Court backs man in wheelchair who sued to enjoy ‘Chipotle Experience’

[KansasVoter]

Wow, not sure I agree with this decision. I fully support the store needing to allow people to eat and be comfortable eating but needing to see the food being made is a little over the top to me. And I am ready to be ripped by the "Chipotle now needs to go out of business" crowd and the "All business is evil" crowd.

Coming to a Chipotle near you: a lower counter to help more people see their burritos being made.

In a case generating national attention, a federal appellate court last month ruled that Chipotle Mexican Grill’s 45-inch-high wall screening its food-preparation counter was too high for Maurizio Antoninetti, who uses a wheelchair.

He couldn’t watch his food being prepared, so he was denied the full “Chipotle Experience.”

The decision applies only to the Western states covered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but Chipotle already has begun lowering the 45-inch walls nationwide. It declined to discuss the cost.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S. Justice Department guidelines set 36 inches as the maximum height for such restaurant purposes.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/04/2276637/court-backs-man-in-wheelchair.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=4681706#Comments_Container#ixzz11Was5W85

[virgogal]

1. It's ADA madness,that's what it is IMHO.

[activa8tr]

93. Well, all us disabled people who never even heard of a Chipoltle restaurant will probably

sue you for denying us the experience.

NO, I agree, I once ate pancakes at a pancake house and never saw the man cooking them.

Should I ask for a lawyer?

[superduperfarleft]

2. The ADA is the ADA.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S. Justice Department guidelines set 36 inches as the maximum height for such restaurant purposes.

It's good that Chipotle isn't whining about it and is already working on lowering the counters. That's how it should be.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

8. Herp derp derp.

[joeybee12]

10. Stupid post...Chipolte violated a law, the Court did not create a law or

anything new to accomodate the guy...really, really uninformed.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joeybee12]

23. A federal guideline/regulation...that is LEGALLY enforcable...has nothing

to do with it being a civil or criminal matter...still stupid, getting dumber.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joeybee12]

27. Ooo...let me point you to a readin comprehension class, may I?

[rurallib]

59. somebody piss in your burrito?

[superduperfarleft]

64. Clearly he's worried about it. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

68. No, but I wish I could. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

21. Chipolte could just cancel the "Experience" too

That would settle things real quick.

The guy is a "serial" litigant. I doubt he even goes into another Chipolte again.

[joeybee12]

25. Not if they have the correct height at thier other restaurants I bet they

can't...probably why they're not fighting it...they can't win.

[NotThisTime]

53. Go sit in a standard wheelchair and try to enjoy the experience...

The ADA is there for a reason, you either support it or you don't. If this restaurant wanted to skirt the 36" rule they could have simply moved into a building old enough that it didn't need to be retrofitted for anything.

[DCKit]

3. That's not access, it's abuse.

I'm not fond of having to bend over to wash and dry my hands either. But when there's only room for one sink and/or dryer, it's what they have to do to comply with the law. THAT'S access.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RagAss]

7. LOL...... I just sprayed a keyboard with scotch !

[The Northerner]

12. +1

[CBR]

16. +1 nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

5. Another guy abusing the system

And all this does is red flag the ADA for the teabaggers who when they get power will attempt to modify it and hurt the legitimate complaints.

[superduperfarleft]

13. It's part of the law. If you don't like it, lobby to change it.

I think very few people here understand how limiting the world can be for people with disabilities. Maybe if you could spend a day in their shoes/wheels, you might realize how much you take for granted.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

33. Poor analogy. If the court mandated we all roll around in wheelchairs, I'd be right there beside you

protesting, in the mud and the cold and the rain, fighting, no DEMANDING, recognition of our right to live undisturbed by the shrill cacophony of whining cripples.

But it's a counter. Just a frickin' countertop. Which Chipotle should've known was not in compliance.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

57. Hey, life sucks, sometimes you can't do things you'd like to do.

I'm sure this guy would like to get up out of the wheelchair once in a while, but that's why they're called handicaps.

Luckily he's not asking for something that unreasonable, like being magically cured, or moving a golf cup 100 yards closer, he's only asking Chipotle to comply with the law for any myriad of reasons he may have. Calling it "the Chipotle experience" makes it seem ridiculous, I agree, but see my post below where I explained to someone else that most people have no idea just how much a handicapped person gives up, and that the rest of us take for granted. Who knows why this guy found it important, but it's the law, and it really doesn't seem that unreasonable to me to make Chipotle lower the counters less than a foot.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

66. The judge, after hearing the entire case, disagreed.

You, after reading some stupid slanted article, say, "Fuck him."

You're right, I should totally listen to you.

