(06-01-2016 01:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, lets see how the courts rule on this one. Its not cut and dried. I don't think that restaurants saying 'we're closed to the visually impared and epileptics after 10pm but open to others' is going to pass muster with ADA.

Nobody is saying that tom... They are saying 'if you want to be in a drive through,sighted or not, you need to be in a car'. All McDonalds has to do is show what the increase to their liability insurance would be for such a move.

I suspect it would be significant.

Quote:My guess is that they probably will have some sort of settlement or consent decree mandating any renovations to drive thru only restaurants contain an ADA compliant window if there isn't another solution.

This is not a drive-through only restaurant. It's one who closes their front door after a certain hour to keep costs down.

Quote:And you didn't bring it up, but the taxi argument is just stupid.

No tom, you say it's stupid. It proof that the alleged discrimination here has nothing to do with his being blind.

Quote:Make someone living next to a McDonalds call a cab and spend 20 bucks more on a cab fare to get food? I don't think that's reasonable.

Of course, I know you wouldn't think its reasonable to be in a car in a drive through. But you think rearranging the entire parking lot, putting holes in the store and installing a "walk up window" for a couple of people to use is reasonable.

Because you're bat-shaq crazy.

(06-01-2016 11:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is a safety issue Tom. McDonalds does not want to be held liable for someone getting run over by a car in their drive thru line. They should just allow people with special needs to knock on the door and come in.

Yep to the first... to the second, not all disabilities are obvious and I'm sure robbers would take advantage of this as well. That's a whole NEW box of liability.

(06-01-2016 11:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The better solution is for McDonalds to simply add a walk up window with a ringer. With a gas station type service window. Does that cost money? Absolutely, but ADA never said 'free', it said 'reasonable'. The courts will determine that. I'm interested to see how it plays out.

This appears to my non-legal mind as a pretty good ADA claim. Sometimes the settlements aren't as sweeping as in other areas. It might mandate that all new renovations include an ADA compliant ordering window. Historically, that's how've they handle restrooms. You're usually good with what you've got, but if you do any work, you've got to ensure that the bathroom is ADA compliant as part of that renovation.

dont' disagree with the premise, but there is a difference between a public restroom and a private businesses food counter. I think it would be a nice gesture by MCDonalds to appeal to this demographic, but I can't imagine it being mandated. I'm sure there are many handicapped people who have modified vans who would like to not have to go to the trouble of parking and exiting in order to eat at Morton's steak house, but I can't imagine the courts requiring that they install a drive through.

The more likely solution is that many will simply decide that there isn't enough business after 10pm or 12pm or whatever to warrant the extra expense and they will simply close the late-night drive through. Costs them essentially nothing

How does THAT improve access?

(06-01-2016 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 11:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is a safety issue Tom. McDonalds does not want to be held liable for someone getting run over by a car in their drive thru line. They should just allow people with special needs to knock on the door and come in.

Yep to the first... to the second, not all disabilities are obvious and I'm sure robbers would take advantage of this as well. That's a whole NEW box of liability.

(06-01-2016 11:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The better solution is for McDonalds to simply add a walk up window with a ringer. With a gas station type service window. Does that cost money? Absolutely, but ADA never said 'free', it said 'reasonable'. The courts will determine that. I'm interested to see how it plays out.

This appears to my non-legal mind as a pretty good ADA claim. Sometimes the settlements aren't as sweeping as in other areas. It might mandate that all new renovations include an ADA compliant ordering window. Historically, that's how've they handle restrooms. You're usually good with what you've got, but if you do any work, you've got to ensure that the bathroom is ADA compliant as part of that renovation.

dont' disagree with the premise, but there is a difference between a public restroom and a private businesses food counter. I think it would be a nice gesture by MCDonalds to appeal to this demographic, but I can't imagine it being mandated. I'm sure there are many handicapped people who have modified vans who would like to not have to go to the trouble of parking and exiting in order to eat at Morton's steak house, but I can't imagine the courts requiring that they install a drive through.

The more likely solution is that many will simply decide that there isn't enough business after 10pm or 12pm or whatever to warrant the extra expense and they will simply close the late-night drive through. Costs them essentially nothing

How does THAT improve access?

That's what it will essentially come down to if the restaurant is forced to change operations. McD's will do a cost/benefit analysis and chose which way it wants to go. I imagine if the costs out way the benefits folks will just complain that McD's shuts down after 10pm though. Folks are always looking for a reason to complain.

(06-01-2016 01:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I don't think that restaurants saying 'we're closed to the visually impared and epileptics after 10pm but open to others' is going to pass muster with ADA.

Where did this argument come from? NOBODY, whether or not you are blind or you have 20/20 vision that is not in a car will be served at a McDonald's drive through window...

No lawsuit is going to change that...

(06-01-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, there is a difference. The airlines will sell its services to all comers without regard for disability (pursuant to reasonable accommodations). McDonalds will not by instituting a prerequisite for service unavailable to persons with certain disabilities.

Poppycock. Disabilities don't prevent anyone from being in a car.

(06-01-2016 02:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 01:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I don't think that restaurants saying 'we're closed to the visually impared and epileptics after 10pm but open to others' is going to pass muster with ADA.

Where did this argument come from? NOBODY, whether or not you are blind or you have 20/20 vision that is not in a car will be served at a McDonald's drive through window...

No lawsuit is going to change that...

The entire purpose of ADA is to allow persons with disabilities to be as independent as possible. If someone cannot drive due to disability, then any service that requires someone to be in a car to be served must have a very strong rational case to do so.

I'm not sure that McDonalds can make that argument.

People who have 20/20 vision can purchase or rent a car and be served at McDonalds. Handicapped persons must rely on someone else to be served after 10pm at McDonalds. That's where ADA comes in.

The plaintiffs are not arguing that McDonalds serve the handicapped in the drive thru window after 10pm. But they are arguing that McDonalds must accommodate handicapped persons who are operating without assistance after 10pm.

(06-01-2016 02:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The entire purpose of ADA is to allow persons with disabilities to be as independent as possible.

The law forces others to make accommodations for the disabled. It's mandated dependence. Every law's purpose is to do what it does.

(06-01-2016 02:09 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, there is a difference. The airlines will sell its services to all comers without regard for disability (pursuant to reasonable accommodations). McDonalds will not by instituting a prerequisite for service unavailable to persons with certain disabilities.

Poppycock. Disabilities don't prevent anyone from being in a car.

Actually what if the disabled person doesn't have a driver available or doesn't have the money to hire a cab

Then the result is that the disabled person will be denied a service open to non-disabled persons. That's the entire point of the ADA. To help disabled persons live INDEPENDENTLY. They can't do that if unreasonable barriers are put up preventing them from accessing services. Basically, if you serve the abled, you must serve the disabled. Even if that results in extra costs to the business. Been the law for 25 years now. The only out is if it constitutes an 'unreasonable burden' to do so. The courts will figure that one out.

Fully abled persons can buy and operate a car. Some disabled persons cannot.

(06-01-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Fully abled persons can buy and operate a car.

If so, why can't they all buy their own healthcare?

(06-01-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:09 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, there is a difference. The airlines will sell its services to all comers without regard for disability (pursuant to reasonable accommodations). McDonalds will not by instituting a prerequisite for service unavailable to persons with certain disabilities.

Poppycock. Disabilities don't prevent anyone from being in a car.

Actually what if the disabled person doesn't have a driver available or doesn't have the money to hire a cab

Then the result is that the disabled person will be denied a service open to non-disabled persons.

So if my car is broken down and it doesn't work at the moment, McDonald's can't refuse me service either.. I mean that's the entire argument.

OOPS.. I'm not disabled so I'm just SOL?

Quote:If someone cannot drive due to disability, then any service that requires someone to be in a car to be served must have a very strong rational case to do so.

I'm not sure that McDonalds can make that argument.

Yes they do, and it's been pointed out here plenty of times... Public safety.

But you just said getting a taxi is not fair to the disabled person as it's a "tax"..

Quote:Again, is paying 30 bucks for a cab a reasonable accommodation? I doubt so. Its a tax on being blind

But if I didn't have a car, you're absolutely fine with me

Quote:...rent a car and be served at McDonalds

just 'cause I have the Mcdonald's munchies one night?

(06-01-2016 02:22 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Fully abled persons can buy and operate a car.

If so, why can't they all buy their own healthcare?

They can buy their own healthcare. In fact, they are required to do so. But that's off topic.

