Is This Discrimination?

[MrsSpringsteen]

According to the lawyer quoted it is. When they say their first priority is safety, do they really mean protecting themselves against lawsuits if accidents happen? This man is a customer, what about customer rights and satisfaction- and what about the ADA and the law? I think Mr.Hayes is right, most people don't understand. Well now that it's all over the news I'm sure Dunkin Donuts will have a quick change of heart.


By Jay Fitzgerald
Boston Herald General Economics Reporter
Tuesday, January 9

A wheelchair-bound Weymouth man suffering from multiple sclerosis says he’s being denied his right to a hot cup of coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts.
Donald Hayes said he’s bought coffee before by driving his motorized wheelchair up to the drive-up window at a Dunkin’ Donuts shop in the middle of a Weymouth shopping-market parking lot.
But now, that Dunkin’ store, which has no inside seating and only serves drive-up customers, has told him he can’t use the window anymore and refused him service, citing traffic safety concerns.
“It’s discrimination,” said Hayes, 54, who says he’s an ordained minister with an online following.
Hayes said he’s thinking of taking legal action if he can’t whirl up to the window to get his java.
“I’m just defending my rights,” Hayes said. “I’m not looking for monetary compensation.”
A Boston lawyer who specializes in employment and discrimination law said Dunkin’ Donuts better listen to him, based on case law.
“I think they have a problem,” said Laura Studen, a senior partner at Burns & Levinson. “It’s a public place - and it needs to be accessible.”
And a motorized wheelchair is a motorized vehicle, she said.
A spokesman for Canton-based Dunkin’ Donuts said the giant chain doesn’t have a corporate policy regarding the use of wheelchairs at drive-throughs.
But he added: “Our number one priority is the safety of our customers. Our franchisee’s objective in this particular instance is to protect customers from potential injury in a traffic accident.”
Weymouth police Chief James Thomas said Dunkin’ Donuts’ safety concerns are valid, according to The Patriot Ledger of Quincy.
Hayes, who lives about three miles away from the shopping plaza, gets to the Dunkin’ Donuts via an MBTA van, which picks him up at his home. The van won’t go through the drive-up window to fetch coffee on behalf of riders, he said.
Hayes rejected the notion that he should go to a Dunkin’ Donuts across the busy street that has in-store service. “People don’t understand the problems faced by the disabled,” he said.

 

[BVS]

Only serves up drive up customers? That's a limited customer base.

Well as long as they deny bike riders and walkups then I see no discrimination.

 

[deep]

ADA??


ADA says he should be treated like a walking person. His chair is not a car.


He should just go across the street.



He can't go through a car wash, either.

Just because he would like a quick rinse off.

 

[indra]

He should go across the street to the store which offers in-store service. If there are significant barriers to getting across the street (such as no ramps, etc.) then he should push for those barriers to be altered so he (and others) can cross.

I also think that a person in a wheelchair is considered a pedestrian, not a vehicle, so if a walking pedestrian wouldn't be served, neither should he. Most drive throughs I've seen do not serve people on bicycles or on foot. I just found this which is from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and it does not appear to me that his wheelchair fits the definition of a motor vehicle.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I have a friend who used to ride her horse through McDonalds drive-through with no problems at all.


Carparks and driveways are not registered roads, so in that regard they cannot claim he has no place in the drive-through, as well his wheelchair is not a registered vehicle. We can assume from the article that they deny foot pedestrians as well? Either way, I am sure the insurance policy of the shop covers the road and immediate vicinity and therefore leaves a giant liability hole. I'd say it's not discrimination, but if there is precedent then they're going to have a battle.

 

[Liesje]

A horse in the drive-through? Now that I've never seen! (well, I don't think horses are allowed in this city without special permits)

Tough call.

There's a woman in my parent's neighborhood who uses a wheelchair in the street all the time. Now, I really have nothing against this, since in the past I've biked in the street and run in the street, but I swear this woman has a death wish. She goes out at dawn regardless of the weather, like 6am, with no flag, reflectors, or light of any kind on her chair, and drives down the middle of the street. This is west Michigan, so 8 months of the year it's either snowing, raining, foggy, or just plain gray. I can't tell you how many times we've almost hit her, backing out of the driveway. Cars have headlights so we can see them when it's raining, snowing, dark, or foggy. Cars are required to use these lights and take precaution. Even bicycles are required to have a certain number of reflectors on them.

Honestly I'd have no problem with the guy going through the drive-through, but if he wants the chair to be considered a vehicle, he should be sure to put a flag or some reflectors or both on it. A car has certain things for safety and visibility; the chair should too. Even as a pedestrian on foot I keep reflective patches on my coats and shoes. You can't have it both ways.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I recall serving two people on horseback in the drivethru at DQ back in my younger years.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Absolutely agree with deep here. If pedestrians can't walk up to a drive-thru window, then he shouldn't be able to either.

The coffee place is liable if he is hit by a car accidentally while inside their drive-thru line, so they have every right to refuse him service.

 

[u2fan628]

Dunkin Donuts should cater to him and give him their phone number,he can call his order in then wait out front away from the drive through.At least this way DD can say they tried to accomodate him.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Dunkin Donuts should cater to him and give him their phone number,he can call his order in then wait out front away from the drive through.At least this way DD can say they tried to accomodate him.

That's called 'customer service' and 'a practical solution'. Do businesses these days practice that much? I'm going to guess this fellow is not up for that. He sounds awfully determined to wheel himself through as any other vehicle. Maybe he has a chip on his shoulder.

 

[redhotswami]

dunkin donuts coffee tastes like ass. i'd be more pissed that they were serving me ass in a cup than i would for not letting me use a drive thru.

 

[fly so high!]

It's not discrimination at all! A wheelchair is not a road vehicle, he would have to go elsewhere for a cuppa , like everbody else that is not in a car

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well that lawyer says that a motorized wheelchair is a motorized vehicle under the law. I don't agree that he should just go to another Dunkin Donuts-we all can go to whatever DD or Starbucks or whatever that we choose, so why shouldn't he have that same freedom?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

If he's driving a motorized vehicle wouldn't that make him subject to all sorts of other rules such as obeying traffic rules, wearing a helmet or seatbelt? He could just make things a lot worse for himself by causing this stink.

 

[indra]

If he's driving a motorized vehicle wouldn't that make him subject to all sorts of other rules such as obeying traffic rules, wearing a helmet or seatbelt? He could just make things a lot worse for himself by causing this stink.

Yeah, according to the info I found (and linked to in my earlier post) if it's a motorized vehicle he needs turn and stop lights and he needs to wear a helmut. From the picture he doesn't have either.

Well that lawyer says that a motorized wheelchair is a motorized vehicle under the law. I don't agree that he should just go to another Dunkin Donuts-we all can go to whatever DD or Starbucks or whatever that we choose, so why shouldn't he have that same freedom?

In the Massachusetts General Laws - Motor Vehicle Certificates of Title - Chapter 90d, Section 1 the definition of a motor vehicle or vehicles is:

(the bold is mine)

“Motor vehicles” or “Vehicles”, all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power including such vehicles when pulled or towed by another motor vehicle, except railroad and railway cars, vehicles operated by the system known as trolley motor or trackless trolley under chapter one hundred and sixty-three or section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-four of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-seven, vehicles running only upon rails or tracks, vehicles used for other purposes than the transportation of property and incapable of being driven at a speed exceeding twelve miles per hour and which are used exclusively for the building, repair and maintenance of highways or designed especially for use elsewhere than on the travelled part of ways, wheelchairs owned and operated by invalids and vehicles which are operated or guided by a person on foot.

Looks to me as if wheelchairs are specifically excluded as motor vehicles and they are also excluded as motorized scooters in that section. The wheelchair is designed to give a person unable to walk mobility similar to a walking person.

If you or I or anyone else walked up to that drive through window (and many drive through windows throughout this country) we would not be served either.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for looking that up indra. A senior partner at Burns and Levinson should know that. I am interested to see what will happen with this situation.

 

[CTU2fan]

I'm betting most of the "it's not discrimination" posters in this thread drive cars/have driver's licenses.

It's discrimination, and it's not even really a "gray area" type of thing, it just is. FWIW, it's also discrimination to deny a walkup. The only reason they do it is because they need to cover their asses in case someone's hurt.

Actually in a place that has an inside area it might not be, as he (or any other non-driver) would have the option of going inside & ordering. This one doesn't have that, which is where the discrimination comes in.

