The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.
Is it though? I mean don't get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?
I'm lactose intolerant but even I think this is absurd. What about every other food allergy in existence? Should substitutions cost the same even if the ingredients don't? Furthermore, we're talking about a splurge item from a coffee shop. You can still make coffee at home or buy coffee without milk in it.
Well the ADA only requires 'reasonable' accommodations. So I guess the logic of this case would be that if the substitution only costs a little bit more than the original ingredient then they should offer it at the same price. But this would still allow for business to charge extra when making the substitution would be 'unreasonably' expensive.
Therein lies the rub as what one person considers reasonable another might not. Charging 1:1 for the increased cost of almond or soy milk seems reasonable but charging an additional markup over what they set for dairy milk might not be.
If their case has merit, I hope they win, but I honestly wish these lawyer fees and court time could be better used to tackle more lucrative issues like suing Ticketmaster/Live Nation for their whole anti-consumer business model and price gouging or suing Comcast for their monopoly in my area. There are probably 1000 different places to buy coffee in my city but only one way to buy event tickets and one company offering broadband/high speed internet.
What’s absurd is that Almond, Soy, and Oat doesn’t cost more than dairy milk when you look at prices at a grocery. But Starbucks charges extra for it anyway.
I think a lot of people have no idea that many dairy alternatives are essentially the same price now. And that's at a retail consumer level where the markups are biggest in the chain, bulk wholesale like what Starbucks pays would have an even smaller gap.
People are assuming there's a massive difference in price, that just doesn't really exist anymore... And that also ignores the absolutely MASSIVE markup Starbucks has for their coffee in the first place. It definitely doesn't cost Starbucks $.50 to use Oat milk instead of regular milk, but that's what they might charge the consumer for the substitution in a $6 coffee that cost them maybe $0.50 to make.
What's absurd is thinking that this argument makes logical sense. Do you think Starbucks buys milk at the grocery store? What do you think the ratio of milk to each milk alternative is? 100:1? 1000:1? The scale at which the purchase each would greatly affect the price.
When I worked at a restaurant that used a lot of milk it came in a 3 or 5 gallon plastic sack that went into a dispensing machine. Milk alternatives are likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging. The cost is entirely different.
Even if it isn’t, I’d prefer a world where people aren’t shitting their pants or leaving toxic fart clouds in their wake because they need to save .50 on a coffee.
Gluten free up charge is a thing everywhere and Starbucks is so overpriced that I go to a gas station for the occasional cup of to go coffee I get and there’s no real dairy anywhere there.
If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.
The issue with the ADA is that it does not specify what counts as a disability, rather it gives an explanation of what is considered a disability. This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
The lawyer quoted in the article is correct, considering they already accommodate people with diabetes without surcharge, it can be argued the same courtesy needs to be extended to the lactose intolerant, who do not have a "choice" in whether they can consume dairy.
Because they cannot just consume dairy like other customers, the lawyer is arguing that no longer charging for the difference is a "reasonable accomodation" to the fact that their clients bodies cannot process dairy. That definitely rises to the same level of reasoning for those who suffer diabetes, in my opinion.
Anyway, that's the frustrating thing about a lot of the ADA. It basically requires people who don't know if their unique position qualifies them to spend a lot of money on lawyers up-front just to find out if the courts will actually accept that as true. It's really well fucked because most disabled people don't have money to be pissing away on such a legal project. Most of them are busy just trying to survive. In other words, most of the time you have to hope a lawyer will take up your case pro-bono.
Source: My cancer isn't cancery or debilitating enough to count as a disability, even though "cancer" is in the list on the ADA website.
This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
That's how common-law systems are designed to work, though (along with delegation to regulators in the executive branch). You can't really expect the legislature to think through every single nuance and corner-case a-priori, right?
Yeah like if they had a mega list of every disability they could think of, but forgot one, or a new one is discovered, what happens in court? Said new/forgotten disability wouldn't legally be a disability.
Oh of course, but I was speaking of people who are seriously disabled (not just people with lactose intolerance) and that severely impacts their ability to just go out and get a lawyer to fight for their rights.
Like, the lactose intolerant, I'm pretty okay with them needing to come up with the money to prove it in court. Lactose intolerance may be considered a disability, but it doesn't rise to the level of disability that makes it hard to hold a job.
However, a lot of other people are stuck, shit out of luck, unable to work, hell, often unable to move, and they're still fighting for their problems to be recognized as a disability. Further, even with a disability that's accepted as a disability, you still have to go to court and fight, often for years, to get a disability recognized. You're not allowed to work while you're waiting for that classification. It's just a bad system for it.
The common-law system is fine and good, but we're all aware of how it's absolutely tilted in favor of people who have money and against those who don't.
I got a disability lump sum for temporary disability due to a nerve disorder. It was based on my previous income and the percentage of time an expert judge I was able to work. (20% according to the expert.)
I only for $14,000 for 3 years of being disabled.
The disorder is now managed with medication, incidentally.
Lactose intolerance is actually normal. It's tolerance to lactose as an adult that is biologically unusual, and mostly unique to westerners. Because most of us continue eating dairy products after infancy, we continue being able to digest them. However other cultures don't continue consuming dairy after infancy, and thus lose their ability to digest it effectively.
It's a really tough argument to claim it as a disability. I don't see this case going well for the plaintiffs.
Adult lactose digestion (called lactase persistence) has evolved a few times from various mutations — one that happened in Europe, and several in Africa and the Middle East. It’s not caused in individuals by continued consumption.
That's a super weird point of view. If your argument is wrt global averages and your view of normal is black hair, brown eyes, and some average between average Chinese and Indian populations, I suppose you're right...but not in a way that's remotely useful.
Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.
I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn't be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don't eat anything I don't make myself so this wouldn't impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.
What if the dairy substitute was 10x the cost of real milk, I know it isn't, but what if it were. Or even 100x, just for argument. Are you entitled to get that for the same price?
Is it though? I mean don't get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?
I'm lactose intolerant but even I think this is absurd. What about every other food allergy in existence? Should substitutions cost the same even if the ingredients don't? Furthermore, we're talking about a splurge item from a coffee shop. You can still make coffee at home or buy coffee without milk in it.
Well the ADA only requires 'reasonable' accommodations. So I guess the logic of this case would be that if the substitution only costs a little bit more than the original ingredient then they should offer it at the same price. But this would still allow for business to charge extra when making the substitution would be 'unreasonably' expensive.
Therein lies the rub as what one person considers reasonable another might not. Charging 1:1 for the increased cost of almond or soy milk seems reasonable but charging an additional markup over what they set for dairy milk might not be.
If their case has merit, I hope they win, but I honestly wish these lawyer fees and court time could be better used to tackle more lucrative issues like suing Ticketmaster/Live Nation for their whole anti-consumer business model and price gouging or suing Comcast for their monopoly in my area. There are probably 1000 different places to buy coffee in my city but only one way to buy event tickets and one company offering broadband/high speed internet.
What’s absurd is that Almond, Soy, and Oat doesn’t cost more than dairy milk when you look at prices at a grocery. But Starbucks charges extra for it anyway.
I think a lot of people have no idea that many dairy alternatives are essentially the same price now. And that's at a retail consumer level where the markups are biggest in the chain, bulk wholesale like what Starbucks pays would have an even smaller gap.
People are assuming there's a massive difference in price, that just doesn't really exist anymore... And that also ignores the absolutely MASSIVE markup Starbucks has for their coffee in the first place. It definitely doesn't cost Starbucks $.50 to use Oat milk instead of regular milk, but that's what they might charge the consumer for the substitution in a $6 coffee that cost them maybe $0.50 to make.
What's absurd is thinking that this argument makes logical sense. Do you think Starbucks buys milk at the grocery store? What do you think the ratio of milk to each milk alternative is? 100:1? 1000:1? The scale at which the purchase each would greatly affect the price.
When I worked at a restaurant that used a lot of milk it came in a 3 or 5 gallon plastic sack that went into a dispensing machine. Milk alternatives are likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging. The cost is entirely different.
Even if it isn’t, I’d prefer a world where people aren’t shitting their pants or leaving toxic fart clouds in their wake because they need to save .50 on a coffee.
Gluten free up charge is a thing everywhere and Starbucks is so overpriced that I go to a gas station for the occasional cup of to go coffee I get and there’s no real dairy anywhere there.
If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.
The issue with the ADA is that it does not specify what counts as a disability, rather it gives an explanation of what is considered a disability. This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
The lawyer quoted in the article is correct, considering they already accommodate people with diabetes without surcharge, it can be argued the same courtesy needs to be extended to the lactose intolerant, who do not have a "choice" in whether they can consume dairy.
Because they cannot just consume dairy like other customers, the lawyer is arguing that no longer charging for the difference is a "reasonable accomodation" to the fact that their clients bodies cannot process dairy. That definitely rises to the same level of reasoning for those who suffer diabetes, in my opinion.
Anyway, that's the frustrating thing about a lot of the ADA. It basically requires people who don't know if their unique position qualifies them to spend a lot of money on lawyers up-front just to find out if the courts will actually accept that as true. It's really well fucked because most disabled people don't have money to be pissing away on such a legal project. Most of them are busy just trying to survive. In other words, most of the time you have to hope a lawyer will take up your case pro-bono.
Source: My cancer isn't cancery or debilitating enough to count as a disability, even though "cancer" is in the list on the ADA website.
That's how common-law systems are designed to work, though (along with delegation to regulators in the executive branch). You can't really expect the legislature to think through every single nuance and corner-case a-priori, right?
Yeah like if they had a mega list of every disability they could think of, but forgot one, or a new one is discovered, what happens in court? Said new/forgotten disability wouldn't legally be a disability.
Oh of course, but I was speaking of people who are seriously disabled (not just people with lactose intolerance) and that severely impacts their ability to just go out and get a lawyer to fight for their rights.
Like, the lactose intolerant, I'm pretty okay with them needing to come up with the money to prove it in court. Lactose intolerance may be considered a disability, but it doesn't rise to the level of disability that makes it hard to hold a job.
However, a lot of other people are stuck, shit out of luck, unable to work, hell, often unable to move, and they're still fighting for their problems to be recognized as a disability. Further, even with a disability that's accepted as a disability, you still have to go to court and fight, often for years, to get a disability recognized. You're not allowed to work while you're waiting for that classification. It's just a bad system for it.
The common-law system is fine and good, but we're all aware of how it's absolutely tilted in favor of people who have money and against those who don't.
I got a disability lump sum for temporary disability due to a nerve disorder. It was based on my previous income and the percentage of time an expert judge I was able to work. (20% according to the expert.)
I only for $14,000 for 3 years of being disabled.
The disorder is now managed with medication, incidentally.
Lactose intolerance is actually normal. It's tolerance to lactose as an adult that is biologically unusual, and mostly unique to westerners. Because most of us continue eating dairy products after infancy, we continue being able to digest them. However other cultures don't continue consuming dairy after infancy, and thus lose their ability to digest it effectively.
It's a really tough argument to claim it as a disability. I don't see this case going well for the plaintiffs.
Adult lactose digestion (called lactase persistence) has evolved a few times from various mutations — one that happened in Europe, and several in Africa and the Middle East. It’s not caused in individuals by continued consumption.
That's a super weird point of view. If your argument is wrt global averages and your view of normal is black hair, brown eyes, and some average between average Chinese and Indian populations, I suppose you're right...but not in a way that's remotely useful.
Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.
I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn't be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don't eat anything I don't make myself so this wouldn't impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.
What if the dairy substitute was 10x the cost of real milk, I know it isn't, but what if it were. Or even 100x, just for argument. Are you entitled to get that for the same price?