lift. Now if there was no other method of getting to the top then admittedly they would be being discriminated against. Would it be fair to say that people who cannot drive a car shouldn't have to go inside the store to get food as the are being discriminated against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acey Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 My thoughts are that any woman who feeds her autistic kids McD's is off her nut. Do they not respond better when given a quality diet? Not really, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Its still a theory but there are lots of cases where a gluten/wheat free diet can considerably help kids with Autism. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/TenWays/story?id=3730135&page=1 So it really depends on the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upthehill Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I hate agreeing with Boris, but I agree with Boris on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Yes she is because those without impairments are being offered a drive through service which she is unable to use as she has an hearing impairment. If it was a touch screen ordering system without braille would the blind sue? No, they would accept theres just some things they cant do, get of their bums and walk through the doors. I dont see why she feels that she should be able to use every ordering option available to fully abled people. She has a disability, hence the name. Theres going to be things she cant do! Is this the first time she has not been able to do something? Doubt it. Given the article it would suggest that the drive through is not wired for the deaf. What relevance has letting someone else go for her to do with it? The whole point of disability discrimination legislation is so that those with disablities can intigrate into society and do whatever (within reason) able-body people can. You would assume it wasnt wired but it doesnt actually say for sure. It was a suggestion. I take your point tho. It was more an off the cuff typing whilst thinking remark. Within the remit of the DDA then yes they do! Really? So the blind can have every menu and sign written in braille? I have never seen a restaurant that caters for every disability so I assume they are all breaking the DDA? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree Boris! (you too McGill)....I think shes a sponger whose after some easy money. You dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I hate agreeing with Boris, but I agree with Boris on this one. I'm in the other camp. As posters have argued above, there were options available to her for service. She chose not to use them. As another poster said, can I now walk round the drive-thru, up to the speaker and order or are they discriminating against me for being unable to drive? If the women in question gets served at the window, can all customers now get served at the window? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I hate agreeing with Boris, but I agree with Boris on this one. Gee, shucks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Really? So the blind can have every menu and sign written in braille? I have never seen a restaurant that caters for every disability so I assume they are all breaking the DDA? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree Boris! (you too McGill)....I think shes a sponger whose after some easy money. You dont. As i said within the REMIT of the DDA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I'm in the other camp. As posters have argued above, there were options available to her for service. She chose not to use them. I'm no expert on US (or UK for that matter) disabilty discrimination law, however it's not neccesarily a case of having options. The discrimination here is that the drive through option was not open to those with a hearing impairment and thus car drivers with hearing impairments have been discriminated against. As another poster said, can I now walk round the drive-thru, up to the speaker and order or are they discriminating against me for being unable to drive? If the women in question gets served at the window, can all customers now get served at the window? No. Ironically, they were within their rights not to serve her at the window as that may have breached company policy/health and safety (given it was a drive thru). The point is that there should be sufficient attempt made to offer services to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Payton Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I'm no expert on US (or UK for that matter) disabilty discrimination law, however it's not neccesarily a case of having options. The discrimination here is that the drive through option was not open to those with a hearing impairment and thus car drivers with hearing impairments have been discriminated against. No. Ironically, they were within their rights not to serve her at the window as that may have breached company policy/health and safety (given it was a drive thru). The point is that there should be sufficient attempt made to offer services to everyone. To be honest I think the article gives insufficient information for any of us to be aware who's right and wrong here- without McDonalds defense being fairly reported or a neutral commentary on the sufficiency of the setup none of us can have any chance of knowing what fair expectations would be here. It would be interesting to hear (no pun intended) if there are any other deaf customers throwing their weight (and if they've been eating McDonalds too much, it might be considerable..) behind this action- Could it be that she's an awkward customer who just doesn't have her hearing aid turned up? We need both arguments from both perspectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 But if you offer a service it is incumbent on the service provider to make this as accessible to all (under the DDA in this country anyway). If you can't or rather don't explore it you can be in breach of DDA. Regarding this case though, the point is why should people with hearing impairments be denied a service? Why should an individual be forced to use another shop of the same franchise, simply because the one she wants to use is discriminating against her impairment? they didn't strictly deny her service though. they offered her service through walking into the shop (like she was capable of) or by using the speakerphone to order. doesn't really seem unreasonable does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 they didn't strictly deny her service though. they offered her service through walking into the shop (like she was capable of) or by using the speakerphone to order. doesn't really seem unreasonable does it? but she was denied the drive-thru service... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Aw feck off everybody. Was McDonalds being unreasonable? Did they deny her service just to be difficult? Or was it because she couldn't hear what they were saying so a queue developed so other customers were delayed? My bet is she is just a golddigger trying to make some money, otherwise other deaf people would already have raised this either there or at some other McDonalds. Is she the only deaf person in the world? She should get her pus kicked in. She won't hear you coming so you can stave her before she knows what is happening. Mind you, I have been drinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 but she was denied the drive-thru service... no they never, she denied herself it as she didn't use it properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambodougie Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I am deaf and have come across this with McDonalds at Livingston - whereby you have to place your order to a monitor while sitting in the car fortunately my wife was in the car so she shouted the order over from the passenger seat ! From a personal point of view offering devices that are compatitable with hearing aids are fine but a lot of hearing impaired people need to lip read to communicate and hearing aids are only there to hear but we have no clarity to what is being said. A lot of people assume that as you have hearing aids you can hear while this is true I can hear cars driving past but I dont know where the sound is coming from ! With regards to macdonalds in an ideal world you would have a touch screen monitor and you could pick what you wanted only problem with that is you might not be able to reach the screen from the car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I am deaf and have come across this with McDonalds at Livingston - whereby you have to place your order to a monitor while sitting in the car fortunately my wife was in the car so she shouted the order over from the passenger seat ! From a personal point of view offering devices that are compatitable with hearing aids are fine but a lot of hearing impaired people need to lip read to communicate and hearing aids are only there to hear but we have no clarity to what is being said. A lot of people assume that as you have hearing aids you can hear while this is true I can hear cars driving past but I dont know where the sound is coming from ! With regards to macdonalds in an ideal world you would have a touch screen monitor and you could pick what you wanted only problem with that is you might not be able to reach the screen from the car Are you planning to sue them for damages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambodougie Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Plus BK is much better !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambodougie Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Are you planning to sue them for damages? Now I think about it..... Nah not at all I would rather advise them on how best to deal with the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 I am deaf and have come across this with McDonalds at Livingston - whereby you have to place your order to a monitor while sitting in the car fortunately my wife was in the car so she shouted the order over from the passenger seat ! From a personal point of view offering devices that are compatitable with hearing aids are fine but a lot of hearing impaired people need to lip read to communicate and hearing aids are only there to hear but we have no clarity to what is being said. A lot of people assume that as you have hearing aids you can hear while this is true I can hear cars driving past but I dont know where the sound is coming from ! With regards to macdonalds in an ideal world you would have a touch screen monitor and you could pick what you wanted only problem with that is you might not be able to reach the screen from the car You sound like a reasonable person. You realise the limitations of the drive through when it comes to your hearing. If you were on your own would you go back to the restaurant time and again to be confronted by the same thing OR would you just walk in the door, order and get on with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambodougie Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Neither I would just just get the wife to shout over - if on my own I guess I would just park the car and walk in but that a different ball game altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.