 

[redhotswami]

I agree indra. I think it sucks that he can't get service at this DD, but at the same time, pedestrians aren't served at drive-thrus.

i've seen a similar style restaurant where they don't have indoor seating, in fact, it isn't big enough for people to go in. so not only do they have drive thrus but they also have outside standing lines where you can walk right up and place your order. i think this particular restaurant took customers using wheelchairs into consideration, and the DD being reported did not.

 

[BVS]

It's discrimination, and it's not even really a "gray area" type of thing, it just is. FWIW, it's also discrimination to deny a walkup. The only reason they do it is because they need to cover their asses in case someone's hurt.

How is it discrimination to deny a walk up based on liability? Is it discrimination to deny people with heart conditions or small children on rollercoasters?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

He sounds awfully determined to wheel himself through as any other vehicle. Maybe he has a chip on his shoulder.

I understand what you mean- but does the fact that a disabled person wants to do what others are able to do because they can drive and not be "different" in such an everyday function, does that mean he has a chip on his shoulder? Some disabled people might be perfectly fine with someone bringing the coffee out to them, but if he wouldn't does that necessarily mean that? I can understand that from the point of view of a disabled person, as best I can being lucky enough to be abled. I'm not saying you aren't or can't

 

[CTU2fan]

How is it discrimination to deny a walk up based on liability? Is it discrimination to deny people with heart conditions or small children on rollercoasters?

Guys with heart conditions can ride coasters, who'd know they had one & stop them? For kids, the restraints aren't made to hold a small person so they literally can't ride. There's nothing in a drive-through itself that makes it inaccessible to non-drivers.

Re: liability, if you're serving a walkup and some idiot comes along and hits him, it's the driver who's liable, moreso than DD. Granted some sue-happy bastards would probably rather sue DD, because they can get more out of DD than the idiot. But that's true anyway...people will sue you, for pretty much anything, and valid or not they might win.

Again, I'm betting all the "it's not discrimination" stuff is coming from drivers. People just take things for granted.

 

[Butterscotch]

When I used to frequent theme parks, there were signs clearly posted on 'scarier' rides warning heart patients and pregnant women not to ride. I suppose if they did, it was at their own risk, if their condition (or pregnancy) was not evident and they didn't reveal it, so how could they sue?

I have also heard of obese visitors yelling discrimination that they were not allowed on rides because they were too large for the safety restraints to be closed. But what are you supposed to do, let them fall out?

BTW I had the interview, no news yet..

 

[redhotswami]

rather than the issue being with the drivethru, i think the bigger problem is the style of the DD, and how it isn't at all accessible.

i'm sure there are others besides those using wheelchairs who can't go their for donuts and ass coffee.

instead of battling discrimination at the drivethru he should be demanding that it be more accessible.

 

[BVS]

Guys with heart conditions can ride coasters, who'd know they had one & stop them? For kids, the restraints aren't made to hold a small person so they literally can't ride. There's nothing in a drive-through itself that makes it inaccessible to non-drivers.

A child could technically ride, they just wouldn't be as safe. The same exact logic pertains to this story. If you have a line to receive donuts, coffee, etc and the line is made up of vehicles and humans; who do you think would win if one's brakes decided to go out? As a business owner you don't place people in that scenario.

Re: liability, if you're serving a walkup and some idiot comes along and hits him, it's the driver who's liable, moreso than DD. Granted some sue-happy bastards would probably rather sue DD, because they can get more out of DD than the idiot. But that's true anyway...people will sue you, for pretty much anything, and valid or not they might win.

Again, I'm betting all the "it's not discrimination" stuff is coming from drivers. People just take things for granted.

This has nothing to do with being a driver. It has everything to do with common sense and being a safe business owner.

 

[CTU2fan]

rather than the issue being with the drivethru, i think the bigger problem is the style of the DD, and how it isn't at all accessible.

i'm sure there are others besides those using wheelchairs who can't go their for donuts and ass coffee.

instead of battling discrimination at the drivethru he should be demanding that it be more accessible.

Well that's the ideal I would assume. If you're going to run a business there's laws that say you've got to be accessible. Hence the ramps you see, and those big accessible toilets. This particular DD isn't...I want to see where this goes. It is my hope that when this thing is resolved, DD and other places that are "drive-through only" are forced, by law, to have a walk-up area. Maybe when that happens, DD will regret not letting a guy who CAN'T drive through get his coffee...penny-wise and pound-foolish in other words.

 

[CTU2fan]

A child could technically ride, they just wouldn't be as safe. The same exact logic pertains to this story. If you have a line to receive donuts, coffee, etc and the line is made up of vehicles and humans; who do you think would win if one's brakes decided to go out? As a business owner you don't place people in that scenario.


This has nothing to do with being a driver. It has everything to do with common sense and being a safe business owner.

So it's OK, because you can make an argument based on liability. In society there are going to always be people who are more at risk, of anything, based on particular situations. Should a concert venue be able to deny small people entry into the GA/pit area, because they might get hurt? Businesses could lower their risk by denying all kinds of people, is it always alright? Should it be?

 

[BVS]

So it's OK, because you can make an argument based on liability. In society there are going to always be people who are more at risk, of anything, based on particular situations. Should a concert venue be able to deny small people entry into the GA/pit area, because they might get hurt? Businesses could lower their risk by denying all kinds of people, is it always alright? Should it be?

You aren't getting it. Yes, liability plays a huge part in running a business, do we serve alcohol to minors? Why is that? We also don't serve certain foods raw.

Your examples miss the point as well, you are comparing humans to humans, not humans to cars.

General Admission areas have evolved a lot over the last decade. U2 could actually sell much more tickets if they sold seats instead of GA on the floor because they lose the traffic control of rows.

 

[CTU2fan]

You aren't getting it. Yes, liability plays a huge part in running a business, do we serve alcohol to minors? Why is that? We also don't serve certain foods raw.

Your examples miss the point as well, you are comparing humans to humans, not humans to cars.

General Admission areas have evolved a lot over the last decade. U2 could actually sell much more tickets if they sold seats instead of GA on the floor because they lose the traffic control of rows.

I don't think it's me that isn't getting it. Serving alcohol to minors is illegal. Serving raw meat is inherently dangerous, to everybody, that's why it isn't done. Not really good examples.

Of course if a car and a person collided the person would get hurt. That's obvious. Sure a guy could get hit walking through a drive-through. He could also get hit crossing the parking lot. Either way, if a car's brakes go somebody could get pasted.

Bottom line is, they're refusing to sell this guy coffee & donuts based on his disability (inability to drive). If he could go in, or they had a walkup, then he'd be being a pain in the ass trying to drive the chair through the drive-through. But they don't.

 

[Liesje]

Bottom line is, they're refusing to sell this guy coffee & donuts based on his disability (inability to drive). If he could go in, or they had a walkup, then he'd be being a pain in the ass trying to drive the chair through the drive-through. But they don't.

They're refusing to serve him because he's not in a vehicle, not simply because he is disabled. I'm sure they serve disabled people who drive or have special cars.

Just think of the precedent you're trying to set. What's next, car washes will be required to service wheelchairs and bathe service dogs? There's never been a reasonable expectation that walk-up customers would be serviced at a drive-through business. They are not discriminating; they're servicing a certain demographic of consumers.

 

[BVS]

I don't think it's me that isn't getting it. Serving alcohol to minors is illegal. Serving raw meat is inherently dangerous, to everybody, that's why it isn't done. Not really good examples.

Riding a motorized wheelchair in vehicle lanes is illegal also, a drive through is a vehicle lane. Certain meats can be served raw if served correctly but still aren't due to the highly dangerous nature, just like serving walkups at a drive through.

Of course if a car and a person collided the person would get hurt. That's obvious. Sure a guy could get hit walking through a drive-through. He could also get hit crossing the parking lot. Either way, if a car's brakes go somebody could get pasted.

But there's nothing inherent about a parking lot that causes someone to stop, communicate, or pull out payment that would inhibit their awareness. A drive through does. This is why we don't put vending machines in the middle of parking lots.

Bottom line is, they're refusing to sell this guy coffee & donuts based on his disability (inability to drive). If he could go in, or they had a walkup, then he'd be being a pain in the ass trying to drive the chair through the drive-through. But they don't.

Bottom line is they are refusing to serve anyone without a car because it would be completely irresponsible for them to do otherwise.

Try running a business once, and you'll understand.