Starbucks accused of violating Americans with Disabilities Act by charging extra for non-dairy

They subsidize soy, oats, and almonds too.

More to the relevant point, those alt milks are still cheaper to produce and Starbucks has the scale to do so. You know what it takes to make oatmilk? Oats, sugar, water, small amount of oil. Almond milk? Replace oat with almond, except you can use more of the material.

Yep. I would LOVE to be able to consume dairy without shitting my guts out, but as that's not an option I get to either pay extra or go without.

I think I'd rather get down with the sickness. (Because I'm lactose intolerant)

Right? I would love to see a future where the right wing gets their way and makes calling almond milk "milk" illegal, but is also forced to stop subsidizing cow excretions. Do I buy the Authentic Cow Milk for $10 a gallon, or the Almond-Based Dairy Alternative for $6...?

I'm lactose intolerant but even I think this is absurd. What about every other food allergy in existence? Should substitutions cost the same even if the ingredients don't? Furthermore, we're talking about a splurge item from a coffee shop. You can still make coffee at home or buy coffee without milk in it.

Even if it isn’t, I’d prefer a world where people aren’t shitting their pants or leaving toxic fart clouds in their wake because they need to save .50 on a coffee.

If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.

The issue with the ADA is that it does not specify what counts as a disability, rather it gives an explanation of what is considered a disability. This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.

The lawyer quoted in the article is correct, considering they already accommodate people with diabetes without surcharge, it can be argued the same courtesy needs to be extended to the lactose intolerant, who do not have a "choice" in whether they can consume dairy.

Because they cannot just consume dairy like other customers, the lawyer is arguing that no longer charging for the difference is a "reasonable accomodation" to the fact that their clients bodies cannot process dairy. That definitely rises to the same level of reasoning for those who suffer diabetes, in my opinion.

Anyway, that's the frustrating thing about a lot of the ADA. It basically requires people who don't know if their unique position qualifies them to spend a lot of money on lawyers up-front just to find out if the courts will actually accept that as true. It's really well fucked because most disabled people don't have money to be pissing away on such a legal project. Most of them are busy just trying to survive. In other words, most of the time you have to hope a lawyer will take up your case pro-bono.

Source: My cancer isn't cancery or debilitating enough to count as a disability, even though "cancer" is in the list on the ADA website.

Lactose intolerance is actually normal. It's tolerance to lactose as an adult that is biologically unusual, and mostly unique to westerners. Because most of us continue eating dairy products after infancy, we continue being able to digest them. However other cultures don't continue consuming dairy after infancy, and thus lose their ability to digest it effectively.

It's a really tough argument to claim it as a disability. I don't see this case going well for the plaintiffs.

Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.

I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn't be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don't eat anything I don't make myself so this wouldn't impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.

Or they can remove the dairy product at no additional fee (which they do). If someone wants to add an additional, more expensive ingredient, then they can pay for it.

According to the Americans with disabilities act, they apparently are under obligation to do it.

I had to scroll down a lot to find a sensible comment. Apparently having milk in your coffee is a constitutional right..

Lol your wrong about restaurants having no obligation to provide a substitute.

That's such a sad point of view about what you think you deserve. You should treat yourself better.

Damn, sucks to be you.

Stand up for yourself instead of putting a shitty corporation above yourself.

I used to work in restaurants (both big and small), and while what you said is true, it only cost $1-2 extra per serving. But the restaurant can never stock their ingredients by "per serving". They have to buy wholesale from their suppliers. It really hurts smaller businesses when they only get to use a couple servings out of their 5 gallon non-dairy milk jug, then have to throw it out. Those things added up fast, and that's just one example.

I don't know what the profit margins of Starbucks are, but in many cases they're much tighter than people realize. The sale price has to cover materials, wages, insurance, property costs, and lots of other things. $1 a serving would be a pretty huge percent increase.

You could make the same argument about anything. I want the higher end iPhone and they should give it to me for the same price as the lower end to be considerate. If they don't they're greedy. I want leather seats in my car for the same price as cloth. And there are loads of restaurants that charge extra for substitutions if the substitute costs more (e.g., "premium sides").

They are absolutely an embarrassment to anyone with an intact nose and tongue. And I say that as someone whose fine with bottom-shelf can coffee most days of the week.

The idea that it costs more to put oats in a blender with an enzyme is more expensive to produce than breeding and feeding cows is pretty laughable. Non-dairy is only more expensive because of gigantic subsidies that simply don't need to exist in the modern era.

Edit: the number of you simping for a gigantic corporation is surprising. Oat water is cheap to make. Milk is not. You buy milk at the grocery store nearly at cost. You buy oat milk in branded containers in the yuppy-vegan-white-women priced section at gouging prices. Starbucks does not have costs like the grocery store lists their prices.

Does it cost fifty cents more per cup? Doubtful.

Are we talking a non-dairy whipped topping here?

Dairy is subsidized by the government. They absolutely do want to stick it to anyone who doesn't support the system.

Maybe not to the lactose intolerant, but the vegan people is generally more willing to spend more to avoid real milk and starbucks is certainly happy to squeeze every penny they can out of them.

On the other hand, if young Timmy goes into anaphylactic shock everybody would change their tunes faster than you can say "Anaphylaxis"

Those non-cow milks costs them more.

so? it's starbucks. they'll be fine.

gluten free buns

For people with gluten intolerance, they'd have a similar case. Lactose intolerance isn't a choice just as much as gluten intolerance isn't a choice.

Source: I've had a friend who has had celiac disease his whole life. I was jealous of him in high school because he was always so skinny, and I didn't know he had it. Not fucking jealous anymore.

I have Celiac Disease and let me tell you, I would love to see gluten free items cost the same as regular foods. The only thing you apparently can do is to include an itemized list of GF items you've bought over the year and include it in your tax return. However, the amount of bureaucracy is probably a great deterrent for people like me to not do this and just eat the extra cost.

If I can't ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price?

If you have a disability you can get a mobility scooter

If I'm very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?

Neither the very tall (nor the obese for that matter) are part of a protected class, and their relative sizes are not considered disabilities. However those physical conditions can lead to disabilities (heart and joint issues for example) which then lead to reasonable accommodation.

Your straw men are cute, but this isn't Kansas, we don't need them here

You can sue anyone for any reason. It doesn't mean it holds water and this one certainly doesnt. For the ada it has to be a significant effect on your daily life, food allergies aren't going to be part of that and a business has the right to charge more for what costs them more which would be a reasonable accommodation anyway.

Went to the local courthouse the other day, it is cube-esk at the base and has 4 entrances one on each side. 3 they keep locked. The handycap accessible ramp is one of those that is locked. I couldn't understand it, what is the point of installing the ramps if you are still going to block it off to funnel people through another door nearest the metal detectors.

Also it seems like every company has forgotten about accessible web design. Wouldn't even surprise me if some government websites were inaccessible too.

It's also not an equivalent product. It's not like you get to choose if milk has lactose, the dairy-free option has completely different components and sources.

1. it is, it is similar to an alergy and 2) legaly it is considered a disability under the ADA if someone or a group of people would consider it as one... have you been to wisconsin

Use firefox and ublock origin, and all that ends. I haven't seen an ad in a decade.

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.

They already offer a dairy free option: black coffee. I'm not sure that would solve the problem.

Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.

I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs. Milk alternatives are undoubtedly more expensive for Starbucks, based not only on the quantity of purchasing, but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.

Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.

It's simple and easy because you're not the business owner who has to comply. Please understand that if Starbucks needs to comply under the ADA, then so does every other coffee shop, restaurant , and drink stand. This either ends in a loss for the Plaintiffs or an increase in all drinks to the most expensive milk alternative price.

I'm thinking more about the implications of this legal argument. Does it mean vegetarians should be guaranteed prices equivalent to meat dishes? Is it religious discrimination if a restaurant doesn't offer fish during Lent?

I'd rather just have Starbucks lower their prices. The actual legal case opens a can of worms we really don't want to deal with.

I agree with you, but the alternative (in their mind) would probably be to raise the price of everything to compensate.

Not like Starbucks customers care how much they're paying though! Lol

Probably because an option like soy milk costs over twice as much per volume when compared to cow milk at the consumer level, so therefore any rational person would expect a drink made with the more-expensive non-dairy ingredient to cost more.

To me it's not defending Starbucks as much as it is defending common sense.

What if they removed all reference of the word "dairy" from their products and made the consumer choose the beverage ingredients item by item, and each ingredient has a different price relative to the cost?

All the assholes have convinced the rest of us that everybody is as heartless as they are. Whereas, it's genuinely possible to be considerate and still remain in business. If anybody argues otherwise, they're simply a bad business-person and needs to go out of business ASAP.

Why do you think a business should be compelled to sell something at any given price? I mean sure, you can burn them in the court of public opinion, but it's another thing when you say that government regulation should dictate the cost of a coffee beverage. I think that's where most people are landing in this, they agree it's stupid for Starbucks to do such a petty thing, but when it comes to lawsuits involving ADA regulations it crosses a line for reasonable response.

