White Castle Refuses To Serve Electric Scooter Rider Via Drive-Through

A White Castle in St. Paul, Minnesota, is a 24-hour establishment, but it locks its dining room doors at 11 pm. Unfortunately, its drive-through service is restricted to customers in cars, so the employees refused to serve a 37-year-old woman who pulled up on an electric mobility scooter. Now she says she’s madder than fish grease, which is pretty mad, and she wants to sue them for discriminating against customers who can’t drive.

The Minnesota Disability Law Center is weighing whether to take on Wade’s case, said Justin Page, a staff attorney. It’s an “unsettled” area of law, with few cases testing the issue, he said. But on first glance, the policy strikes Page as inconsistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“I would argue if you’re open 24 hours, you need to be accessible and provide accessibility 24 hours,” Page said.

“Whistleblower: Tough customer won’t end siege of Castle” [Star Tribune] (Thanks to Davis!)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. labeled says:

    I wanted to come in and snark, but I don’t know if I can. The ADA has serious teeth, and I think White Castle is going to lose.

    • David Anderson says:

      @labeled:
      How is this even an ADA case? Not being able to drive isn’t a disability, otherwise everyone under the age of 16 would be considered disabled.

      She could have had a friend drive her, she could have taken a taxi, or she could have picked up some tasties from the supermarket.

      • seishino says:

        @David Anderson: I used to be a full-time cyclist, and had lot of problems with getting service at drive-throughs. A lot of places are automated to the point where they can’t start a transaction without a thousand pound car pushing down a sensor. Even motorcycles sometimes aren’t heavy enough.

        And yes, sometimes they just don’t want to serve walk-ups at the drive through. But the fact remains that a lot of places couldn’t technically do it even if they wanted to.

        • gravitus says:

          @seishino:

          See the problem is that there is no sensor that is pushed down, same thing applies for most roadways.

          It is an induction loop that is set off when something breaks the field; your feet and bike tires won’t usually do it. Think steel belted radials…

          That’s why at a vast majority of intersections or drive-thru’s you will see a big square cut into the asphalt or concrete, which is where the induction line is sitting. Sometimes a motorcycle won’t set them off if they pull up to the light directly in the center of the lane.

          Look for them next time and bask in the glory of knowledge. :)

      • layton59 says:

        @David Anderson: I went through a TACO BELL drive-thru here in Greenville, OHIO and the guy in front of me was on a mobility scooter. He most definitely had a some sort of disability. It looked strange but they had no issues serving him at the window. Sad thing is that WHITE CASTLE is HQed in Columbus Ohio, a mere 100 miles from my town, and yet we do not have a WC. Wendy’s is also HQed in Columbus and we have one here. So why no WC?

      • buckeyegoose says:

        Some would say those under 16 are “special”

    • Megalomania says:

      @labeled: The fact that she is ‘disabled’ is irrelevant – she could have been Lance fucking Armstrong riding a scooter and the issue would still be that their policy is cars only.

      Anti-“discrimination” legislature is a waste of taxpayer dollars and government time. Businesses should be motivated to serve the most possible people because it gets them more money. Discrimination in hiring? Kick people out of your club? Lose business from the people you kick out and anyone else who doesn’t want to put up with your shit.

    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

      @labeled: It seems a little more complicated than that. WC will argue back that it is for employee safety that they restrict access to the restaurant, and that they don’t discriminate against anyone, disabled or not WHO. HAS. A. CAR. You know…who can, like, DRIVE THROUGH the drive through and stuff.

    • labeled says:

      @labeled: I don’t disagree with any of you – but the ADA isn’t to be fucked with. There are people that successfully make a living finding Mom & Pop restaurants/stores/whatever’s w/out a ramp, accessible bathroom or too-narrow aisles and suing them.

      I just have a nasty feeling the Disability Law Center will take her case, and win.

      • Inglix_the_Mad says:

        @labeled: Depending on when the store was built, good luck. Sued a family diner around here a couple years back. Didn’t work out too well for them (read: they lost) because the interior hadn’t been redone in 30 years LOL.

      • Shadowfire says:

        @labeled: “There are people that successfully make a living finding Mom & Pop restaurants/stores/whatever’s w/out a ramp, accessible bathroom or too-narrow aisles and suing them.”

        They only get sued because the people owning those mom & pop shops don’t know the law and can’t afford a lawyer. The ADA only requires that businesses make -reasonable-accommodations- for the handicapped. If having a ramp means buying the neighboring property (or there’s no space because your door is right on the sidewalk), you don’t need a ramp.
        If accommodations can’t be made reasonably, there is no case. Unfortunately, most folks don’t know that, and they settle very quickly rather than facing a long court battle they can’t afford.
        I know in my little town there are a number of businesses that don’t have ramps, and don’t have handicapped accessible bathrooms, but they are well within compliance because their doors open straight onto the sidewalk, thus leaving on room for ramps (and the stores are so small that it is actually not possible to build a bathroom large enough to have rails).

    • silver-bolt says:

      @labeled: If the DMV and the state can discriminate against those physically unable to drive from receiving licenses, then so can everyone else in that respect. Especially when there is valid reasons for the discrimination. It is not like White Castle is saying, “Hey you with the prospetic arm, you can only work in the back room”. They really arn’t even denying her based on a disability, but on something practical.

      • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

        @silver-bolt: Oh, I wanna snark about the neck brace guy by the emergency exit just to hit the trifecta, but I can’t think of anything. XD

    • Bs Baldwin says:

      @labeled: Lose? On what grounds? She took her scooter, not licensed to be on a road, on a road. Drive-thrus are only for cars, you can’t walk up and get service. These are the same idiots that try to pull this at the bank’s drive thru.

  2. youbastid says:

    Most places don’t say “Open 24 hours,” they say “Drive-Thru open 24 hours.” If that was what the sign said, she doesn’t have a case. They aren’t allowed to serve people without cars from the drive thru window for liability reasons.

    • m4ximusprim3 says:

      @youbastid: Yep. I actually tried to go through the JITB drive through in a shopping cart once (college) and was turned away rather quickly.

      Then I crashed it on a curb and broke my arm.

      • downwithmonstercable says:

        @m4ximusprim3: Funny, I did the same exact thing, except through a Krispy Kreme. They told me to get out of there and bribed me with a free donut. Then my friend pushed me down the parking lot, Jackass style. I crashed into an island and got nice and bloody. Maybe I should sue the Home Depot that we got the cart from for not properly keeping me from doing something stupid by leaving carts unattended.

      • Coles_Law says:

        @m4ximusprim3: That policy is enforced to various degrees. At my old McD’s, we didn’t care unless it was busy.

        • reynwrap582 says:

          @Coles_Law: My old McD’s was by a kinda rundown motel with a lot of shady people, and we were the only place offering food open past 10pm nearby. We’d have people just walk through all the time… They usually reeked of alcohol, so I decided to just serve them as Pedestrians vs. telling them they can’t come through without a car, which would just result in them going to the hotel and driving to our store drunk. Our drive through and parking lot were very well lit, so I wasn’t terribly concerned about other cars hitting them. Sometimes I actually hoped they would (mostly because they all thought, for whatever reason, they could haggle with me on the price of food. “$5 for 20 chicken nuggets?! I’ll give you $3, all I got.”)

          • silver-bolt says:

            @reynwrap582: You bastards at McDonalds stop serving from the dollar menu after hours, so a 6piece nuggets cost 2.50 something when 2 4packs should cost 2 dollars. Fucking moneygrabs.

      • TerpBE says:

        @m4ximusprim3: I did that at a Wendy’s, and the cashier gave us some extra fries because she said it looked like we needed them.

        • JeffMc says:

          @TerpBE: Me and a buddy once tried walking through a Wendy’s drive through. (We were in no shape to drive even if we’d had a vehicle nearby.) They turned us away, but luckily some chick in a pickup truck came up behind us and offered to let us sit in the box and order from there.

      • trujunglist says:

        @m4ximusprim3: @downwithmonstercable:

        That sounds familiar… someone I know that may or may not actually be me was arrested as a minor for something very similar.

    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

      @youbastid: I had friends go through a drivethrough in an imaginary car. The manager told the employees to serve them, but told my friends not to do it again.

    • coan_net says:

      @youbastid: Yea, I was always under the impression that most drive through places were not allowed to search customers through the drive through… unless they were driving.

      …. so the question is – an electric scooter IS driving, so…. ???

      • SonicMan says:

        @coan_net: But its not driving. She will lose this case. I think it was NJ, but I am not sure anymore. But a cop pulled over a guy in an electric wheelchair for Drunk Driving. The guy won the case, since he was not actually driving, ADA. The cop could not of pulled over somone for DWI while they were walking, so in a wheelchair drunk, is considered “walking”

        • twophrasebark says:

          @youbastid:

          “Anything that’s street legal.”

          Yeah, I thought you were making stuff up. What are you quoting, the American Drive Through Act or something?

          Liability is not the issue. The issue is the ADA or similar Minnesota law on accommodating disabilities.

          You might consider a similar type of situation where a restaurant may not be allowed to let in pets due to health regulations. However, the ADA would trump that if you had a guide dog.

          • silver-bolt says:

            @twophrasebark: But if the dog was dangerous or out of control (Not likely with a service animal, but it can happen) the resturant would be free to kick them out. If the accomidation provided for by the ADA is unreasonable or unsafe, then it is not forced upon the business.

            • twophrasebark says:

              @silver-bolt:

              “If the accommodation provided for by the ADA is unreasonable or unsafe, then it is not forced upon the business.”

              Correct.

              I don’t think the scooter issue is unreasonable or unsafe. It really depends on what the court decides or relevant agency decides.

        • silver-bolt says:

          @SonicMan: Well that (Wheelchair = walking), and NJ DWI law specifies vehicle, and the legal definition of vehicle does not include wheelchairs. Just like you can’t be pulled ((atleast convicted)) over on your private property for DWI or Speeding, because the NJ laws refer to highway, as a legally defined term meaning streets, roadways, highways, and any road which falls under public care. Same with having an unregistered car. Fine, aslong as it is not on a “highway”, even parked on the street.

        • ShadowFalls says:

          @SonicMan:

          That still falls under “Public Intoxication” though.

          • silver-bolt says:

            @ShadowFalls: Public Intoxication normally requires disorderly conduct. You really can’t be convicted for being drunk in public if you are standing off to the side, quietly, and not bothering anyone.

    • putermcgee says:

      @youbastid: i used to get away with riding a bike through the drive-through window but it was usually because they had already started making my order by the time i rolled up to the window. this lady’s crazy, and i hope they laugh her ass out of court. when i rode my bike through, i also ‘could not drive’ because i wasn’t old enough…which is age discrimination! call my lawyer!

    • sponica says:

      @youbastid: but was there a sign telling patrons the drive through was only accessible to vehicles? i have seen signs saying such things…no walkers allowed in drive thru lane. my sister once walked thru the dunkin donuts drive thru…they were less than happy but seeing as the drive thru didn’t exactly specify what was allowed they had to serve her.

      • youbastid says:

        @twophrasebark: No, I’m quoting their policies as stated to me on various occasions, but thanks for playing. It is a liability issue, and if the ADA has a problem with people not being able to ride scooters through drive throughs, they can sue the insurance company and see how that works for them.

        @sponica: That’s a pretty common misperception. They didn’t HAVE to serve your sister. No business HAS to serve anyone. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

        • twophrasebark says:

          @youbastid:

          “It is a liability issue, and if the ADA has a problem with people not being able to ride scooters through drive throughs, they can sue the insurance company and see how that works for them.”

          The ADA is the Americans With Disabilities Act. “They” don’t “sue” anyone. It’s a statute that protects Americans with disabilities. The “insurance company” does not decide whether or not people on scooters will be able to use drive through lanes. If the courts or state agency tells the restaurant it is reasonable and safe, then the restaurant will get new insurance to accommodate the scooters.

          • youbastid says:

            @twophrasebark: True on the ADA thing. I missed that boat. And, no, the insurance company does not make the decision, but the restaurant makes theirs based on the insurance policy. If their liability insurance won’t cover anyone outside of a licensed vehicle in the drive thru lane, then they won’t serve anyone outside of a licensed vehicle in the drive thru lane.

      • henwy says:

        @youbastid:

        Well, unless you’re black or jewish or one of an increasing number of protected classes. It all depends on the state though.

  3. Tim says:

    I was going to say “cue the they-don’t-have-to-serve-handicapped-people”, but it looks like it already started.

  4. William Brinkman says:

    She is a terrible person.

  5. Parapraxis says:

    what about the speed bumps in the parking lot? Her Rascal Mobility Scooter could bottom out on one of those…

  6. kepler11 says:

    I will be sad to see if there is a genuine disability issue here — they will serve her, if she’s in a car. Just like someone who is not disabled.

    • Inglix_the_Mad says:

      @kepler11: There shouldn’t be one even considered. This is safety pure and simple. The whole reason chains do this is because people have been injured by vehicles.

      This lawsuit is foolish. What? She couldn’t go inside because it would be too inconvenient?

      FYI I spent 6 months in a wheelchair so I know how much of a hassle it is. Worse yet, mine was not motorized, so she gets ZERO sympathy from me.

      • LafinJack says:

        @Inglix_the_Mad: She couldn’t go inside because the lobby was closed. C’mon, you don’t even need to RTFA, just RTFFLOTS (Read The Fine First Line Of The Summary).

      • Megalomania says:

        @Inglix_the_Mad: No one could go inside – to decrease the number of personnel a lot of 24 hour places only leave the drive through open.

        • Inglix_the_Mad says:

          @Megalomania: Then suck it up. You both are right, I didn’t bother reading it other than to check she was an idiot in a drive-thru lane riding a motorized scooter. Had she been hit by a vehicle, whether driven by a drunk or sober person, WC would have been sued for unsafe practices in allowing her to use the drive-thru.

          This is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. They can’t afford to staff the place to keep the interior open (insurance, staff pay, et al.) nor can they let her in the drive-thru without opening themselves up to enormous legal liability, but this bint decides she’s special. Fine, let all the places close instead of staying open late, you’ll watch people like this get their suits tossed by the wayside and told to STFU. Either that or you’ll see an end to 24 hour anything where staffing can’t be maintained due to cost. You know, like 24 hour gas stations because the person behind the counter is PROHIBITED (for insurance reasons) from leaving the store area (or sometimes even the counter area) to help the customer.

          The title of the article says it all. This lady isn’t in a vehicle, she’s riding an electric scooter. Fine. Problem being it’s an insurance risk and I wouldn’t let it happen either. The injury lawsuit would cost more than this one will.

  7. Tim says:

    Okay, now that I’ve had time to actually think about it …

    It seems as if this brings up an issue bigger than ADA: is it right (or legal) to have hours of the day in which you only serve people in cars? What about people not in cars? Why do I need a car to eat at your establishment?

    I distinctly remember going through the McDonalds drive-thru at the age of 12. They didn’t seem to have a problem with it.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      @TCama: But you were 12 and couldn’t legally drive, so what were they going to do – tell a kid he has to go home and get mom and dad to drive him back to McDonalds?

    • youbastid says:

      @TCama: How long ago were you 12? No drive thru allows that nowadays.

      But yes, it is right and legal to have hours of the day in which you serve only people in cars. These places used to NOT be open 24 hours. They’d close at 10 or midnight and that was it. Then they found that if they closed the dining room, A) They didn’t have to pay as much to keep the place maintained, B) They didn’t have to pay as many people to work, and C) They didn’t have to deal with drunken idiots and drug addicts wandering in at 3AM.

      So what would you prefer, only open to cars or not open at all? Because that’s the alternative.

      • Tim says:

        @youbastid: Just 8 years ago, actually. Maybe it was just the particular McDonald’s?

        I’d honestly prefer an option in which anyone who doesn’t need a dining room can get food. Here’s an idea: have a window that one can only walk to. No drive-thru, just a … walk-thru. If you’re in your car, park it and walk up to the window.

        Just an idea.

        • rpm773 says:

          @TCama: I walked through a Taco Bell drive-thru about 10 years ago. The one on Addison near Wrigley Field in Chicago. After some qualms, they served me.

          I wasn’t even madder than fish grease. I was just drunk as a skunk.

          • tsume says:

            @rpm773: I walked thru the jack in the box drive thru off mission ave in oceanside, ca all the time and they never had a problem with it. They did have a sign saying they don’t serve walk up customers, I guess that’s just to deter the riff raff. It also may help they knew my face as I’d drive thru in my car nearly every day.

        • valthun says:

          @TCama: In locations with a decent climate 95% of the year some restaurants have these. In SoCal there are a number of mini Taco Bells that have no dining room and open 24/7. They have a tiny patio and 2 or three tables with a walk up window. The same register rings up both car and walk-up.

        • Skeetz says:

          @TCama: Here in Toronto, Canada, we have a walkthrough but the side of the building it’s on is a sidewalk (for pedestrians). If you’re in a drivethrough but not in a big enough vehicle or on foot you’re not going to be seen and you’re going to get run over. The only thing they have to prove in court is that policies (or laws) about drive throughs are in place because of accidents/death. Case dismissed.

        • dohtem says:

          @TCama: I despise this sense of entitlement. They don’t owe you jack. If you do not like it, take your money else where. Or open up your 24 hr “walk-thru”

          You don’t get to sit at you computer and wish others would do things to make life easier for your.

          /rant

    • downwithmonstercable says:

      @TCama: You walked through? If that’s the case, 99.99999% of fast food joints have a sign saying no walk through customers in the drive through. Like someone said above, it’s a liability thing. Maybe they made an exception for you, or maybe it was some high school kid that didn’t care. I walked through a McD’s at 3 in the morning one time, and the guy let us through, probably because he was working at McD’s at 3 in the morning and didn’t really care or have life goals and losting his job there really wouldn’t be the end of the world…

    • catskyfire says:

      @TCama: Restaurants usually limit the food service to the drive through because they are disinclined to have people loitering inside without much purchasing going on. Imagine a group of teenagers with the argument, “You can’t kick us out, we ordered fries” and staying there for hours. Similarly, homeless people could use coins to buy one item and stay there for hours.

      They recognize that there is business to be done, but by limiting it to a controlled window, they view it as more profitable and safer. THey can also use fewer staff.

      Is it legal? Why not? As long as the refusal to serve is based on something legal, yes. So they could refuse to serve you for not being in a vehicle, but they couldn’t refuse to serve you because of your ethnicity.

      It may not be your preferred business practice, but they’re willing to take the risk.

    • jswilson64 says:

      @TCama: What happened to “management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone” ?? Being an occasional cyclist, this irks the crap out of me, but it’s their restaurant. If the business doesn’t want to serve you unless you’re in a car, that’s their right. Isn’t it?

      • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

        @jswilson64: To a point. If management is refusing service to a protected class — women, the disabled, a particular racial group, etc. — then no, they don’t have a right to refuse service.

        The question at issue here is whether she was refused because she was disabled (and whether White Castle has an obligation to provide accommodations for non-driving-but-mobile disabled people after dining room hours are over), or whether she was refused because she doesn’t drive.

    • silver-bolt says:

      @TCama: In short, they arn’t legally required to serve you, or be open. THey can choose what type of business and customers they want (with regards not discriminating against protected things). That’s like requiring a supermarket to carry a certain brand of soda or a special type of food, or forcing stores to not have bag policies or allow as many minors into the sotre unaccompanied as the legal limit is.

      Of course, the only legal service hour thing is a local ordinence. Most fast food places can petition to be exempt, but most other stores in an area can only be open from x to y pm, depending on your city. In Newark, NJ, clubs have to be done and empty of patrons by 3:00am, including daylight savings times, no exceptions. Stores on Broad st. have to be closed by 8:00pm.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      is it right (or legal) to have hours of the day in which you only serve people in cars?

      @TCama: If that were the case they would have shut down Sonic (fast food joint, not the commentor) a long time ago.

      There is no dining room at Sonic, period. It’s just a drive-in joint: all of the parking spaces have their own speaker to order food with and people bring your order out to your car. There is no legal requirement that a place that serves food has to let you come inside while it’s open.

    • Bs Baldwin says:

      @TCama: The larger issue is why do we let cases like this even get considered? One of our country’s biggest problems is the lack of tort reform along with a friendly lawsuit environment. If people had to pay a defendant’s legal bills and the lawyer lost their license, frivolous lawsuits will finally go away.

  8. hills says:

    But are they really “discriminating against customers who can’t drive”? They are only able to serve vehicles after 11pm, and there’s no reason this woman can’t be a passenger in a vehicle and be served. I’m a strong supporter of people with disabilities, but this is a little too much.

    Of course, it would be great if drive thrus served people on foot after the dining rooms are closed, and then we wouldn’t have this issue, but…..

    • Murph1908 says:

      @hillsrovey:
      …then you would have people being hit by cars as they rounded the building, leading to other lawsuits.

    • JediJohn82 says:

      Isn’t it drive thru-only when it is dark outside…doesn’t this lady worry about her own safety?@hillsrovey:

      There is no reason she couldn’t be the driver in a vehicle with hand controls either; unless she’s legally blind in which case maybe she shouldn’t be driving a scooter either.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        @JediJohn82: No, drive thru windows are usually open when the restaurant opens in the morning.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        @JediJohn82: Oh wait, I see what you mean. The drive through is the only part of White Castle that is open after the sit-down part of the restaurant closes. That’s what the article means, not that the drive through opens when the sit-down part closes. The drive through is open the entire time, it just stays open longer.

      • Andrew Heitz says:

        @labeled: The ADA has no authority here. She claims its discrimination against people who cant drive. Its not legally discrimination because being able to drive isn’t a right, its a privelage.

  9. davidc says:

    This should not be an ADA issue, it’s a safety issue. Cars and People sharing the same window service tend to lead to all sorts of problems.

    How do you “line up”? car person person car car? and if the car behind a person moves up a little bit, and hits the person in front of them?

    Ok, 2 lines then .. a people line and a car line. so 5 people on one side, and 5 cars on the other … who is first? who is second?

    As far as the scooter being considered a “vehicle” or not? Does it have a license plate and require a drivers license? So much for that argument.

    • Tim says:

      @david.c: Look at it this way:

      The restaurant most likely has drive-thru-only hours because they don’t want to keep their dining room open during those hours. So they only serve people who don’t need a dining room. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

      So if I don’t need a dining room, does it matter what vehicle (if any) I’m in/on?

      • snowburnt says:

        @TCama: Yes, you run into other issues like people and scooters getting run over by pushy cars and the store getting sued for allowing it to happen.

    • Corporate_guy says:

      @david.c: I’ve seen people walk through a drive-thru. Car, person, car. No big deal.

    • bwcbwc says:

      @david.c: It could be an ADA issue, but I don’t think it’ll pass the “reasonable” test of the ADA. Disabled people can drive with special accommodations on the vehicle plus a handicapped tag gives them parking privileges, so no special accommodation or change to safety rules is required to accommodate the disabled. If she can drive a scooter she can drive a car or have a care-giver drive her to White Castle. If she’s indigent and can’t afford a car, she’s not being discriminated against any more than other folks who don’t have a car.

    • cortana says:

      @david.c: Actually, in most states, anything you take in the street that moves is a vehicle. Bicycles are required by law to follow all motor vehicle laws while on the street

      Ergo, a scooter, if it can go into the street, is a motor vehicle, licensed or not. (ohio law at work here, no clue what minnesota law is on this)

    • majortom1029 says:

      @david.c: A car has to yield to Pedestrians so a pedestrian should have no problems walking through a drive through.

  10. acasto says:

    I really don’t see why they can not serve people without cars. Seems a bit arbitrary, unless of course as youbastid stated above it is for liability reasons. Which is usually in and of itself a retarded arbitrary reason. Just another example of how dependent our society is on vehicles.

    • humphrmi says:

      @acasto: Two reasons: One, because people in cars have a car door between them and the window, which provides some level of protection for the employees, and second because they don’t want vagrant pedestrians asking people for handouts or assaulting their drive-through customers.

      It’s really a safety issue.

      Of course, that really doesn’t apply here – if the OP is fully disabled (but then, how would they know) there probably is no safety issue.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        @humphrmi: It’s also why places like Sonic require the cars to park in the parking space to order before the waiters on roller skates come out to bring you food.

    • FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR says:

      @acasto: Ever seen what a car does to a person upon even the lightest of impacts? Not pretty. Ever seen what a person does to a car upon impact? Maybe scuff the wax a bit.

      Once you start mixing occupied/mobile cars with pedestrians you open up all kindsa bad juju for the meat popsicles.

    • BennyMigrationWitness_GitEmSteveDave says:

      @acasto: Well, it’s late at night and there is someone in an SUV who just ordered and it rolling up to pay. They aren’t paying attention and hit a person standing there or someone who was standing behind the place where it juts out to get out of the wind. Injuries could go from bruise to death from getting run over.

      Now same SUV hits a Honda. It’s an accident where someone might be able to claim whiplash, but all parties are alive.

    • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

      @acasto: It usually is for liability reasons. People standing at the window could get hit by a car rounding the corner. So… no case here. They wouldn’t have served her if she had walked up to the window on her own power. I await the pwnage with bated breath.

    • valthun says:

      @acasto: and if they served you and the person in the car behind you slipped and hit you with his car. You could sue the restaurant for allowing you to be in harms way to get your food.
      Its not arbitrary they do it to keep you safe from vehicles that can cause serious damage to you.

    • snowburnt says:

      @acasto: “Liability” is not arbitrary when you end up paying millions in a settlement or hundreds in insurance to keep you from pay those million.

    • William Brinkman says:

      @acasto: Are you a high-functioning autistic/asperger who had to get in his point about vehicle dependency? Do you really not understand why pedestrians are not allowed to walk down dark drive-thrus during bar time?

  11. ssaoi says:

    “You can try to butter me up all you want to. Free meals ain’t going to work,” said Wade.

    Why do some people make it so dang easy to laugh at them? I really didn’t want to…

  12. dohtem says:

    This does not seem like discrimination to me. Seems more like a liability issue.

    Discrimination would be if she came in a handi-van and they turned her away.

    I mean, imagine the drunks in cars from the bar after 2am behind her in line at the drive thru.

  13. Gokuhouse says:

    Other than the liability White Castle would have if she got ran over in their drive thru I don’t see why they wouldn’t serve her. Maybe they just didn’t want her to come back and think she could do this every night? They should have served her then and requested that she call ahead next time and they would have someone meet her at the door and then she wouldn’t need to go through the drive thru.

    • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

      @Gokuhouse: Still a liability issue. Plus boundaries. If White Castle says “we close the dining room at 10pm except for this one person,” where do they then draw the line? Why is it okay for this one person to be served after closing time, but not another? Not to mention that unlocking doors after hours leads to another set of liabilities. Bottom line, she’s wrong, and I hope the case is thrown out with prejudice.

    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

      @Gokuhouse: “Yeah…can I meet you at the side door at 12 midnight for my GreasyCheezBomb? Cause I’m disabled…yeah…oh, by the way…when do you do your last cash drop again?”

  14. Charmander says:

    It doesn’t seem very safe to me to be in a motorized wheelchair/scooter in a lane that is designed for car traffic – maybe that’s the crux of the issue here.

    If they have the same policy against motorcycles and bicycles, and a good reason for it, then they might have a leg to stand on; otherwise no, they are going to lose.

    • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

      @mamalicious: They have a leg to stand on, regardless. Motorcycles and bicycles can be ridden on the street. I doubt her scooter can qualify as street legal. If they would turn away a person that walked up to the window under on two feet, then they are perfectly justified in turning away someone in a scooter or other mobility assisting conveyance. The usual reason citied for such policies is that people can get hit by cars when standing at a drive thru windows, and that strikes me as a good reason for such a policy.

      • sponica says:

        @RecordStoreToughGuy: what about a tractor? although i doubt a tractor would be narrow enough to drive through the drive thru lane…

        • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

          @sponica: Most farm tractors can be driven on the road legally. Also, most farm tractors are big enough to keep their operators alive in the event of a low speed collision. They would probably fit; they don’t have a much wider wheelbase than most cars.

  15. Nayrlladnar says:

    Could someone on a motorcycle get service? What about a Vespa?

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      @Nayrlladnar: Yes, because both are classified as vehicles and you have to have a license and motorcycle training (in the US anyway) to even ride a Vespa.

    • Corporate_guy says:

      @Nayrlladnar: Yes, that is why the policy is a joke.

    • Anonymous says:

      @silver-bolt: No sco@silver-bolt: @Nayrlladnar: No. Driver through windows do not serve motorcycles or scooters, liability issues. Dangerous to have people riding and eating. It may be different in other states, but I have been riding for years and no place in the 10 or so states I’ve ridden allows it.

      No you cannot take a 50cc bike on the highway, has to be minimum 250cc in most states, and VERY few 125cc can even reach 60 mph, usually requires at least 200cc and then you are redlining it on the on ramp.

  16. highpitch_83 says:

    First the Popeye’s incident and now this? There used to be a time when MN foolishness/ignorance was ignored by the MSM and now we’re BEGGING for the attention.

    We have a bad enough rep as it is! (Thanks to the Coen brothers ;-)

    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

      @highpitch_83: Ever since Michele Bachmann hit the scene, teh crazy seems to have moved in, hooked up utilities, and gotten a library card there, hasn’t it?

      • highpitch_83 says:

        @Duke_Newcombe: Don’t get me started, she’s my District rep and it makes me sick every day knowing that my neighbors were foolish enough to vote her into office AGAIN

        The wife and I have been researching a place to start anew… any suggestions?

        Short list:
        Northern Cali/Oregon
        Colorado
        Panama ;-)

    • Bryan Fernandez says:

      @highpitch_83: Lord knows Sen. Al Franken will erase the shame of being Minnesotan.

  17. drunkenwildmage says:

    Since she can’t walk and has to use the scooter to get around, to me using it would effectively be the same as walking up to the drive thru, and it should fall under the same policies/laws that someone who walked up would. If they were serving walk up customers, and gets refused, then she would have a case.

