[nagdu] Diner Must Provide Access, Not Civility

Pickrell, Rebecca M (TASC) REBECCA.PICKRELL at tasc.com
Mon Jul 30 15:51:56 UTC 2012


I wonder what would happen if she just went to the diner without her dog?
I'm also wondering how many people we're talking about. Four or five?? It hurts but isn't that many.
I also wonder what's going on, and wonder why if this places means so much to her she just doesn't go without the dog?

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Lyn Gwizdak
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 1:18 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Diner Must Provide Access, Not Civility

Strange case.  I wonder what is...the rest of the story.  It is very odd
that a place of business where everyone there - employees and customers
alike - were friendly pre-dog and nasty post-dog.  It really makes no sense.
you might find one of two employees or a customer or two, but EVERYONE
becoming nasty?

Are there anyone on this list who knows the place and might like to just go
in and see what happens?

Lyn and Landon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ginger Kutsch" <GingerKutsch at yahoo.com>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 9:09 AM
Subject: [nagdu] Diner Must Provide Access, Not Civility


> Diner Must Provide Access, Not Civility
>
> By ADAM KLASFELD
>
> Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/27/48772.htm
>
> MANHATTAN (CN) - A New York City diner did not discriminate against a
> disabled woman who said that waiters gave her a cold shoulder once she
> starting bringing a service dog into the restaurant, an appellate court
> ruled.
>
>     Cheryl Krist, whose combination of asthma, arthritis and tremor has
> hurt her mobility since 2003, bought the dog five years later to cope with
> her symptoms.
>
>     At the time, she said, she had been a loyal customer of the Coopertown
> Diner, owned by Michael Kolombos and his self-named corporation, for
> nearly
> two decades.
>
>     "Coopertown, for Krist, had been 'like... Cheers... you went in and
> you
> knew people and people knew you and you were friendly and everything was
> fine,'" the appellate court summarized, quoting the trial transcript.
>
>     But she said that "all went right out the window" after she brought
> the
> dog, according to the court.
>
>     The 2nd Circuit decision, written by Judge Amalya Kearse and co-signed
> by Judges Susan Carney and Clifford Wallace, outlines what the undisputed
> trial evidence showed.
>
>     "The first time she took the dog to the restaurant, Joe Mugno, a
> waiter
> with whom she frequently had had lunch, asked her if her dog was a service
> dog, using a tone of skepticism. Krist responded that it was a service
> dog,
> and she and Mugno had no further conversations about the dog; but Mugno
> never had lunch with her again. Krist testified that on this occasion,
> none
> of the other employees of the restaurant spoke to her, even to exchange
> pleasantries. In addition, one of the customers, who had sat with Krist
> every day she was at Coopertown for 10 years, refused to sit with her,
> never
> sat with her again, and stopped speaking to her.
>
>     "Krist also testified that there were incidents in which [co-owners
> Fotios] Batas or Michael Kolombos 'yelled' at her. Thus, on her second
> visit
> to Coopertown with the dog, a few days after the first, Batas, from behind
> the counter on the opposite side of the restaurant, stared at the dog and
> made growling sounds," the decision states.
>
>     At one point, Krist and Batas quarreled about whether the dog barked.
> She claimed it made a "boof" sound, but he still ordered her to leave the
> restaurant.
>
>     After more such incidents, Krist says she decided to stop going to
> Coopertown in September 2009, and she filed a federal lawsuit seeking
> punitive damages and an injunction.
>
>     U.S. District Judge George Daniels found after a three-day bench trial
> that Krist showed "no evidence that any of these owners of this restaurant
> or employees of this restaurant treated plaintiff any differently because
> she was disabled.
>
>     "There is no evidence of that from the 20 years before she had the
> dog,
> and there is no evidence of that when she got the dog," he emphasized.
>
>     The judge added that the Americans with Disabilities Act was intended
> to safeguard access, not friendliness.
>
>     "The ADA doesn't prohibit the conduct at issue here, complaining about
> the dog's handling and the dog's behavior, even if done in a rude and
> insensitive manner -if I could even characterize it as that," Daniels
> wrote.
> "[That] is not what the ADA is intended to reach. This may have been
> thought
> of like Cheers, but the ADA does not guarantee that kind of atmosphere.
> The
> ADA prohibits discrimination and denial of use and enjoyment of public
> facilities."
>
>     The three-judge panel agreed with this reading of the statute."We
> reject Krist's contention that Title III imposes a civility code, and we
> see
> no error in the findings or conclusion of the district court," the
> decision
> states.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> HomeBack to Top
>
> Courthouse News ServicePrivacy Policy
>
> Search
>
> RSS
>
> About Us
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/linda.gwizdak%40cox.net


_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/rebecca.pickrell%40tasc.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments or files transmitted with it (collectively, the "Message") are intended only for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary and/or prohibited from disclosure by law or contract. If you are not the intended recipient: (a) please do not read, copy or retransmit the Message; (b) permanently delete and/or destroy all electronic and hard copies of the Message; (c) notify us by return email; and (d) you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the Message is strictly prohibited.




More information about the NAGDU mailing list