ITT: A lot of people wanting to argue the headline and not the articles or legislation.
The plaintiffs said they would order drinks that included milk and would substitute the milk for non-dairy alternatives, such as soy, oat, coconut, or almond milk, and were charged an extra $0.50 to $0.80 for the substitution.
The lawsuit notes that Starbucks typically uses 2% milk for their milk-based products and would substitute that milk for another type of milk, such as 1% or skim, for no additional cost. Starbucks will also offer caffeine-less or sugar-free options for no additional cost.
Customers who are lactose-intolerant or have milk allergies may pay up to $2 extra at Dunkin’ Donuts when substituting oat or almond milk for dairy in their beverages. (from the link in the article)
The lawsuit against Dunkin’ points out that the chain already modifies its regular beverage offerings to remove caffeine and sugar at no additional cost for those with diabetes, weight-control issues or hypertension. The coffee company also asks customers about their allergies, informing them that their products may contain allergens. “Once Dunkin’ asks about allergies, and someone with a disability requests a dairy-free product as an accommodation, they can’t impose a surcharge — as they don’t for caffeine-free drinks, etc.,” Kanter said.
Kanter, the founding director of Syracuse University’s disability law and policy program, believes the lawsuit makes a strong case for discrimination under the ADA. “If a person qualifies as a person with a disability, and they’re entitled to an accommodation or modification — which in this case looks pretty simple as nondairy milk — they cannot be charged extra,” said Kanter.
The legislation is simple, and being tested currently in the courts with how it effects business practices. It’s also telling how privileged most of you are on here, you imagine yourself as the “owner” who is shocked and dumbfounded by this turn of events. Anyone who has actually worked in the restaurant or service industry knows this is company bullshit.
The Alternative-Milk items are mere percentages of percentages. All Food Costs and future sale projections are calculated for proper ordering. They already have the items on hand…there would be no restructuring or change in conducting business under a judgement on this case. The use of other free alternatives (sugar-free,etc) for disabilities being used as advertising is a damning indication everyone skips over. Caffeine-free doesn’t cost more to have or stock? Any of the Splenda/etc is corporeal and drops out of the Ether for everyone?
Again, the numbers are so low for alternative-milk your brain would skip a beat if you look at their figures.
Starbucks pays to produce one cup of regular coffee. Amateur speculative estimates range from $0.20 to $0.75… Starbucks has recently been repurchasing its own shares and paying dividends to increase returns to investors…The costs of goods sold, depreciation and amortization expenses, and store operating expenses have declined over the last six years, with only general and administrative expenses rising. (link)
Starbucks isn’t saying shit, they know the reality of how bad it actually looks. There is no “Woe is me” in any of their financial reportings so they just have to bite the bullet.
Starbucks also expects to continue robust store development in China, with net unit growth of approximately 13% annually. Globally, Starbucks expects to approach 45,000 stores by the end of 2025… Starbucks now expects global revenue growth in the range of 10% to 12% annually from fiscal 2023… growth is expected to be in the range of 15% to 20% annually through fiscal 2025. Starbucks plans to resume its share buyback program reinstituting a healthy return of shareholder capital, yielding an annual EPS benefit of approximately 1%, net of incremental interest, beginning in fiscal year 2024. Between dividends and share buybacks, the company expects to return approximately $20 billion to its shareholders in the next three years. (link)
They’re playing ball in China, we’ve all seen enough examples of companies having to bend the knee or getting out. I don’t get why everyone is not happy about these events. Want a “free” market where large corporation monopolies exist? Sure, but you gotta at least allow some crumbs to fall for the peasants lest they get hangy again. Want freedom and inclusion for all groups of people to experience life? Starbucks is an American institution now by cultural standards, you can’t academically refute that looking at any media or even economical standpoints. It’s on every corner, reasonable accommodations should be made and enforced for the general public. This isn’t a Ma and Pa coffee shop, this is why lower court judges exist and can weigh in on individual cases where they can seriously consider the context of the business standards.
The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.
Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.
As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks’s milks doesn’t seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.
So in essence, they aren’t be allowed to charge extra if the customer is intolerant? Isn’t there basic milk w/o lactose for that though? Or just serve it without milk?
By that rationale, could Starbucks have a policy in place where if you request a more expensive non-dairy option, you get an upcharge unless you give proof of a medical condition?
Basically saying, “Look, we’re happy to accommodate specific dietary restrictions at no additional cost for those with medical needs. We’re also happy to provide these options to all other customers at an upcharge reflecting the increased cost of these ingredients to us.”
I did look specifically for that, but I couldn’t find any language in title III of the ADA about whether disabled people can or can’t be required to prove or claim to be disabled.
I read the some of the text of the ADA. That’s the extent of my research. If you’re interested look into the statutes and case law and report back.
ITT: A lot of people wanting to argue the headline and not the articles or legislation.
The legislation is simple, and being tested currently in the courts with how it effects business practices. It’s also telling how privileged most of you are on here, you imagine yourself as the “owner” who is shocked and dumbfounded by this turn of events. Anyone who has actually worked in the restaurant or service industry knows this is company bullshit.
The Alternative-Milk items are mere percentages of percentages. All Food Costs and future sale projections are calculated for proper ordering. They already have the items on hand…there would be no restructuring or change in conducting business under a judgement on this case. The use of other free alternatives (sugar-free,etc) for disabilities being used as advertising is a damning indication everyone skips over. Caffeine-free doesn’t cost more to have or stock? Any of the Splenda/etc is corporeal and drops out of the Ether for everyone?
Again, the numbers are so low for alternative-milk your brain would skip a beat if you look at their figures.
Starbucks isn’t saying shit, they know the reality of how bad it actually looks. There is no “Woe is me” in any of their financial reportings so they just have to bite the bullet.
They’re playing ball in China, we’ve all seen enough examples of companies having to bend the knee or getting out. I don’t get why everyone is not happy about these events. Want a “free” market where large corporation monopolies exist? Sure, but you gotta at least allow some crumbs to fall for the peasants lest they get hangy again. Want freedom and inclusion for all groups of people to experience life? Starbucks is an American institution now by cultural standards, you can’t academically refute that looking at any media or even economical standpoints. It’s on every corner, reasonable accommodations should be made and enforced for the general public. This isn’t a Ma and Pa coffee shop, this is why lower court judges exist and can weigh in on individual cases where they can seriously consider the context of the business standards.
obligatory:
The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.
Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.
As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks’s milks doesn’t seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.
So in essence, they aren’t be allowed to charge extra if the customer is intolerant? Isn’t there basic milk w/o lactose for that though? Or just serve it without milk?
Not trying to make a case here, just asking:
By that rationale, could Starbucks have a policy in place where if you request a more expensive non-dairy option, you get an upcharge unless you give proof of a medical condition?
Basically saying, “Look, we’re happy to accommodate specific dietary restrictions at no additional cost for those with medical needs. We’re also happy to provide these options to all other customers at an upcharge reflecting the increased cost of these ingredients to us.”
I did look specifically for that, but I couldn’t find any language in title III of the ADA about whether disabled people can or can’t be required to prove or claim to be disabled.
I read the some of the text of the ADA. That’s the extent of my research. If you’re interested look into the statutes and case law and report back.