  18. calquist says:

    Her motorized scooter is not designed to be on the road. The drive-thru is technically like a road, designed for cars. You can’t ride your bike/scooter down a highway or in the middle of the road, so you can’t ride it in a drive-thru. If they had let her order, and then someone drove up and didn’t see her because she is so low to the ground and she got hit, she would be suing just the same.

    • c_c says:

      @calquist:
      Actually it is legal to ride a motorized scooter in the road… a bike too for that matter.
      Example:
      [www.ncdot.org]

      • calquist says:

        @cc82: This isn’t a moped or a Vespa. You can’t cruise down the street because you can’t get up to the speed limit.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          @calquist: We were sitting in traffic one time and we were actually getting outpaced by an old man in his motorized wheelchair on the sidewalk. But as soon as traffic cleared a little, we were ahead of him going 40 mph…so no, these motorized wheelchairs are definitely not rated for the road!

    • BennyMigrationWitness_GitEmSteveDave says:

      @calquist: Yeah, how many times do we hear about a confused near-deader who wander onto the interstate on their Jazzy and they have to shut it down while they remove them. She can go through as soon as she pays all the taxes, license fees, insurance, etc.. on her hovaround.

    • silver-bolt says:

      @calquist: Some places actually require people (Above 16) on bikes to ride in the street (No allowed on parkways or turnpikes of course). New Jersey as a whole, and NYC. Have you ever seen the codified book of laws in your state, for the motor vehical section? Look at how many apply to bikes. Cops in a cruiser can pull you over and give you tickets for riding on the sidewalk, or not properly signalling and all.

      • calquist says:

        @silver-bolt: But that is still on the shoulder. Bikes aren’t in the lane with the cars. Anyway, motorized scooters (like the one in the article) aren’t allowed on normal streets acting like real traffic, so they shouldn’t be allowed in the drive-thru.

        • silver-bolt says:

          @calquist: No, not on the shoulder. In the actual lane. NYC has some bike lanes, but bikes are supposed to be treated the same as a car. Just because people don’t treat them that way doesn’t change the law. It’s like motorcycles riding side by side in a lane, or moving up in traffic between cars. It’s not legal, but done, and a blind eye is turned.

    • majortom1029 says:

      @calquist: I New York a pedestrian has the right of way so If I am going by your statement the person should have no problems walking through because the cars would have to yield to them.

  19. uptown says:

    Degenerative Disc ‘Disease’ isn’t really a disease at all. It’s caused by stress on the spine, frequently caused by obesity. I fucking HATE people like this.

    • c_c says:

      @uptown:
      I was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease when I was 16 (probably 5’11” 160 lbs at the time, certainly not obese). It was caused by low water content in the discs and aggravated by lots of running (track, XC). Don’t be a hater.
      [www.spineuniverse.com]

    • ShariC says:

      @uptown: Degenerative disc disease can happen to anyone based on physical activities, accidents, or simply unlucky genetics. A lot of people who were of average weight when they were healthy have developed problems and then only become overweight after becoming disabled (because they lack the mobility to exercise and eat to comfort themselves).

      Why would anyone decide to hate people who are suffering and in pain (which covers both the obese and the disabled)? No one who is obese wants to be. They almost certainly have psychological problems with food addiction that make it nearly impossible to change.

  20. youbastid says:

    And how is her “disorder” keeping her from driving? If she can drive an electric mobility vehicle, why is she unable to drive?

    • BenderRodriguez says:

      @youbastid: Probably hand-operated controls as opposed to foot-operated controls on a car, I would guess.

      • floraposte says:

        @BenderRodriguez: You can adapt cars for hand-operated controls.

        I agree with people here that I don’t see how she’d be able to win in a claim that her scooter should, for ADA purposes, be required to be treated as a vehicle. I do wonder if there’s going to be consideration as to whether drive-up only is genuinely tenable in the face of the ADA. “Somebody else could take you” is pretty antithetical to the spirit of that law.

      • silver-bolt says:

        @BenderRodriguez: Cars can be changed for, and made for, hand controls. A friend has one. THe inspection station had to verify it worked right (Like a full mechanic car inspection, for free cortesy of the state) before giving him his license.

    • majortom1029 says:

      @youbastid: She could have epilepsy and some physical disability.

  21. rpm773 says:

    She really said “Madder than fish grease”. That’s fantastic.

    • GitEmHomerJay! says:

      @rpm773: She seems to make a lot of food analogies. Can’t figure out why.

    • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

      @rpm773: I’d have said “Mad as a hen wetter” myself. Or perhaps “Madder than roller coasters on stilts.”

  22. Patrick Lange says:

    I reckon the liability argument does win out, but it’s still a shame. What’s the point of a White Castle that’s inaccessible to the inebriated? A friend of mine hitchhiked through a White Castle drive-thru a few weeks ago, just so he could place an order.

  23. FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR says:

    At least she has a valid reason for using the scooter. If this was going to be another case of lazy fatties trying to be even lazier I was going to .

    That said, a motorized scooter ain’t exactly a motor vehicle. I think some organizations actually classify them as “pedestrian devices” or somesuch to differentiate between them and cars. This is a huge safety and liability issue, which is what this lady just can’t seem to understand. When people and cars start to occupy the same space, bad things happen.

    If she somehow manages to win this case i’m going to go straight to my nearest wendy’s, get in the drive-thru, get denied service, get pissed, file suit against them using this case as precedent, and when I win I’ll sue myself for whatever winnings I have for being that. freaking. stupid.

    GAH.

  24. heybtbm says:

    I hope she looses.

    BTW: Penn and Teller’s ADA episode is a classic.

  25. That's What She Said says:

    It seems that they could (should?) have found an alternate way of accommodating the patron if the drive-thru only serves vehicles after a certain time and she was in a legitimate situation of being unable to operate a vehicle. Compassionate service is always the better choice, seems to me.

    The issue does not seem to be just about using the drive-thru, but about those that are disabled being unable to access services during the business’s operating hours.

    • That's What She Said says:

      @AmberFromAr:

      Now, that being said, I’m not sure Wade is a sympathetic figure for this dispute…..

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      @AmberFromAr: Well, the issue is that a drive-thru is vehicles only. I don’t think she’s trying to argue that her scooter is a vehicle, but I think she thinks she’s entitled to her White Castle simply because she’s disabled and it didn’t seem like a big deal. Regardless of the rules, that is.

      She claims that WC discriminates against people who don’t drive – but that’s the rub. When you choose not to drive, or even if you can’t drive, the world cannot simply roll over to accommodate you and your situation. If she doesn’t drive, or can’t, that’s not exactly WC’s fault.

      • floraposte says:

        @pecan 3.14159265: It might still be their responsibility to accommodate you, though. It’s not the mall’s fault that you’re in a wheelchair, after all, but they’ve still got to plan accordingly.

        I think the scooter is a bit of a red herring, really, because I’m pretty sure there’s not going to be a finding that the ADA requires letting non-vehicles travel through the drive-thru because of the safety issues. Will there be a judgment that chains have to find another way to serve the disabled at any hour they’re also serving the able-bodied? That’s another matter.

        • solidbrassfasteners says:

          @floraposte: It’s the mall’s job to give you access to the stores. They are required to make it accessible. That’s it.

          Will there be a judgment that chains have to find another way to serve the disabled at any hour they’re also serving the able-bodied? That’s another matter.

          They didn’t refuse to serve her because she was disabled. If she had said, “Ok,” called a cab, and sat in the back seat of the cab while she ordered, they would have served her.

          They can refuse to serve someone who is able-bodied but unable to drive. The disability is the red herring, not the scooter.

  26. Thorny says:

    As a wheelchair user for non-fatty ass reasons, I agree that people who eat themselves into a wheelchair are an unfortunate drain on society, the health care industry, and themselves and I do not think a scooter or wheelchair should be served at a drive thru for safety reasons. This is no more discriminating than it would be against people who don’t own a car at all.

  27. JaideepG2002 says:

    whitecastle will WIN.

  28. Mykie Gunderson says:

    If this case is successful, will this set a precedent that makes fast food drive thrus more accessible to everyone (disabled or not), allowing fast food restaurants to shovel out more garbage food?

    Who really WINS in this case?

    • BennyMigrationWitness_GitEmSteveDave says:

      @Mykie Gunderson: No, but it will lead to people/kids pushing someone in a wheelchair down the drivethru b/c it’s in the same class as an electric wheelchair/mobility device.

    • Kogenta says:

      @Mykie Gunderson: If this case is sucessful, drive-thrus are going to have to spend a ton of money upgrading to allow this new class of “drive-thru” traffic and make sure they aren’t run over by over-zealous drivers on their property.

      Can you imagine what sort of disaster it would be if drive-thrus had to allow walk ups and then someone got run over when the car turns the corner a little too fast and hits the guy?

  29. jswilson64 says:

    What next? Shoes make my feet hurt, and tags on my collars make my neck itch. I prefer to go barefoot and shirtless. I’m being discriminated against because they have a “No shirt, no shoes, NO DICE” sign.

  30. rucksack says:

    I am concerned that people with cars are being discriminated against by not being denied service after hours. It seems like they’re getting the short end of the stick here.

  31. BytheSea says:

    But … it’s for cars. That’s like saying a microwave discriminates against music because it’s not a piano.

    They say cars only in the car lane b/c motorists can’t see walkers or rollers and can run over them. ….

    I just wrote a paragraph about how she’s pushing it to expect service, but if she’s in a rural area, there might not be many establishments open for food after 8 or 9 pm.

    • solidbrassfasteners says:

      @BytheSea: But … it’s for cars. That’s like saying a microwave discriminates against music because it’s not a piano.

      Ok, this is an awesome analogy that I’ll be stealing for daily use.

  32. LouRawlsParadeofStars says:

    This blatant discrimination. I am also tired of car washes discriminating against pedestrians. I have a right to washed and waxed.

  33. PsiCop says:

    Discrimination and handicap-access issues aside, I honestly wonder how safe it is to use a drive-through in one of those scooters. Someone in a tall vehicle, especially a full-size pickup or SUV might easily not see her in her scooter.

    I’ve seen other places where pedestrians have to walk across drive-through lanes, and those are perilous enough. But they’re going across it, not along it or sitting in the middle of it, so the danger is reduced.

    She really needs to take her scooter somewhere that’s set up to handle it, such as a place with ramps leading to a walk-up counter.

  34. bball123h says:

    The confrontation on Rice Street pits the venerable 418-restaurant straight-edged hamburger chain based in Columbus, Ohio, against a onetime exotic dancer from New Orleans who until recently worked selling bingo tickets at a St. Paul bar.

    How was this gem missed?

  35. Featherstonehaugh says:

    has anyone seen Waking Ned Divine?

  36. hills says:

    The original article says she a “onetime exotic dancer” – nothing to do with anything, I just find that humorous…. I can’t help it….

    • BennyMigrationWitness_GitEmSteveDave says:

      @hillsrovey: That’s why all heels are required to be body butter resistant according to OSHA. To prevent falls.

    • sgtdawg says:

      @hillsrovey: The “continue to next page” was hidden under the links. I would have missed that gem also, if I hadn’t read it in the paper.

  37. Smashville says:

    I don’t believe this is discrimination. I believe this is the exact definition of the ADA’s “unreasonable and undue” expense…or whatever the wording they use is. They can’t have walk ups or ride ups in the drive through because it’s just plain dangerous.

  38. Bryan Fernandez says:

    I can’t wait til this story gets greenlit on Fark.com OMG, it’s going to be epic.

  39. wehsmith says:

    I know around here, that late at night usually there are a lot of people who are coming from clubs and bars (read DRUNK!) through the TacoBell drive thru. You would be risking your life to get in that line unprotected…

  40. stpauliegirl says:

    I will personally buy her a bag of Slyders if she will just GO AWAY. I’m really sick of seeing her lame complaint–oops, I mean “consumer story”–in the news. Drive-thrus are for cars, a Rascal is not a car, get over it.

    • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

      @stpauliegirl: Good luck trying to bribe her with free food. She’s already said that ain’t gonna work. Maybe booze.

  41. sgtdawg says:

    “mobility scooters aren’t licensed or titled in Minnesota, and the law doesn’t give them the same rights to share the roadway as bicycles.

    Nevertheless, Wade’s scooter has a headlight and a tail-light, and the squads just drive by when she’s moving down the street.”

    So if she is pulled over on the roadways, will that be discrimination? This has already wasted too much of my time.

  42. Mike Lussier says:

    Here’s a thought; If you are unable to gain access to the inside to use the restroom, but the drive-thru is open, is that discrimination against the incontinent? Just because they are open does not mean they are offering all services to all modes of access.

    There are places around especially in big coastal areas with popular beaches that have walk-up windows. If this particular location didn’t have one, then there probably isn’t much call for one.

    Why do people believe they can dictate the circumstances under which a business decides to operate? Premium rates from liability insurance, to fire/flood insurance, armed robbery coverage are all factors in this. A person who walks up to your window has a much easier time of reaching in and grabbing the cash in your drawer, than someone seated in a vehicle a couple feet from the window.

  43. knyghtryda says:

    fail on the part of the woman. Just as you can’t walk up to a drive through and expect to be served, you can’t just scooter up and expect to get those sliders. Unless she wants to qualify her scooter as an automobile, in which case she is no longer really disabled, then she’s pretty SOL on this one.

  44. Anonymous says:

    I remember when I worked at Burger King we served a walk up guest and They robbed us and shot the window girl dead. Its a safety issue for the guest and the employee.Plus, just to set it in stone, the insurance doesn’t allow it.That’s why.

  45. GitEmHomerJay! says:

    Lets see… Theres:
    “Quiet! Mama’s watchin’ her stories!”

    or

    “I’ll get them for what they done to my cousin Diabetty!”

    or the ever popular (and probably the most relevant)

    “I warsh my self with a rag on a stick”

  46. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Is she fighting for the right to join a line of cars at the drive thru – with cars in front & behind her scooter?

  47. BenderRodriguez says:

    I always pick up my prescriptions from the drive-thru of my pharmacy while walking my dog, and have never once been turned away for being on foot. Of course they could just be afraid I’ll bring my (very sweet and extremely well-behaved, but intimidating-looking) Rottweiler inside the store.

    • Mike Lussier says:

      @BenderRodriguez:

      But is this late at night, or at a respectable hour while it’s still light out? This is one big reason why fast food restaurants close their lobby at 9 or 10 PM.

      I’m also willing to wager that your pharmacy doesn’t have a full open window that you can potentially climb in through and cause all sorts of problems. Do they have one of those bank-type drawer systems?

  48. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    “the policy discriminates against people who don’t or can’t drive.”

    Great, now the drive-thru window is going to be surrounded by herds of teenage kids.

    • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

      @IfThenElvis: Indeed. It does discriminate against people who are not in cars for whatever reason. Turns out, the carless is not a protected minority, though, so f— her.

  49. Robert Otto says:

    I’m legally blind and don’t drive myself and I used to live right next door to a 24 hour White Castle in Minnesota no less! but if it was past 11pm I’d say oh well they even had a sign that said if your not in a car we can’t serve you.

    Maybe I should sue too lol. This is dumb, she could of waited until the next night and go earlier.