[SoCalDem]

9. If he could not enter the restaurant, I could see him complaining

or if he could not sit at a table or access the restrooms.. but just because food prep on display is a feature of that restaurant, should not mean that they have to lower their counters so wheelchair occupants can see it made.. well that's gonna create an unsafe workspace ergonomically, for the people working there..

Perhaps they could have a special "chair" available for handicapped people who insist on "seeing it made".. It could be a counter height high chair-esque chair with wheels on it.. That would make more sense to me than to have to have employees slumped over to work at an uncomfortable counter-height.

[Blue Owl]

11. How about some mirrors on the ceiling?

Ooh, that's one sexy burrito!

[SoCalDem]

14. whip that guacamole.. whip it harder..

:)

[KansasVoter]

15. Not a bad idea!!

[JVS]

92. Or a periscope at the counter.

[Ken Burch]

17. They could put monitors displaying images from a "Chipotle-Cam" at each table

n/t.

[JI7]

18. How about Subway ?

[KansasVoter]

32. I am sure lawyers are searching all buildings right now!

[joeybee12]

19. Let me try to explain to you people who think this is bad...the guy sued because Chipolte

was not following ADA regulations/guidelines. The counter was too high...according to an already established ADA guideline, it was too high. Whoever Chipolte hired to design/construct their restaurant should have known this, so that entity is the one that is responsible, and you can bet they will sue each other for liability.

Bottom line, Chipolte broke a federally established regualtion, the Court did not arbitratily decide that they needed to accomodate the guy, or was "activist" in any way...the ADA had already decided that the counters in such places needed to be no higher than 36 inches...Chipolte tried to skirt a regulation, or their contractor did.

[superduperfarleft]

26. +1,000,000.

Some of the people bitching about this wouldn't last a day if they had to be truly disabled, and see how it feels when things they take for granted become exceedingly difficult if not impossible.

[joeybee12]

29. Chipolte or their contractor screwed up...the guy caught them...n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. Yes, I take the god given right of the "Chipolte experience"...

....for granted.

Give me a break. This isn't about a public restroom with no handicapped access or the lack of spaces or a ramp in the parking lot.

[joeybee12]

36. Apparently you're ok with a business disregarding ADA regulations...

I guess they all should ignore them...after all, some might be dumb, so it's up to individual comapnies to decide which ones they should follow.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

40. I feel sorry for the food service workers.....

....who are now going to have more back and neck problems bending over more to prepare the food. No one gives a fuck about them.

[joeybee12]

48. Yeah, right...

doubt they are going to have to chnage anything...they just have to have the area viewable for the guy.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

51. If the prep counter is 45 inches....

....and the viewing counter is 32 and he still can't see, then what?

I've never been in a Chipolte(we have one thirty miles from here I think)......so I don't know how it's set up.

[superduperfarleft]

38. How do you know?

You're being sarcastic about it, but how do you know you DON'T take these things for granted?

For instance, I'm vegan, so I have to be really on top of things when I'm in there to remind them not to put cheese on my burrito, which is difficult since they move so fast they're hand is already up to the elbow in cheddar before I can even finish my sentence. So I kind of like to watch them closely.

And regardless of individual circumstances (like mine), how do you know you don't take the practice of going into a restaurant without having to worry about the logistics of navigating a wheelchair, communicating your wishes to the servers, etc. for granted. Think about if, suddenly, you were unable to do that. Would that not affect your life in some way, especially if restaurants didn't give enough of a shit about established law to make it just a bit easier for you.

He's not asking we build an elevator on the side of the Sphinx. He's asking Chipotle to spend a measly amount of money to be in compliance with a piece of law they should've known about anyway.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

43. Chipolte already had a plan where they would prepare a meal at the table.....

....for a disabled person. They clearly weren't disregarding those folks.

[superduperfarleft]

45. That's great. Just like I applaud them for responding proactively to this ruling

(which I'm sure they knew they were going to lose, just as they knew they were disregarding the law when they installed the counters), I think that was a good idea as well.

But clearly the judge disagreed. I wasn't in court, you weren't in court, and the article is so slanted I'd take anything it says with a grain of salt.

So in this case, we have you, me, some local rag from Kansas (I kid, I kid), and a judge. I think I'll trust the judge on this one.

[KamaAina]

74. Ah yes, separate but equal.

Ah, the good old days. :sarcasm:

[joeybee12]

75. Yeah, let's really make it obvious that the guy is in a wheelchair...

that's what it amounts to, preparing it JUST for him at his table so everyone cranes their necks.

[KansasVoter]

28. Yes, and people who do not pay their property tax should have their house taken away!

[joeybee12]

30. Um,,,that is comparable...

HOW?

