I've been meaning to post this story for a while, but it's been a very busy week. I don't know anything about this lawsuit other than what appears in the following Associated Press story. But, I can certianly relate to this woman's experience. How many times have I been in a restaurant and ordered what I knew was on the menu to avoid the eye roll of the server when I ask for the menu to be read to me? I'm sorry to admit, I've done that a lot.
Is it good enough to be allowed to simply eat, or do we have the same expectation of being treated with respect where we dine? If the comments had been of a racial nature, I suspect a civil rights suit would have been a no brainer.
In Kansas City blind and visually impaired people have long had an ongoing similar battle with some of the cab companies. These days I use Advanced Suburban Taxi all the time because they tend to be respectful and I've never had this happen. However, numerous times in the past I've been with friends and had trouble with Yellow Cab. The problem usually revolves around the use of guide dogs. It seems some of the drivers find traveling with a dog to somehow be offensive to their religion.
I'm one of those liberals who goes out of my way to show respect for religions other than mine. To my way of thinking, you don't earn the right to share your faith with someone if you can't at least show basic polite manners in regard to their faith. But, if you're going to work in the public service in the United States of America, then you'd better be able to comply with the laws - which include the right to travel with a guide dog. If you can't do that, then don't work with the public.
Several years ago several friends and I had called a cab to go to a restaurant. The cab arrived and denied us service when he saw one of my friends had a guide dog. We decided to argue the point and started to get into the car anyway - the man drove off with me half in the car and half out with the door open. He could have really injured me.
We called the company to complain and got no action. We were told the drivers were all independent contractors so they could do nothing. Ohh to this day I wish we'd have sued them. And to this day I avoid Yellow Cab whenever possible.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
updated 7:15 p.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 8, 2008
NEW YORK - A federal appeals court reinstated the lawsuit Friday of a legally blind woman who says she was mocked and mistreated by workers at fast-food restaurants, including employees at one who directed her to a men's restroom, then laughed at her humiliation.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Alice Camarillo of Catskill is free to pursue her claims after they were dismissed by a lower court judge in Albany, N.Y., on the grounds that she suffered no harm because she was always permitted to eat at the restaurants. The appeals court said it reinstated the lawsuit because Camarillo sufficiently claimed that the restaurants failed to ensure "effective communication" of their menus.
Camarillo sued four restaurants under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, claiming she was discriminated against because the restaurants near her home do not have large print menus she can read.
She claimed in her lawsuit that when she asked workers to read her the menu items, they sometimes made fun of her, or stared at her and forced her to wait until other customers behind her were served.
Camarillo made the claims against the Burger King restaurants in Catskill and Hudson, operated by Carrols Corp.; the McDonald's restaurants in Catskill and Cairo, N.Y., operated by Magliocca Stores Inc.; the McDonald's restaurant in Hudson operated by Reeher Majik Inc.; the Taco Bell restaurant in Kingston operated by El Rancho Foods, Inc. and the Wendy's restaurant in Hudson operated by Wendonie LLC.
Greg A. Riolo, a lawyer representing Magliocca Stores and Reeher Majik, operators of the McDonald's restaurants, said he had not yet read the opinion and could not comment. Joseph Guarino, a lawyer for El Rancho Foods Inc., operator of the Taco Bell, declined comment. Lawyers for the other companies did not immediately return telephone messages for comment.
In her lawsuit, Camarillo said on some visits to the Burger King restaurants, employees "laughed and stared at her," and once, when she asked to be shown the women's restroom, employees "directed her to the men's room and laughed at her humiliation," the lawsuit said.
She said in her lawsuit that restaurant employees were always willing to read her the menus and that she was permitted to eat on every occasion. But she also said employees, when told of her disability, often responded with annoyance or impatience, reading only part of the menu.
The appeals court said restaurants are not necessarily required to have large print menus on hand but they are required to ensure that menu options are effectively communicated to individuals who, like Camarillo, are legally blind.
The appeals panel said it did not disagree with the lower court's finding that federal anti-discrimination rules cannot ensure workers will never be rude or insensitive to people with disabilities. "However, Camarillo alleges more than mere rudeness or insensitivity and more than one or two isolated mistakes," the panel wrote. "A reasonable inference to be drawn from her complaint is that defendants failed to adopt policies or procedures to effectively train their employees how to deal with disabled individuals."