  50. Rukes says:

    Brings up an interesting point. Last month I was on a tour on a giant tour bus, however after a gig the ONLY place open in the desolate town at 4AM was a 24 hour McDonalds drive-thru. We did manage to get some food with the help of tagging along with some nice people in a car, but what is the law if you DO Have a motor vehicle, but it can’t fit in the small drive-thru?

    • floraposte says:

      @Rukes: I think the law currently is “Tough noogies.” That may not be verbatim.

    • silver-bolt says:

      @Rukes: They arn’t required to serve anyone in the first place. A drive thru is optional to any business, and they found accomidating cars bigger than 8′ to be too costly to bother. The driver could have asked them, and they touring company could have worked out a deal before hand to arrange some sort of pre-ordering to the parking spot thing, like Sonics.

  51. RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

    This is the most fun I’ve had in a Consumerist thread in a long time. The Snark is strong with this one.

  52. Haggie1 says:

    Her “mobility cart” is the equivalent of walking and if walking up to the drive-thru is not allowed, why should she be allowed to “walk up” on her mobility cart?

    And anyone that can operate a mobility cart could operate an automobile. Just because she doesn’t haven’t an automobile doesn’t allow her special rights.

    I hope the MDLC does that right thing and drops this one. This is just a fatty in a Rascal looking for a quick settlement, not a handicapped person fighting for equal treatment.

  53. Brazell says:

    Fast food joints don’t serve pedestrians, and I believe that being on a scooter for handicapped folks counts as being a motorized pedestrian.

    On top of that, this lady looks like a classic chicken or egg scenario. What came first, her morbid obesity or her disability? Sorry to be cruel, but the fact she’s at a White Castle suing for their shit food is reason enough to ask the question.

  54. Wormfather is Wormfather says:

    Wow, just wow. I’m not going to blame the victim…if only because I cant possitivly identify one.

  55. mizmoose says:

    Oh, thank you, Consumerist! I didn’t have my daily share of Rain The Hate on Fat People, thanks for not making me to go to Some Other Fing Site to find it!

    - whether her needing the scooter was caused by her weight is irrelevant
    – what she weighs is irrelevant
    – your problems with fat people are irrelevant

    The ONLY thing that’s relevant is that this frivolous whining is making it harder to get real ADA support when needed.

    A mobility scooter is used to help *mobility*, replacing walking. Walk-ups are not allowed at drive-thrus. If you can’t drive, you can’t go through the drive-thru. Period!

  56. BenderRodriguez says:

    i don’t know which is more nauseating, White Castle hamburgers or the fact that she used to be an “exotic dancer.”

  57. lupodwdm says:

    This woman is nuts. People are looking for any reason to sue these days. This is the new American dream; get rich from the lottery or by suing someone. People have no shame. If I were here I would be embarrassed to sue over something like this.

    White Castle is totally correct with this policy. It is a safety issue. They can not have people and cars in the same area like this. Whats funny is that if they did server her and someone hit her with a car she would be suing over that. This world is really getting to be a sad place.

  58. balthisar says:

    Sigh. The restaurant’s not open 24 hours; the drive-through is. There are actually drive-through restaurants that are (get this!) drive-through only!

    It’s not an ADA case; it’s a case for people that can’t drive, period.

  59. mcnerd85 says:

    I’m sorry. This may have been asked. But my biggest question is “if said cantankerous skank was disabled, and therefore unable to drive, how did she get to white castle well after 11:00 PM?” I am sorry. I live in Houston, Tx. In a not so great part of town. But I HAVE lived in nice parts. And I still wouldn’t let someone with a disability just hop on their power scooter and head to McDonalds at 3:00am.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      @mcnerd85: who is to say someone let her do anything? She may live alone and do ad she pleases. If this means trying to get some white castle she can do that. Doesn’t mean anyone is looking out for her.

  60. solidbrassfasteners says:

    She could have just as easily called a cab, had it take her through the drive-through, and dropped her off on the other side where her scooter was.

    Inconvenient? Sure. But she would have been served.

  61. gaywolverine says:

    ADA is simple, you must provide the same service as available to other customers. Inability to drive is not considered a disability. There are exceptions and logic for not making it everything. The safety of others is also considered. She has no case. Based on her logic, a deaf person should be able to go to a movie and see subtitles or they are discriminating against them. This is why judges are given the role of interpreting legislation. Nobody who passed the law intended anything that this woman is bitching about.

    • ShruggingGalt says:

      @gaywolverine: Umm, FAIL. Theatres can be required to provide captioning. Many chains have installed reflective captioning, and even the almighty Disney has that in their shows, or a handheld captioning device (wireless), and at least once a week they have scheduled ASL shows.

      However, you are correct about inability to drive not being a disability. I think that for some reason the agency will pass on handling the case, but that isn’t going to stop this case.

      And she will “win” after WC settles out of court. Until we have true tort reform with true loser pays other side’s costs, this will continue to happen. In a way, California’s settlement law is a decent first step – if the defendant offers a settlement prior to trial that is refused, and the plantiff wins less at trial, the plaintiff can be forced to pay costs of the defense. And vice-versa if the plantiff gets more than their settlement at trial. I was involved with a case that started at over $1million, and settled for less than $50k, after the trial was postponed at the plantiff’s request (apparently the plantiff refused the settlement at first against counsel’s advice, then counsel had an “emergency”, trial was postponed, and settlement reached the night before the postponed trial was supposed to begin….)

  62. Michael the Great says:

    Since you don’t have to be able to drive, but just be able to be in a vehicle, I don’t think this should get anywhere.

  63. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Oh for Pete’s sake, grow up. You have no inherent “right” to be served at a drive-thru if you show up without a car.

    Mobility scooter…not a car.

  64. marcus1060 says:

    In Canada, or at least BC, it is illegal to server customers not in cars. Because of safety reasons, and insurance reasons. It was found that most of the time walk thrus were robbed was by walk thrus.

  65. notgoodenough says:

    If there were only some way of having fast food delivered to your home….

  66. dangerp says:

    I once got my food at the drive-thru at burger-king on horseback no problem. Mostly just for kicks (the dining room was open). However, I firmly believe in the right for a business to specify that they will only serve vehicles through the drive-thru.

  67. balls187 says:

    Well I can certainly see her side of the story.

    From the news segment video, they mention that she’s suing because they’re discriminating against people that can’t drive.

    Thats an illogical argument. Does it make sense to sue car-washes?

    Drive-in theaters?

    Valet Parking?

  68. RobertBaron says:

    Aaaaargh! Watching that video of her infuriates me. Anyway, since non-car owners and non-drivers are not a protected group of people, businesses can discriminate against them all they want.

  69. icantreplyright says:

    She wants equal rights. I cant walk through a drive through. That chair lets her “walk”. Me wearing roller skates is not me in a vehicle. Her in a motorized wheelchair is not her in a vehicle. She needs to stop being fat.

  70. gravitus says:

    Man I’d let an ex exotic dancer ride in my car any day for a slider..

    eerrr.

  71. henwy says:

    @Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

    I would have served them imaginary food.

  72. henwy says:

    @henwy:

    I mean you can’t refuse them for that reason. A black man in a shopping cart can still get the heave-ho.

  73. coren says:

    The drive through is not there to serve pedestrians, which unless you are in a car (or on a motorbike, maybe?) you basically count as (at least in their eyes). Are they discriminating against the automobile challenged with this policy? Can I sue them on behalf of all of us who ride the bus and walk everywhere we go?

  74. Craysh says:

    I actually saw something like this happen at a McDonalds. Around 5 severely overweight individuals went through their drive-through on scooters.
    Me and my friends (being the insensitive pricks that we are) laughed our asses off.
    I took a picture but it was on my old Black Jack 2 and it’s horribly blurred.