[KansasVoter]

34. It is the law. So we must enforce it.

[joeybee12]

37. No, it's a business versus an individual...you're taking away someone's

life, basically, as opposed to having Chipolte make essentially a minor, cosmetic alteration.

[joeybee12]

39. And another thing...why wouldn't that person pay property taxes? A teabagger or someone

who has fallen on hard times?

[superduperfarleft]

41. Seriously, that was fucking dumb. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

35. Is the counter height regulation in place for use or for viewing.

The customers have no hands-on role in preparing the food. I think this is a stretch, to say the least, of the spirit of the law.

[petronius]

55. It's a small thing, but I find when I go to places like Subway I do take advantage of

being able to see what's there - what looks freshest, or something I may not have realized I wanted. So, if Chipotle advertises itself as a 'watch us prepare your food so you know it's fresh' sort of place, then they should have done their homework...

[Jamastiene]

47. Thank you.

Hearing about this must makes me more thankful for those who do follow the ADA. Just because someone has disabilities does not mean they should be ridiculed for asking for a chance to live life too.

[Pab Sungenis]

67. Also, remember: the ADA is older than Chipotle.

It was around when the first restaurant was planned, designed, and opened. They should have been in compliance since day 1 and chose not to be.

[petronius]

42. We've had some abusive misuses of ADA in our local area, and the guy

in the suit may be a serial nuisance filer, and watching the food preparation may be a pretty trivial thing. But, IIRC ADA predates the existence of Chipotle and we're talking about a major chain with significant legal resources that should have been able to comply in the design of their restaurants - if the law specifies a number for the counter height, I have trouble feeling too badly for Chipotle if they got it wrong...

[superduperfarleft]

44. LEAVE CHIPOTLE ALONE!!!!111

Seriously, people complaining about other people using their gawd-given right to sue to force large corporations to comply with existing (and long-standing) law should be applauded here.

Seems like the reactionary, tabloid-style reporting of the original article sucked a lot of people in.

[joeybee12]

46. I agree...besides it's not that major of a change...the regulation may

not be the greatest, and one could argue about it, but it seems to be here that the ADA is bad.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

49. Maybe 45 inches is easier to manage for the people preparing the food

But again, fuck them......they're only the asshole behind the counter.

[joeybee12]

50. Yeah, the 36 inch is arbitrary...you'll really stretching because I think

it's dawning on you just how wrong you are.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

56. I'm not wrong at all

They can be like every other fast food joint, cancel the "Experience" and make the food back near the grill where the ADA can't mandate the height of prep counters.......yet.

They won't, because fuck the guy behind the counter.

[joeybee12]

58. Ridiculous...

if there was an issue with these guys having to bend over, it would have come up in the trial...it's not making the people bend over...yeesh!

[superduperfarleft]

62. You think Chipotle gives a shit about "the guy behind the counter?"

You think they specifically designed the counters to be 45 inches tall because they recognized that the little naifs behind the counter might be a bit delicate?

Bullshit...

Look, the 36 inches rule was pulled out of someone's ass years ago and put into the ADA. If a 36 inch counter was such an undue burden on workers, someone would've mentioned something all those years ago.

Now, decades later, we have a company that KNOWINGLY DISREGARDS THE LAW, pulling another number out of their ass (45) to build their counters, and you're shocked and outraged that someone stepped in to force them to comply with the law?

[superduperfarleft]

54. Have you ever even been to a Chipotle?

I'd say a good 6 inches or more of the "counter" is the barrier between customer and food worker, and the counters that the people are working on aren't any more than 36 inches high. So they, for all intents and purposes, ALREADY work on around a 3-foot counter.

In conclusion, you're really reaching.

[EFerrari]

83. LOL. Yeah, the chain was only thinking of its minimum wage part time workers!

[fishwax]

95. if that were the case, they could simply raise the floor on the customer's side

I would assume that you could elevate the area in front of the counter by nine inches, making a 45-inch counter an ADA-compliant 36-inch counter, and the workers wouldn't have to stoop any more than they do now.

Of course, we don't really know that 45 inches are better for workers, do we? Whether it is or not, I'm pretty confident that concern for their workers isn't the reason Chipotle built non-compliant counters in the first place.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

60. Can you at least acknowledge that this is a bit of a stretch of the law's intention?

The article states the food prep counter is at the compliant height. All other components (bathrooms, drink stations) in the restaurant are compliant.

Can you at least acknowledge that Chipotle ATTEMPTED to be compliant and just missed a somewhat bizarre interpretation of the law?

