Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 1 Jun 2019 17:38:39 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
Several people were apparently unable to access the Washington Post article (used up their free allowances?) and asked me questions or asked me to summarize:
The restaurant in question was owned by the foundation that runs Colonial Williamsburg. It provided a period entertainment experience in addition to food.The boy was 11 at the time and was on a class trip for which he had paid the full cost and which was inclusive of a meal. He brought his own gluten free sandwich, which he attempted (or asked permission to?) eat in the restaurant. The restaurant refused to allow it, saying it could prepare a gluten free meal for him. He refused the offer, saying he had several times been made very sick by purportedly gluten free meals prepared by restaurants.
The restaurant then sent him outside (in the rain) to eat his home-made sandwich alone. He sued. The trial court held for the restaurant, saying the boy had not met the legal standard for proving that he was discriminated against because of his disability. The boy appealed and the appeals court reversed, sending the case back to the district court for a jury trial. The opinion said that even though the restaurant prepares gluten free meals that serve the needs of other gluten intolerant persons, there are still significant questions as to whether the accommodation sufficiently serves this boy’s needs. He had alleged that accidentally eating gluten caused him to suffer from constipation, pains and even to lose consciousness for a short while. One member of the appeals court dissented, saying ruling for the boy could cause restaurants to lose the one thing most important to them - control over the food they serve.
* Send administrative questions to mailto:[log in to unmask] *
Archives are at: Http://Listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?LIST=CELIAC
|
|
|