Is it good enough to be allowed to simply eat, or do we have the same expectation of being treated with respect where we dine? If the comments had been of a racial nature, I suspect a civil rights suit would have been a no brainer.
In Kansas City blind and visually impaired people have long had an ongoing similar battle with some of the cab companies. These days I use Advanced Suburban Taxi all the time because they tend to be respectful and I've never had this happen. However, numerous times in the past I've been with friends and had trouble with Yellow Cab. The problem usually revolves around the use of guide dogs. It seems some of the drivers find traveling with a dog to somehow be offensive to their religion.
I'm one of those liberals who goes out of my way to show respect for religions other than mine. To my way of thinking, you don't earn the right to share your faith with someone if you can't at least show basic polite manners in regard to their faith. But, if you're going to work in the public service in the United States of America, then you'd better be able to comply with the laws - which include the right to travel with a guide dog. If you can't do that, then don't work with the public.
Several years ago several friends and I had called a cab to go to a restaurant. The cab arrived and denied us service when he saw one of my friends had a guide dog. We decided to argue the point and started to get into the car anyway - the man drove off with me half in the car and half out with the door open. He could have really injured me.
We called the company to complain and got no action. We were told the drivers were all independent contractors so they could do nothing. Ohh to this day I wish we'd have sued them. And to this day I avoid Yellow Cab whenever possible.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
updated 7:15 p.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 8, 2008
NEW YORK - A federal appeals court reinstated the lawsuit Friday of a legally blind woman who says she was mocked and mistreated by workers at fast-food restaurants, including employees at one who directed her to a men's restroom, then laughed at her humiliation.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Alice Camarillo of Catskill is free to pursue her claims after they were dismissed by a lower court judge in Albany, N.Y., on the grounds that she suffered no harm because she was always permitted to eat at the restaurants. The appeals court said it reinstated the lawsuit because Camarillo sufficiently claimed that the restaurants failed to ensure "effective communication" of their menus.
Camarillo sued four restaurants under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, claiming she was discriminated against because the restaurants near her home do not have large print menus she can read.
She claimed in her lawsuit that when she asked workers to read her the menu items, they sometimes made fun of her, or stared at her and forced her to wait until other customers behind her were served.
Camarillo made the claims against the Burger King restaurants in Catskill and Hudson, operated by Carrols Corp.; the McDonald's restaurants in Catskill and Cairo, N.Y., operated by Magliocca Stores Inc.; the McDonald's restaurant in Hudson operated by Reeher Majik Inc.; the Taco Bell restaurant in Kingston operated by El Rancho Foods, Inc. and the Wendy's restaurant in Hudson operated by Wendonie LLC.
Greg A. Riolo, a lawyer representing Magliocca Stores and Reeher Majik, operators of the McDonald's restaurants, said he had not yet read the opinion and could not comment. Joseph Guarino, a lawyer for El Rancho Foods Inc., operator of the Taco Bell, declined comment. Lawyers for the other companies did not immediately return telephone messages for comment.
In her lawsuit, Camarillo said on some visits to the Burger King restaurants, employees "laughed and stared at her," and once, when she asked to be shown the women's restroom, employees "directed her to the men's room and laughed at her humiliation," the lawsuit said.
She said in her lawsuit that restaurant employees were always willing to read her the menus and that she was permitted to eat on every occasion. But she also said employees, when told of her disability, often responded with annoyance or impatience, reading only part of the menu.
The appeals court said restaurants are not necessarily required to have large print menus on hand but they are required to ensure that menu options are effectively communicated to individuals who, like Camarillo, are legally blind.
The appeals panel said it did not disagree with the lower court's finding that federal anti-discrimination rules cannot ensure workers will never be rude or insensitive to people with disabilities. "However, Camarillo alleges more than mere rudeness or insensitivity and more than one or two isolated mistakes," the panel wrote. "A reasonable inference to be drawn from her complaint is that defendants failed to adopt policies or procedures to effectively train their employees how to deal with disabled individuals."
Comments