[petronius]

69. I said it was a small thing, and somewhat trivial.

I don't know about a "bizarre interpretation", however - I assume this is the part of the law they relied on:

(2) At ticketing counters, teller stations in a bank, registration counters in hotels and motels, box office ticket counters, and other counters that may not have a cash register but at which goods or services are sold or distributed, either:

(i) a portion of the main counter which is a minimum of 36 in (915 mm) in length shall be provided with a maximum height of 36 in (915 mm); or

(ii) an auxiliary counter with a maximum height of 36 in (915 mm) in close proximity to the main counter shall be provided;

and I'm not sure it's so bizarre to think that the front edge of the counter, or a barricade attached to the counter, would fall under that...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

80. The portion of the counter where the actual hands-on transaction takes place IS 36 inches.

Chipotle followed the letter of the law AND the spirit of the law.

[joeybee12]

76. I don't it's bizarre at all, I don't think it was misrepresented...

lots of companies that try to comply miss things, doesn't mena because they miss the rules are at fault.

[Odin2005]

86. That is a RW meme you are peddling there.

:puke:

[petronius]

87. What is? I'm going to reject your :puke: and give you a :shrug:, but I do want to congratulate you

for what is the first correct spelling of "peddling" that I've ever seen on a message board.

And now, the :shrug:

[Odin2005]

89. "Abusing the ADA", it's a RW meme.

God forbid we disabled people are accommodated, that might hurt corporate profits! We should just shut up and accept being 2nd-class citizens! :eyes:

[petronius]

91. What I said was "in our local area", referring to a single specific serial

litigant who was indisputably abusing the ADA, to the point of being forbidden to file further suits. Hardly a "RW meme" (a word I despise, by the way) and light years away from the rest of your insulting and hyperbolic interpretation...

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Just another example of cripples exploiting good, honest hardworking corporations. n/t

:sarcasm:

[superduperfarleft]

63. Beautiful.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

82. Give a guy a wheelchair and it goes straight to his head.

:sarcasm:

[Luciferous]

70. Seems a little excessive to sue the company

:shrug:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

71. Not when he'll get "damages".

I hope the other court reviewing that part tells him he should be "happy with the rewards of a good deed", and wish him good luck.

[joeybee12]

78. How much did he sue for? Did he, at first, simply ask them to change?

Oh right, you don't KNOW ANY OF THIS. You're just assuming because it fits your faulty storyline.

[joeybee12]

77. They should have probably settled...their lawyers are apparently stupid...n/t

[the redcoat]

72. Does anyone know what law they're specifically breaking?

...There has to be a law for this guy to win, right? Doesn't a law have to be broken for a court to rule on it?

Is "The wall is too high for someone in a wheelchair to see over" a legal decision? Is that real?

What the hell is wrong with people?


Edit: My bad, I didn't read the last paragraph/sentence

[superduperfarleft]

73. Dude, it's in the OP's excerpt.

The ADA requires a 36-inch counter in this instance. That's the law they're breaking.

[joeybee12]

79. Read the OP...it's a federal regualtion that essentially has the legal standing as a "law"

They broke it...end of discussion.

[Xipe Totec]

81. He gamed the system. I say more power to him.

The letter of the law is the letter of the law.

[BlueCheese]

84. My understanding is that Chipotle could also comply...

... by not letting anyone see the preparation process. If they were like any other fast food place, where you place an order and its comes out the back, it'd be fine.

I have to admit that as someone who is not disabled, this ruling struck me first as a little strange. I guess I think of the restaurant experience as being the eating of the food, not so much watching the staff make a burrito. Given that the "watching the prep" part seems kind of trivial, and that Chipotle was already accommodating the guy by bringing out the food for him to see, it doesn't seem like a case reeking of injustice. I mean, what's so great about seeing the burrito moving down the counter, getting things piled on it, anyway?

Having read the responses, I can see the other side of the argument, too. An interesting case.

[Odin2005]

85. All the ADA-bashing in this thread is disgusting and does not belong at this site.

:puke:

[EFerrari]

94. Agreed.

[SoCalDem]

88. New Chipotle theme.. Made fresh while you WAIT.

Drop the Made fresh while you WATCH. ..

What's next, blind people suing because they cannot feel the food?

[tomm2thumbs]

90. 'U.S. Justice Department guidelines set 36 in as the maximum height for such restaurant purposes'

I think he probably won because if the codes are clear (as it sounds), then they completely must have ignored them when designing & building their restaurants. It isn't like there isn't a guideline book that they must be referencing. I don't think the issue is something of reasonableness, as it is there was a code for just such purposes.

They were quick to get on the fix, so I guess they look back and are thinking twice about what their designers were thinking.

[fishwax]

96. I don't see the big deal with the decision

Now Chipotle will be compliant. Cool.