• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    They’re under obligation to make a reasonable accommodation. They accomplish this in 2 ways. You can either order it without milk, or you can pay extra for a milk substitute.

    Restaurants aren’t required to provide gluten-free pasta, fake seafood, or artificial peanut products just because some people can’t eat everything on the menu.

    • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The ADA has very specific language about not charging extra for reasonable accommodations, and dietary restrictions are mentioned.

      Restaurants are not required to stock ingredients for all allergies, and they are not required to order in special ingredients on request. But starbucks does stock non-dairy milks. Using the non-dairy milk that they already stock is a reasonable accommodation.

      The case is based on a good faith reading of title III of the ADA. It’s not unreasonable to argue that charging extra is illegal in this case.

      • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        If I can’t eat beef (that’s a real allergy) is a restaurant obligated to substitute lobster if they happen to serve it? The fact is, oat milk isn’t milk. Milk treated with lactase is milk.

    • Phegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Do you have a source? My understanding was that they were under obligation to not charge for the accommodations, hence the lawsuit.