{"id":6904,"date":"2024-11-07T23:11:54","date_gmt":"2024-11-07T23:11:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/accessdefense.com\/?p=6904"},"modified":"2024-11-07T23:11:54","modified_gmt":"2024-11-07T23:11:54","slug":"if-at-first-you-dont-succeed-alternative-milk-litigation-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/accessdefense.com\/?p=6904","title":{"rendered":"If at first you don’t succeed. . . alternative milk litigation again."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Bag<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On November 5, 2024 Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the claims in Munoz v Peet’s Coffee, Inc.,<\/em> Case No. 24-cv-01764 in the Northern District of California. I’ve blogged about these cases recently\u00b9 so I won’t go into detail. As might be expected, the plaintiff lost. The reasons were simple. The plaintiff’s first claim was the addition cost of milk substitutes was an illegal surcharge imposed on those with disabilities. This is one form of disability discrimination forbidden by the ADA. The problem was simply that the surcharge applies to everyone, not just to those with disabilities. When a surcharge applies to everyone it is not discriminatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff’s second claim was that Peet’s Coffee should modify its pricing policy to meet the needs of those with disabilities. Such reasonable modifications are required by the ADA. Here the problem was that only one of the plaintiffs requested a modification, and a request is required before a business like Peet’s must grant an accommodation. Equally important, the Court also found that the modification was not necessary for those with disabilities to enjoy a “like experience” to those without disabilities. Those with disabilities got exactly the same treatment as anyone else wanting a milk alternative; that is, they were charged a little bit extra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also disposed of various state law claims, all of which might best be characterized as grasping at straws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dismissal of Munoz v Peet’s Coffee, Inc.<\/em> probably won’t put an end to litigation of this kind because the plaintiff’s ADA bar is remarkably persistent, but it is hard to see how this kind of litigation will ever serve any useful purpose for those with disabilities.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b9 See Lactose intolerance, milk allergies and the ADA<\/a> and Starbucks again – Lactose intolerance, alternative milk and the ADA<\/a><\/p>\n