This just in from the courts

Chipotle’s design draws fire…
Chipotle may have to reconsider its standard design after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court’s ruling that customers in wheelchairs can’t be denied the experience of seeing their meals prepared.

Customers who walk through the serving line interact with the prep staffers on the other side of a glass partition, specifying what they want in their burrito and watching as the elements are added. The experience was cited in court actions as an essential part of the Chipotle experience.

But a barrier by the serving line prevents wheelchair-bound patrons from being able to see their meals being assembled.
In 2005, a California resident in a wheelchair sued Chipotle, asserting that he was the victim of discrimination because of his disability.

Chipotle had countered that the plaintiff, Maurizio Antoninetti, had sued a number of businesses because of alleged inaccessibility. Antoninetti is described in an online bio as a teaching associate at San Diego State University and a former “accessibility consultant,” with a degree in architecture.

The chain had also argued that it accommodated patrons who couldn’t walk the line. Staffers would in effect bring the assembly process to them, holding spoonfuls of ingredients and assembling the burrito so they could watch.

The lower court had decided that the remedy wasn’t fair to Antoninetti. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, letting that ruling stand.

Chipotle has yet to issue any public statement about how it intends to respond to the action.

…while McD’s argues parents are the bosses
Meanwhile, McDonald’s is arguing that a lawsuit challenging its use of toys as kids-meal giveaways should be dismissed because the plaintiff acknowledges she wasn’t conned by the offer.

Monet Parham, a California mother of two, has admitted she knew exactly what was offered in the Happy Meals her children desired, and often refused their pleas to buy the bundled meals. McDonald’s asserted in court that the advertising was straightforward, and that a purchase wasn’t based on any misleading information from the chain.

Parham is represented in the suit by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

An attorney for the plaintiff countered that McDonald’s was making Parham the victim because she couldn’t always counter the brainwashing that McDonald’s does with its advertising.

McDonald’s was still awaiting a reaction from the federal court as of this writing.

McD's cameo in a campaign against frivolous lawsuits

A business advocacy group aiming to curb bounty-hunting lawsuits has enlisted a restaurateur as its new poster person. But apparently the chain of which he is a part, a burger outfit called McDonald's, doesn't want a listing in the credits.

The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform has posted a video on its Faces Of Lawsuit Abuse website that stars Ron Piazza, identified as a fast-food restaurateur in Downey, Calif. The clip, also posted on YouTube, shows Piazza recounting how his Downey, Calif., restaurant was sued because a men's room mirror was two inches higher than the height standard indicated in American With Disabilities Act regulations.

Piazza explains that the violation innocently occurred because vandals had destroyed a mirror that was in compliance with the rules. Inadvertently, the staff had replaced it with a slightly shorter one. When Piazza learned of the inadvertent violation, he recounts on camera, he replaced it with a regulation mirror.

But in the meantime, he says, certain parties--identified by Piazza, but presumably disabled persons--visited the restaurant 27 times, saving their receipts as proof. About four months ago, they sued Piazza for failing to meet ADA specifications.

Piazza noted that his name and telephone number is on all of the restaurant's receipts. If the parties had a legitimate gripe, or felt the mirror's height was a problem for them, they could have called, he points out. He also asserts that they seemed organized, and the Chamber indicates that the same parties sued other restaurants in the area for ADA infractions.

The point is obvious: Bounty hunters picked Piazza's restaurants for one of their legal shake-downs. They did it in an opportunity-hunting fashion that has prompted some to tag the resulting legal actions as drive-by lawsuits.

What's puzzling is why Piazza's restaurant isn't identified by name. A Google search reveals that it's one of the original McDonald's unit, a store that opened back in 1953, when Speedee was still the concept's mascot. Indeed, the place is even listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Those details underscore how ridiculous the lawsuit is. Clearly the plaintiffs were aware of the restaurant's affiliation with such a deep-pocketed chain. And what better place to hunt for ADA infractions than in a 56-year-old facility?

Still, you have to wonder why McDonald's wouldn't allow its name to be mentioned. Perhaps it doesn't want to give other bounty hunters ideas. The Chamber's attempt to curb frivolous lawsuits may be ambitious indeed.

Here's the video: