On November 5, 2024 Decide Jon S. Tigar dismissed the claims in Munoz v Peet’s Espresso, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-01764 within the Northern District of California. I’ve blogged about these instances recently¹ so I gained’t go into element. As is perhaps anticipated, the plaintiff misplaced. The explanations had been easy. The plaintiff’s first declare was the addition value of milk substitutes was an unlawful surcharge imposed on these with disabilities. That is one type of incapacity discrimination forbidden by the ADA. The issue was merely that the surcharge applies to everybody, not simply to these with disabilities. When a surcharge applies to everybody it’s not discriminatory.
The plaintiff’s second declare was that Peet’s Espresso ought to modify its pricing coverage to satisfy the wants of these with disabilities. Such cheap modifications are required by the ADA. Right here the issue was that solely one of many plaintiffs requested a modification, and a request is required earlier than a enterprise like Peet’s should grant an lodging. Equally vital, the Courtroom additionally discovered that the modification was not mandatory for these with disabilities to get pleasure from a “like expertise” to these with out disabilities. These with disabilities obtained precisely the identical remedy as anybody else wanting a milk various; that’s, they had been charged a bit of bit additional.
The Courtroom additionally disposed of assorted state regulation claims, all of which could greatest be characterised as greedy at straws.
The dismissal of Munoz v Peet’s Espresso, Inc. in all probability gained’t put an finish to litigation of this sort as a result of the plaintiff’s ADA bar is remarkably persistent, however it’s exhausting to see how this sort of litigation will ever serve any helpful objective for these with disabilities.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
¹ See Lactose intolerance, milk allergic reactions and the ADA and Starbucks once more – Lactose intolerance, various milk and the ADA