  75. HogwartsAlum says:

    I’m sure it was a liability issue.

    Why the hell didn’t she just go somewhere else?

  76. Larry Retzlaff says:

    I’d refuse to serve an obese drag queen in a scooter, too. Last thing she needs is more food.

  77. MooseOfReason says:

    I mean, if a disabled woman wants a double cheeseburger at 1:00 in the morning, she should have that cheeseburger! You corporate fat-cats are standing in the way!

  78. josh42042 says:

    i don’t think she has a case, or should drop it. i think that fast food places are bound by their insurance providers to only serve cars in their drive through, they won’t allow people on foot.

  79. charmaniac says:

    As others have noted, the reason they don’t serve car-less folks in drive through is that they don’t want to deal with the liability. Someone will wind up getting run over eventually, and the restaurant will be sued.

  80. redkamel says:

    the court is “weighing in” eh…

    Im sorry that a small segment of the population cannot get a white castle burger after 11pm.

    its life. Deal with it. Eat something else. Eat 30 minutes earlier.

  81. FrankReality says:

    I’m still struggling with understanding “madder than fish grease”. That is definitely not a Minnesotan phrase.

    So how mad does fish grease get?

    I’m aware of fish oil and those fish oil capsules seem pretty calm and relaxed to me.

    The only “fish grease” I’m aware of is the white diaper rash ointment. It doesn’t seem to be particularly explosive, though.

    “Hotter than fish grease” seems to appear in the lyrics of several songs I’ve never heard of. The urban dictionary says fish grease is the stuff that makes fish slippery.

    But I’m still at a loss. On the scale of so calm you’re virtually dead to hotter than a nuclear fusion bomb blast, how angry would “madder than fish grease: really be?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  82. baristabrawl says:

    I was in Canada once where a woman was bitching about a sidewalk not being ADA compatible. I was completely in awe. I finally lost my relationship with Jesus and told her to shut it. Called her an ignorant American, told her to check her location in Canada where American laws didn’t apply to her…in a French accent of course.

    If the lady in the scooter had burned her vagina with hot coffee…you see where I’m going with this.

  83. AngryK9 says:

    I’m not sure why this person thinks anyone is discriminating. The rules are the rules, and are there for safety’s sake. If the rules didn’t exist and she was injured because she lacked common sense enough to stay out of a traffic lane on her scooter, she’d be suing the restaurant anyway. That said, this looks pretty much like yet another case of some self-absorbed dolt who believes that the rules somehow don’t apply to her and that everyone should go out of their way to accommodate her.

    The only discrimination here is discrimination against stupidity.

  84. RChris173 says:

    In Florida, a bicycle is legally considered a vehicle according to the Florida statutes. So it would be safe to assume that if someone rode a bike through a drive thru, in Florida, they would have to be served?

    • majortom1029 says:

      Isnt driving a priviledge? So can an establishment not serve somebody w@RChris173:

      NO their policy is a liscenced vehicle a bysicle is considered a vehicle but you dont need a license to ride one.

  85. Anonymous says:

    I’ve encountered a group of on-foot persons at a drive-through, quite to my surprise. I mean, there was a group of teens that popped out in front of my car as I pulled up to the window to pay. I guess they had heard my car pulling forward, or had noticed its headlights on in the dusk, and had decided that it was necessary to assert themselves as the rightful owners of the next order out. Nevertheless, I’m glad either the sound or sight of my car driving forward clued them in as to how quickly or how far I was pulling in, or I would have hit them.

    I wouldn’t attempt to navigate, say, a craft fair with my car, or a crowded mall, just kind of inching behind pedestrians ambling from one attraction to the next.

  86. nocturnaljames says:

    Discriminating against people that can’t drive? Then they would have to serve absolutely anyone who came up to the drive-thru window. Note it’s called a “drive-thru” window, not walk-thru, or scooter-thru. Businesses can refuse to do business with you for any reason, get a life. Why is everyone so obsessed with fast food, to the point of calling 911? It’s not a right. Go to the damn grocery store or 7-11. Stupid handicap scooter isn’t even road worthy, it’s not supposed to be on the road.

  87. Matthew Frank says:

    Her level of indignation is over-the-top, and the seriousness of the reporting is a bit too much as well.

    Honestly, the woman is waving her righteous indignation stick because she couldn’t get a late night hamburger from one fast food place? AND, she was on a mobility scooter (not a street-legal scooter of some kind)? Go home and have an apple lady.

    Do we really need this kind of crap reported?

  88. zyodei says:

    OK, I understand why she might be upset.

    Until the part comes where she is SUING FOR CASH BECAUSE SHE CAN’T GET HEALTH DESTROYING HAMBURGERS.

    Is that the freedom to be an American? The freedom to eat burgers at 2AM?

    At the risk of sounding cynical, fuck, you, OP. You got your burgers, asking for damages is absurd. Go take some computer classes and get a job that you can work in your house.

  89. Andrey Goder says:

    The restaurant is a private establishment. They can choose to server or not serve whoever they want. That should be the end of the discussion.

    • morlo says:

      @Andrey Goder: Like black people? Discriminating against certain groups like the disabled is illegal. There is no such thing as “private” when you live in a state.

  90. Foneguy says:

    Will they serve you if you are on a motorcycle??? cars only or “motor vehicles only”. What if she was driving a handicapped van? Nope, cars only. What are the hill folk with beat up pickup trucks to do, sorry, come back during regular hours, we’ll keep your order warm for you though.

  91. Go Pug Yourself says:

    That’s no way to treat Howie Long. If the WC was in Oakland I’ll bet they would have served him.

  92. ElizabethD says:

    This is making me want to watch re-runs of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
    [www.hbo.com]

  93. UnicornMaster says:

    - thnk sh nds t gt hr lzy ft ss ff th sctr.

    B- ndrstndbly thy r dscrmntry twrds ppl wtht crs. Ppl n whlchrs, sctrs nd n ft lk. dn’t thnk thr’s cs t b hd, xcpt t drm p sm prplgc sympthy.

  94. Mary Marsala with Fries says:

    So WHY do businesses want to lose money by only serving people in cars? If it was my drive-through, I’d take skaters, walkers, bikers — whoever wanted to pay me for the food! Isn’t that the whole idea?

  95. Anonymous says:

    this is crap. she’s not in or on a vehicle. she’s using the mobility device to replace her ability to walk, and drive-thru’s don’t serve walkups.

    i see more and more of these mobility scooters using the street instead of the sidewalk, and they need to be clued in to the fact that they’re not a vehicle, they’re a glorified powerchair. that’s all there is to it. unfortunately, someone, or a few people, will probably have to die in scooter-versus-car accidents in order to make that clear to these folks.

  96. banmojo says:

    yet another good example of why frivolous lawsuits should NOT be allowed to clog our courts and steal hard working peoples’ money. Fvck all the lawyers who encourage this kind of shit, the lawmakers who allow it, and any low life pos like this fat ass loser lady who abuse our legal system this way.

    On the one hand she wants to sue White Castle because they “made her fat” and on the other hand she wants to sue them because they LISTENED to her first lawsuit and decided to stop serving obese people? BS BS BS!!!

  97. Joshua Perry says:

    A person can’t walk up to the Drive Thru and get service, and you can’t wheelchair/scooter sounds like equal protection to me. Bad business move, tho. White castle is filling, though.

  98. Bs Baldwin says:

    Hmm, so the McDonald’s served her but warned her not to do the same thing again? I think the White Castle, which she said she has done the same thing before, told her they could only do it this last time and notated it.