It's almost like the lawsuit for hot coffee where the person argued they didn't know the coffee was hot

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants#:~:text=McDonald's Restaurants%2C also known as,against the McDonald's restaurant chain.&text=Stella Liebeck v.,McDonald's Restaurants%2C P.T.S.%2C Inc.)

It's not charged at a premium, it costs more to produce and deliver.
The entire process needs to be completely seperated from wheat flour. And the production numbers are lower, so all fixed costs need to be distributed over a lower number of sales units.

at firehouse subs a gluten free roll costs +$1.50, they don't even prepare it separately from normal bread and use all the same tools for it (except for not cutting it) so it's not actually properly gluten-free, it's almost certainly contaminated with gluten.

jersey mikes also charges +$1.50 (medium) to +$3.00 (large) to get gluten-free bread, but at least they have to go through a whole ritual to prepare it where they use COMPLETELY different tools and gloves and stuff, and it is generally actually non-contaminated unless, you specify that it's not for allergies.

source: i worked at both firehouse subs and jersey mikes before, i fucking hated when people ordered gluten-free at jersey mikes but i always did it as required obviously. i didn't actually ever charge extra to people who were getting gluten free because i didn't know that was an option on the cash register at first lol, but even after i learned i just forgot / didn't care enough to do it. some people were really grateful and thanked me after seeing me go through an entire process to make sure the gluten-free sub had no gluten on it

That would be an actual reasonable accommodation in this case.

I mean that limits you to just straight black. no latte, cappuccino, nothing

not against black coffee, but that's not why people go to starbies

Prediction: Starbucks resolves the issue by raising all "milk" product prices to match the most expensive option.

Because of government subsidies, yes.

To produce? No

As sold? Yes

Dairy is ludicrously subsidized, and as such cheaper than it really should be.

I don't think that it is. At least the soy milk I sometimes drink is cheaper than the organic cows milk my wife drinks. Oat probably is more expensive.

Reminds of how back in the day, few places had veg options but would often have a bean version that was cheaper than the meat version cool. Now? Restaurants will have less bean options but have an Impossible meat option that's more expensive than meat 🙄

That's not how the ADA works. You could say the same for wheelchair ramps, but ultimately it's on the store owner to reasonably provide accomodations to people who want to use their services. It's not on the disabled person to pick and select who will accommodate them or not. It's why businesses are required to reserve a portion of their parking lot to those with handicap placards. It shouldn't be up to each disabled person to figure out which business they can go to.

What Starbucks is doing would be akin to Walmart charging an extra buck for you to use one of their mobility scooters or an extra $5 if you require the assistance from an employee because you can't reach something.

Who is actually doing the suing here? If it's the ADA themselves then this is a mockery and it makes the ADA look like a joke.

The Americans with Disabilities act is a civil rights law passed in 1990 that protects disabled Americans from discrimination. The ADA is not an organization that can sue on anyone's behalf, it is a law that gives disabled people the right to sue when they are discriminated against, and it gives the justice department the power to punish businesses that fail to comply with the law

Asking for non-dairy creamer is a reasonable accomodation under the ADA if you are lactose intolerant. They don't have to offer it, but if they do, they cannot legally charge you extra to accomodate a disability or medical condition. That is discrimination under the ADA.

You may think this seems trivial or frivolous, but this is a clear case of Starbucks, a multibillion dollar international corporation, violating one of the most basic protections the ADA offers. It would be an injustice to turn a blind eye to it if you care about protecting disabled Americans from discrimination.

While I understand and agree with a lot of what you say, the idea that you can just go somewhere else doesn't fly. The same argument can be used to justify shops without handicapped accessible doorways, or restaurants where smoking is allowed. After all, you can just go somewhere else....

I think you're missing the big picture.

Just because one can choose not to go to Starbucks doesn't relieve Starbucks of the requirement to provide equal access and provide equitable services to those with a disability or medical limitation.

Just because you are lactose intolerant and can handle things with with some milk products doesn't mean that everyone with lactose intolerance can. There can be those that have much more severe reactions.

There are also those that truly cannot have diary at all. People have full blown milk allergies where if they ingest diary they could have anaphylaxis shock.

Making accomodations for equitable products/services for a medical disability cannot cost extra to the disabled person.

I don't think it means that all non-dairy creamers necessarily need to be available for free. It only means that one does. Whatever non-dairy creamer is likely the cheapest.

No see my other comment for details

I mean, certain airlines are starting to adopt size policies which will grant you an additional seat if you are overweight. Why is it such a stretch to believe that tall people should receive the same accommodation?