OH NOES! No coffee???Follow

Wheel Chair bound guy denied Dunkies via drive through


A wheelchair-bound Weymouth man suffering from multiple sclerosis says he’s being denied his right to a hot cup of coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts.
Donald Hayes said he’s bought coffee before by driving his motorized wheelchair up to the drive-up window at a Dunkin’ Donuts shop in the middle of a Weymouth shopping-market parking lot.
But now, that Dunkin’ store, which has no inside seating and only serves drive-up customers, has told him he can’t use the window anymore and refused him service, citing traffic safety concerns.


“It’s discrimination,” said Hayes, 54, who says he’s an ordained minister with an online following.
Hayes said he’s thinking of taking legal action if he can’t whirl up to the window to get his java.
“I’m just defending my rights,” Hayes said. “I’m not looking for monetary compensation.”
A Boston lawyer who specializes in employment and discrimination law said Dunkin’ Donuts better listen to him, based on case law.
“I think they have a problem,” said Laura Studen, a senior partner at Burns & Levinson. “It’s a public place - and it needs to be accessible.”
And a motorized wheelchair is a motorized vehicle, she said.
A spokesman for Canton-based Dunkin’ Donuts said the giant chain doesn’t have a corporate policy regarding the use of wheelchairs at drive-throughs.
But he added: “Our number one priority is the safety of our customers. Our franchisee’s objective in this particular instance is to protect customers from potential injury in a traffic accident.”
Weymouth police Chief James Thomas said Dunkin’ Donuts’ safety concerns are valid, according to The Patriot Ledger of Quincy.
Hayes, who lives about three miles away from the shopping plaza, gets to the Dunkin’ Donuts via an MBTA van, which picks him up at his home. The van won’t go through the drive-up window to fetch coffee on behalf of riders, he said.
Hayes rejected the notion that he should go to a Dunkin’ Donuts across the busy street that has in-store service. “People don’t understand the problems faced by the disabled,” he said.

When I first read the article I wondered about the logistics of this case seeing as the store in question does not have any indoor access, only drive through. But I can definitely see him going through the drive through in his wheel chair as being potentially dangerous to him if a car sped to the drive through like we Massholes tend to do. But then I read the bolded line and laughed out loud. If hes able to get to the Dunkies by a van, who will not go through the drive through, but will take him to that Dunkies, why is it that he cant ask the driver to drop him off across the street?
So, does he have a case?

Allah, why dont you like Massholes?


Edited, Jan 9th 2007 2:08pm by DSD

He's got no case IMO. The shop directly across the street not withstanding even.

Businesses are not required to be universally accessable. Just not discriminatory. He's perfectly able to get a cup of coffee there if he's in a vehicle, just like everyone else. The business policy in this case is being applied fairly and evenly. Of course, in a civil case, you just never know, but it seems ridiculous to me that a business be forced to serve customers in an unsafe manner. If they allow non-vehicles to use their drive-up, they are liable if someone gets hurt, so his case would effectively be saying that they can't protect themselves from liability even if they try to prevent customers from doing something dangerous...

Not that this wouldn't be the first time something screwy went through the courts, but this is silly to the extreme.

His options are limited, because honestly, a drive-through window isn't meant for a motorized wheelchair any more than it is for a scooter or an ATV. However, they were serving him at one point, so if they can prove that the change was based on his disability, then he has a case, regardless. Either way, it's gonna cost the company in bad press and new policies, signage, etc and that's if they can avoid court costs by settling.

The irony is that they probably hoped to avoid this guy suing them as a result of being run over.

Edited, Jan 9th 2007 1:55pm by Atomicflea

Oh NOes!!! Why won't God heal amputees???

If it's drive-through only, it complies with the ADA just fine. It's not Dunkin's fault that the guy can't convince the van driver to go through the line. Unless Dunkin's allows foot traffic in the drive-through for guys with jerk friends who won't use their car, there's no discrimination here at all.

Since when is a cup of coffee a right?

He was obviously cranky due to caffeine depletion though.