Lawsuit 'Discriminatory' Gluten-Free Menu
Options
Replies
-
To have an educated and informed opinion about the McDonald's case, you should read it. I'm not advocating for one side or the other, but I do know WHY she sued and why she WON the lawsuit. In this particular case it's not the way the media made it out to be, but as Americans, we consumed the way the case was presented by the media and never gave it a second thought...we just blame the old woman for a frivolous lawsuit. If it HAD been frivolous, it would have been thrown out. Just so you know.
Hush now. She was just a stupid old lady.0 -
To have an educated and informed opinion about the McDonald's case, you should read it. I'm not advocating for one side or the other, but I do know WHY she sued and why she WON the lawsuit. In this particular case it's not the way the media made it out to be, but as Americans, we consumed the way the case was presented by the media and never gave it a second thought...we just blame the old woman for a frivolous lawsuit. If it HAD been frivolous, it would have been thrown out. Just so you know.
I think I remember seeing some pictures of her skin from one of the 'follow up' stories out there - pretty gruesome stuff. When I first heard about the lawsuit I just assumed they were regular burns - not third degree flesh melting burns. Echh.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
Yes! I like that result, honestly.
It was probably the right thing to do anyhow... though a chain restaurant, they prepare food by hand and I cannot imagine they are particularly consistent with quantities of things that are typically added "to taste" or used as garnishes and sauces. The numbers were probably largely meaningless.
They are, the variables are unreal, I learned that my first week in the food industry. It's fine to get the numbers, but any legitimate chain would at best be within 50% plus or minus of their posted numbers.
Do you really want to try to do anything with data like that?
I know...I'm always wondering about that myself when cooking. Do these numbers mean anything? Even if I know what I put in, how much fat did I render off that duck breast? How much olive oil is ON my sauteed veggies and how much is really just left in the pan. I have a hard time logging for this same reason. Seems only useful with packaged and processed foods, or simple things I eat raw and weigh.
At home I log full value of everything, if something is rendered off or left in the pan, bonus. .
That's really tough when you're on a razor edge of weight loss - at my weight and bf percentage, I don't want to accidentally eat too little. Especially if I'm working to improve athletic performance at the same time. It can be a bit of a challenge... and you just have to adjust based on experience.0 -
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
It was part of the original NYC ordinance back in the day. The pilot that Bloomberg launched. I don't know the rules today. But that's why some have them and some don't.
I can just imagine a chain like McCormick and Schmicks...or any similar chains that prepare slightly more complicated food...having trouble with nutritional data being accurate. But now we've gone all off topic. My bad.
They all have recipes to base a ballpark figure on. It's never exact, but close enough. Website info for whatever chain isn't exact, either, since some people are heavy handed with their portions. It's more about saying, hey, this item as listed is around 1000 calories, not like, 300 calories, which you probably think it is.
We might maybe disagree about how useful that data is. I dont ever find myself thinking something is 300 calories only to find out it is instead 1000 calories. My ballpark needs to be pretty small... but maybe for many other people, those broad ranges are useful.
If I do buy a sandwich or salad for lunch I find it reasonably useful, because those are meals where I care about my calories being around 500 or lower. Sure, I could estimate okay, but I think with some of the quick places around here (like Pret or a place called Hannah's) they are close enough to be useable--or at least they haven't changed my loss rate even in weeks where I've gone there often, although I've been much better about making my own lunch lately.
A dinner out is a different thing in my mind and I just figure it will be lots of calories and impossible to estimate particularly well, and that's fine.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature.
Wait, what? No it wasn't.0 -
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f.
I swear this, I have experimented!
0 -
Warn people to not put hot liquids between their legs?ErikThaRed wrote: »
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.
Holy effin spoon feeding, grab some balls and be responsible.
0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
Yes! I like that result, honestly.
It was probably the right thing to do anyhow... though a chain restaurant, they prepare food by hand and I cannot imagine they are particularly consistent with quantities of things that are typically added "to taste" or used as garnishes and sauces. The numbers were probably largely meaningless.
They are, the variables are unreal, I learned that my first week in the food industry. It's fine to get the numbers, but any legitimate chain would at best be within 50% plus or minus of their posted numbers.
Do you really want to try to do anything with data like that?
I know...I'm always wondering about that myself when cooking. Do these numbers mean anything? Even if I know what I put in, how much fat did I render off that duck breast? How much olive oil is ON my sauteed veggies and how much is really just left in the pan. I have a hard time logging for this same reason. Seems only useful with packaged and processed foods, or simple things I eat raw and weigh.
At home I log full value of everything, if something is rendered off or left in the pan, bonus. .
That's really tough when you're on a razor edge of weight loss - at my weight and bf percentage, I don't want to accidentally eat too little. Especially if I'm working to improve athletic performance at the same time. It can be a bit of a challenge... and you just have to adjust based on experience.
I'll generally find a way to use the rendered or left behind fats, so I'm eating the full value of what I'm logging. For example, starchy veg is great to act as a repository for errant oils. With enough bacon fat, you can make even mashed cauliflower taste good.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »The McDonald's case was fair. No, it isn't smart to drive with coffee between your legs, but it isn't appropriate to use superheated water, which takes the coffee to an unsafe temperature.
That's what McDonald's got pinged for, not an isolated incident of someone being a dumbass, but for a failure of duty of care.
She wasn't driving. Common misconception. This was an older lady in the passanger seat and the car was parked while she took off the lid to put in suger and cream.
omg- and she sued because she spilled it while sitting in a none moving car??
I can't even.
This is why nearly every McDonalds now asks you if you want cream and sugar in your coffee.
The millions of dollars were not a reward to the victim, but a penalty to the company, they knew a problem existed and for financials reasons refused to address it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
It was part of the original NYC ordinance back in the day. The pilot that Bloomberg launched. I don't know the rules today. But that's why some have them and some don't.
I can just imagine a chain like McCormick and Schmicks...or any similar chains that prepare slightly more complicated food...having trouble with nutritional data being accurate. But now we've gone all off topic. My bad.
They all have recipes to base a ballpark figure on. It's never exact, but close enough. Website info for whatever chain isn't exact, either, since some people are heavy handed with their portions. It's more about saying, hey, this item as listed is around 1000 calories, not like, 300 calories, which you probably think it is.
We might maybe disagree about how useful that data is. I dont ever find myself thinking something is 300 calories only to find out it is instead 1000 calories. My ballpark needs to be pretty small... but maybe for many other people, those broad ranges are useful.
If I do buy a sandwich or salad for lunch I find it reasonably useful, because those are meals where I care about my calories being around 500 or lower. Sure, I could estimate okay, but I think with some of the quick places around here (like Pret or a place called Hannah's) they are close enough to be useable--or at least they haven't changed my loss rate even in weeks where I've gone there often, although I've been much better about making my own lunch lately.
A dinner out is a different thing in my mind and I just figure it will be lots of calories and impossible to estimate particularly well, and that's fine.
True. I need to remember I'm not normal at being stuffed all day after half my meal out. I have a hard enough time meeting quadruple digits in my intake, so seeing any kind of amount over the 400 I would eat at any meal puts me right off.0 -
-
Warn people to not put hot liquids between their legs?ErikThaRed wrote: »
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.
Holy effin spoon feeding, grab some balls and be responsible.
This reminds me of those warning labels on strollers that say, "remove child before folding."0 -
SapiensPisces wrote: »
Warn people to not put hot liquids between their legs?ErikThaRed wrote: »
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.
Holy effin spoon feeding, grab some balls and be responsible.
This reminds me of those warning labels on strollers that say, "remove child before folding."
That makes me sad people had to be reminded to remove their child before folding...Like that just made my head hurt
0 -
SapiensPisces wrote: »
Warn people to not put hot liquids between their legs?ErikThaRed wrote: »
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.
Holy effin spoon feeding, grab some balls and be responsible.
This reminds me of those warning labels on strollers that say, "remove child before folding."
That makes me sad people had to be reminded to remove their child before folding...Like that just made my head hurt
Because hairdryers in the shower is a good time saver?0 -
I'm just glad PF Chang's has gluten free options, when we visit the states my wife can have a treat of terrible deep fried yummy goodness of Chinese food.
As for discrimination or disability, I kind of see a point, but not to the extent of a lawsuit.0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »
Warn people to not put hot liquids between their legs?ErikThaRed wrote: »
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.
Holy effin spoon feeding, grab some balls and be responsible.
This reminds me of those warning labels on strollers that say, "remove child before folding."
That makes me sad people had to be reminded to remove their child before folding...Like that just made my head hurt
Because hairdryers in the shower is a good time saver?
Now that's just natural selection haha0 -
The more I think about it the more I think that Maybe the Ada part only applies to goverment funded entities such as schools so a no go with pf Chang. They can do as they want.0
-
NJGamerChick wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »
Warn people to not put hot liquids between their legs?ErikThaRed wrote: »
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.
Holy effin spoon feeding, grab some balls and be responsible.
This reminds me of those warning labels on strollers that say, "remove child before folding."
That makes me sad people had to be reminded to remove their child before folding...Like that just made my head hurt
Because hairdryers in the shower is a good time saver?
Now that's just natural selection haha
LOL! Truth.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions