The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a claim brought by blind patrons of the Moe's restaurant chain that the restaurants' "freestyle" touch screen Coca-Cola machines were discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). West v. Moe's Franchisor, LLC, 2015 WL 8484567 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2015). Because the machines did not incorporate "adaptive features" like the tactile buttons found on ATMs, the plaintiffs claimed that they were unable to use the machines independently. They further contended that Moe's employees failed to provide assistance upon request. The plaintiffs asserted that they were therefore "excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently . . . because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services" in violation of Title III of the ADA.
The court found no ADA violation. It held that the availability of Moe's employees to act as "qualified readers" was sufficient to meet Moe's obligation to provide "auxiliary aids and services" under the ADA. Rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that Moe's was obligated to integrate technology that would enable blind users to use the machines independently, the court distinguished the privacy concerns associated with ATMs that necessitate independent use. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that qualified readers were unavailable, observing that the record reflected only one visit to a Moe's restaurant in which a blind patron was not properly assisted. That isolated incident did not give rise to an inference that Moe's failed to train its employees on how to provide "auxiliary aids and services" to disabled patrons. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.
- Partner
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.