My point is that you can't just place a wall over the handicapped ramp at 10pm. The plaintiff is arguing that the impact of their discriminatory policy has the precisely the same impact.

McDonalds is trying to argue that banning independent access by visually impared persons has some rational basis and to order them to serve the abled and disabled equally would constitute some sort of unreasonable burden. Not any burden, but an unreasonable one.

(06-01-2016 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:22 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Fully abled persons can buy and operate a car.

If so, why can't they all buy their own healthcare?

They can buy their own healthcare. In fact, they are required to do so. But that's off topic.

My point is that you can't just place a wall over the handicapped ramp at 10pm. The plaintiff is arguing that the impact of their discriminatory policy has the precisely the same impact.

McDonalds is trying to argue that banning independent access by visually impared persons has some rational basis and to order them to serve the abled and disabled equally would constitute some sort of unreasonable burden. Not any burden, but an unreasonable one.

That's not what they are saying at all. What they are saying is the drive-thru is not for pedestrians of any kind, not just the blind, and after a certain hour their restaurants only serve drive-thru customers. They will serve the abled and disabled equally as long as they are in a vehicle. They will also deny service to the able and disabled equally if they aren't in a vehicle. The McDonalds down the street from me has a sign that says that pedestrians are prohibited from the drive-thru. It doesn't say that only disabled pedestrians are prohibited and they will serve the able-bodied.

(06-01-2016 02:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:22 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Fully abled persons can buy and operate a car.

If so, why can't they all buy their own healthcare?

They can buy their own healthcare. In fact, they are required to do so. But that's off topic.

My point is that you can't just place a wall over the handicapped ramp at 10pm. The plaintiff is arguing that the impact of their discriminatory policy has the precisely the same impact.

McDonalds is trying to argue that banning independent access by visually impared persons has some rational basis and to order them to serve the abled and disabled equally would constitute some sort of unreasonable burden. Not any burden, but an unreasonable one.

That's not what they are saying at all. What they are saying is the drive-thru is not for pedestrians of any kind, not just the blind, and after a certain hour their restaurants only serve drive-thru customers. They will serve the abled and disabled equally as long as they are in a vehicle. They will also deny service to the able and disabled equally if they aren't in a vehicle. The McDonalds down the street from me has a sign that says that pedestrians are prohibited from the drive-thru. It doesn't say that only disabled pedestrians are prohibited and they will serve the able-bodied.

Again, the question is that in doing so, is McDonald's creating an unreasonble burden on disabled persons? And is there a reasonable accommodation that would allow the disabled to not be denied service that would be available to them had they been fully abled?

The argument that the plaintiff is making is that its little different than McDonalds making the counter 6 feet high and saying that they'll serve everyone equally so long as they can reach the counter. And then arguing that a disabled person must go to the expense or hassle of finding or paying for someone tall enough to reach the counter to gain access to service.

Is it legal under ADA to require the disabled to have something they cannot get to be served after a certain time as an independent person?

McDonalds CAN serve the independent disabled after 10pm. That's not in dispute. The serve the independent abled after 10pm. That's also not in dispute. But they currently will NOT serve the independent disabled after 10pm. The question for the courts is whether McDonald's use of a prerequisite for service that is not available to certain disabled persons constitutes a barrier towards disabled persons that is not fixable using any reasonable accommodation on the part of the service provider.

(06-01-2016 02:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  People who have 20/20 vision can purchase or rent a car and be served at McDonalds.

Says the man who thought calling a taxi was overkill...

Quote:Handicapped persons must rely on someone else to be served after 10pm at McDonalds. That's where ADA comes in.

To use the drive through at noon they would have to rely on someone else.

(06-01-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:09 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, there is a difference. The airlines will sell its services to all comers without regard for disability (pursuant to reasonable accommodations). McDonalds will not by instituting a prerequisite for service unavailable to persons with certain disabilities.

Poppycock. Disabilities don't prevent anyone from being in a car.

Actually what if the disabled person doesn't have a driver available or doesn't have the money to hire a cab

Then the result is that the disabled person will be denied a service open to non-disabled persons. That's the entire point of the ADA. To help disabled persons live INDEPENDENTLY. They can't do that if unreasonable barriers are put up preventing them from accessing services. Basically, if you serve the abled, you must serve the disabled. Even if that results in extra costs to the business. Been the law for 25 years now. The only out is if it constitutes an 'unreasonable burden' to do so. The courts will figure that one out.

Fully abled persons can buy and operate a car. Some disabled persons cannot.

not if they are poor they can't.... and they can't afford a taxi either. Do THEY not have rights as well?

Not only drivers are served at McDonalds drive through.

There are also places like take-out-taxi that will deliver food to your home... but they probably won't deliver it to your car... and you certainly can't drive to them. Unfair to the mute?

and it's been the law for about as long that you can't walk up to a drive through. It doesn't help your argument that things need to be changed if you're also arguing that longevity has meaning.

As I said, the most likely answer is that many restaurants will simply close the drive through when they close the doors.... because the 'walk-up' business for handicapped people who need food after hours but don't have access to Sonic or 7-11 or a grocery store or a friend with a car or money for a cab CAN'T POSSIBLY be very many, or very financially lucrative (almost by definition). So even though the cost may be relatively minimal, why spend a dime? Sure, some new stores or ones with particular physical aspects (like right next to a veterans rehab facility or a special Olympics venue or something) might... but your average store has limited employees and shuts the doors because that's all the 'late night' business supports.

(06-01-2016 03:18 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  People who have 20/20 vision can purchase or rent a car and be served at McDonalds.

Says the man who thought calling a taxi was overkill...

Quote:Handicapped persons must rely on someone else to be served after 10pm at McDonalds. That's where ADA comes in.

To use the drive through at noon they would have to rely on someone else.

No. Someone with Epilepsy could just walk in the door and go to the counter and order.

---

The whole point of ADA is to make life as independent as possible for disabled persons. And part of that is to ensure that wherever possible, that disabled persons are accommodated.

Its certainly possible for McDonalds to serve the independent disabled after 10pm.

And its not cheap either. It has involved significant costs to businesses. Society is much better off when the disabled can work and function independently in society rather than not working and having Social Security pay for caregivers to manage people that can function in society, just so long as reasonable accommodations are provided.

That's the whole point of the ADA. If the solution for the disabled is to 'just pay someone to do it for you, you cripple', then why bother with any accommodations? Just tell them all to quit their jobs, go on the government dole and have the taxpayers pay for caregivers.

When you have a disability, it can be quite disheartening to face obviously removable barriers to service. The 'drive thru' rule is a removable barrier to service.

If you start allowing one group to discriminate then it weakens the whole structure of the law. Next it will be that a bank will simply say that since there's an ADA compliant restroom 10 miles down the road, that they can't make theirs compliant.

(06-01-2016 03:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:09 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, there is a difference. The airlines will sell its services to all comers without regard for disability (pursuant to reasonable accommodations). McDonalds will not by instituting a prerequisite for service unavailable to persons with certain disabilities.

Poppycock. Disabilities don't prevent anyone from being in a car.

Actually what if the disabled person doesn't have a driver available or doesn't have the money to hire a cab

Then the result is that the disabled person will be denied a service open to non-disabled persons. That's the entire point of the ADA. To help disabled persons live INDEPENDENTLY. They can't do that if unreasonable barriers are put up preventing them from accessing services. Basically, if you serve the abled, you must serve the disabled. Even if that results in extra costs to the business. Been the law for 25 years now. The only out is if it constitutes an 'unreasonable burden' to do so. The courts will figure that one out.

Fully abled persons can buy and operate a car. Some disabled persons cannot.

not if they are poor they can't.... and they can't afford a taxi either. Do THEY not have rights as well?

Not only drivers are served at McDonalds drive through.

There are also places like take-out-taxi that will deliver food to your home... but they probably won't deliver it to your car... and you certainly can't drive to them. Unfair to the mute?

and it's been the law for about as long that you can't walk up to a drive through. It doesn't help your argument that things need to be changed if you're also arguing that longevity has meaning.

As I said, the most likely answer is that many restaurants will simply close the drive through when they close the doors.... because the 'walk-up' business for handicapped people who need food after hours but don't have access to Sonic or 7-11 or a grocery store or a friend with a car or money for a cab CAN'T POSSIBLY be very many, or very financially lucrative (almost by definition). So even though the cost may be relatively minimal, why spend a dime? Sure, some new stores or ones with particular physical aspects (like right next to a veterans rehab facility or a special Olympics venue or something) might... but your average store has limited employees and shuts the doors because that's all the 'late night' business supports.

You don't understand the law. Its not just about expense.

Its about INDEPENDENCE. If there's an arbitrary barrier that locks out the disabled, then it either should be removed or there should be a workaround that maintains the independence of the disabled person. Unless there's a very compelling reason to block independent access by the disabled. I don't think McDonalds is going to pass the bar that its unreasonable for them to provide access to the INDEPENDENT disabled after 10pm.

Maybe this disabled person does shift work at night and needs to eat late. He should have access to every restaurant that an abled bodied person has access to. Maybe his buddies are asleep at 10pm. Maybe he should just quit his job and collect welfare because he can't get a meal after 10pm.

Seriously, why not just tell businesses, you don't need to make that restroom usable by the handicapped. They can just cr*p in their pants or hire someone to follow them around 24 hours a day to help them (or better yet, have the government pay for it). By the way, the ADA has cost businesses millions of dollars. Its not cheap. Just because the solution is expensive might not make it unreasonable. And I'm sure the additional cost of ADA compliance has caused some businesses to cease some operations. I don't think the advocates for the disabled really care about that.

You serve the fully abled, you serve the disabled. You can't serve the disabled without a damn good reason, then you can't serve the abled. If there's a barrier you make a reasonable accommodation to preserve the independence of the disabled person. Even if it costs you money.

Is ADA expensive. You bet it is. But its probably far cheaper than adding 5% of the American population to the permanent SSI rolls and adding billions of dollars in additional caregiver costs to our Medicare/Medicaid charges.

(06-01-2016 03:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You don't understand the law. Its not just about expense.

Its about INDEPENDENCE. If there's an arbitrary barrier that locks out the disabled, then it either should be removed or there should be a workaround that maintains the independence of the disabled person. Unless there's a very compelling reason to block independent access by the disabled. I don't think McDonalds is going to pass the bar that its unreasonable for them to provide access to the INDEPENDENT disabled after 10pm.

Seriously, why not just tell businesses, you don't need to make that restroom usuable by the handicapped. They can just cr*p in their pants or hire someone to follow them around 24 hours a day to help them (or better yet, have the government pay for it). By the way, the ADA has cost businesses millions of dollars. Its not cheap. Just because the solution is expensive might not make it unreasonable.

This is not an intelligent argument Tom, and it doesn't help that you obviously don't understand my point. I suspect I've had to deal with ADA more than most.

It IS about expense to McDonalds. It will cost many of them far less to simply close the drive-through when they close the main doors than it will cost them to provide such an accommodation. As you note, the accommodation isn't necessary during those other hours.

Of course that doesn't mean that they won't stay open until 12pm instead of closing the doors at 10pm and keeping the drive-up open until 2... but the handicapped person without a car who wants a burger at 1am is still SOL... as is everyone else.

In some places such an accommodation would be easy and they will do it, and perhaps NEW McDonald's will be designed with such a feature in mind... but MOST McDonalds have a driving alley all the way around. ESPECIALLY back behind the counter... and there isn't really a place to put a walk-up window that doesn't put people in the way of traffic and thus legal liability for McDonald's.

One fo the issues of late-night drive-up is that you WOULD go inside/to the walk-up if it were faster... so now you'll have people (often impaired people) hurriedly deciding to pull out of the drive through lane, hastily park and walk-up to the window... or perhaps pull up right next to it and drop off someone to order for the car?

There is a SCIENCE to the funneling and barriers around the drive-up windows... and this isn't as easy as just cutting a hole in the wall. If you'll think about it, the most likely place to PUT such a walk-up window (from the outside, away from the drive through traffic) is often the 'walkway' to the restrooms.

(06-01-2016 03:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You serve the fully abled, you serve the disabled. You can't serve the disabled without a damn good reason,

A damn good reason like (hypothetically, of course, not that anyone would find this anything other than ridiculous) not being in a vehicle in a drive through lane?

(06-01-2016 10:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 05:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Nothing McDonalds serves is worth a lawsuit to have.

I have found that most of the junk they serve nowdays is worth filing a lawsuit over.

Good rebuttal, both make sense.