Skip to main content

The Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA) and Food Allergies - Cleveland Enters the Arena

Reasonableness is like pornography - hard to define, but we know it when we see it.  (with a nod toward U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.)

It’s interesting how folks classify themselves on the political spectrum.  Most individuals regard themselves as moderate, independent and reasonable, regardless of their views and positions.  Try asking an extremely  partisan political conservative how he classifies himself and you will hear terms such as ‘family values’, ‘mainstream’ and ‘pro American’.   A politician on the far left is more likely to describe himself as ‘Progressive’, rather than as a 'liberal fanatic'.

The point is that unreasonable people believe that they are reasonable.

I read an account of an episode that occurred last week in Cleveland that hinged upon the legal meaning of the word reasonable.   A 16-year-old boy with various allergies joined several friends at an expensive restaurant.  Without providing advance notice to the restaurant, the young man started opening his own food that he had brought with him so that he might safely dine with his friends. The restaurant levied a $15 plating fee, which apparently is their policy and compensates them for the economic loss from a BYOF (Bring Your Own Food) patron.

The agiitated child texted his parents from the table which sparked a crescendo of anger and chaos.  Lawyers became involved in the contretemps, always a sign that tranquility is just around the corner.  Accusations of discrimination were hurled against the restaurant, who ultimately decided to waive the fee as a courtesy.  Everyone involved had a negative experience.  

In my view, all parties fumbled clumsily and repeatedly.  This dispute is similar to the childhood squabbles that we parents have resolved thousands of times in our kitchens and backyards.  Of course, the kid’s parents (or the kid) should have called in advance so the restaurant could be prepared and could also communicate and discuss its BYOF policy, which during this calm converation, might have been waived.  Surely, a phone call between two reasonable people could have resolved this riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.  (with a nod toward Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)  And, of course, the restaurant might have used a softer touch rather than light a fuse.


All Could Have Been Avoided With a Simple, Old-fashioned Phone Call


The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires an establishment to make a ‘reasonable’ accommodation to disabled patrons, visitors and clients.  We all support this law which has helped to emancipate and mainstream disabled Americans and others.   A reasonable accommodation does not mean any accommodation, however. 

The ADA would classify a serious allergic reaction as a disability.  Would the law require a restaurant to permit an allergic patron to bring in his own food?  Would a plating fee be permitted or might this be regarded as a discriminatory violation?  What if several diners with allergies came each day packing their own lunch boxes?  Would this be areasonable accomodation from the restaurant's point of view?   Could lactose intolerance or gluten sensitivity be claimed as disabilities?  (Don’t dismiss this possibility of DMC - Disability Mission Creep.  Recall, that a woman recently tried to board an airplane with her comfort hamster to keep her calm!)

I reached out to Mary Vargas, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, who was quoted in the newspaper article, and I am grateful for her patient explanation of some of the relevant legal points.  If there are any legal errors in my analysis in this post, they are mine, not Mary's. While attorneys perform a critical societal role, I suspect that Mary would agree that this issue should have been easily solved internally In a manner that would have satisfied all parties.

It’s not easy to screw up a situation where everyone should have emerged a winner.  But when you season a situation with anger and entitlement, be prepared to take cover.   

How would you have handled this situation if you were the restaurant?  What if you were the kid?  All reasonable responses welcome.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary