Monday, June 15, 2009
Fat Broad On Electric Scooter Demands Burgers From Drive-Through Lane
A 37-year old woman on a mobility scooter was denied her order at a White Castle drive-though because, as most restaurants with a drive-though, food service from that lane is only for licensed motor vehicles.
She decided to take her sad burger-deprived story to the Minnesota Disability Law Center which is deliberating on whether or not to take her case. The story states that an attorney with the law center views the drive-through lane policy of "licensed motor vehicles only" as inconsistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the story, the scooter lady has degenerative arthritis in her back. I'm only basing what I'm about to say on the pictures of her included in the story and the video of her at the MRSNKT: I'm sure that because she - at least to me - appears to tip the scale at over 300 pounds has nothing to do with her physical condition or that she rides a scooter. Or that, other than those rare occasions where she opts for a fast-food-meal, she enjoys a nutritional, healthy, low fat diet and gets plenty of physical and cardio exercise.
Oh, and if you haven't clicked on the link and read the full story, let me add that it says the scooter lady's attempt of ordering food from the drive-thought lane at White Castle occurred well after midnight.
Representational only. Not a true facsimile of Fat Broad on Scooter.
From the MRSNKT:
[The scooter lady] thinks that [motor vehicle only drive-through policies] do a disservice to everybody without a car. She's not interested in money for her inconvenience. She wants the fast-food giants to serve every customer regardless of mode of transport whenever they're open.
"They pissed off the wrong person," she said.
Someone on a scooter in a fast-food restaurant drive-though lane is struck by a car and injured or killed and boom, there's a lawsuit any ambulance chaser will take on a contingency basis. The restaurant, fearing an endless and costly trial, settles out of court for X amount of dollars. Who pays? Well, you do the next time you patronize any restaurant with a drive-though lane.
There has to be reasonable accommodations for public safety. There has to be reasonable accommodations for Americans with disabilities. The obvious reasonable choice is not mixing scooters, cars and trucks at the drive-through.
Is it reasonable to expect that restaurants service non-motorized vehicles from the drive-though lane as they do legally defined motor vehicles? The answer is crystal clear for me. What about you?
If you're wondering why I did not mention the Fat Broad's name in my post, the answer is I consider her litigious and I'm staying as removed from the specifics as possible. I could, and would, argue my own case that the moment her story and her name appeared in the news she became a public person, giving up rights to private citizen privileges, but I'm not taking any chances.
Hell hath no fury like a Fat Broad on a Scooter denied her White Castle.
Lady, get off your ass and WALK around the block. Eat a celery stick or have a salad.
Great point. Thanks for adding such a great point.
There is no way this policy violates the ADA. ADA recquires REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS for individuals with a disability. It is reasonable that she could ask a friend or relative to drive her to White Castle, or for her to patronize an establishment that has a walk in (or scoot in) open at that hour. I would not want to be the driver of an SUV who comes around the curve of a drive up and does not see scooter lady who seated does not even come up to the grill on the front of my vehicle...and...(Well, ever play Carmageddon?)
I don't know if she has a medical condition or not. Maybe a mental one.
I agree with you, there is no way the drive-thru policy violates the ADA.
If her case goes to court, I hope it rules in favor of White Castle.
BTW - there's talk on the web (of which I HAVE NOT CONFIRMED) that Lard Ass Scooter Lady used to be a...are you ready...exotic dancer! One comment at where I read that said, "it must have been 20 years and 200 pounds ago." Heh!
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.