The relevant regulation is Title III of the ADA, which is the part that applies to private businesses.
36.307 Accessible or special goods:
(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods that are designed for, or facilitate use by, individuals with disabilities.
(b) A public accommodation shall order accessible or special goods at the request of an individual with disabilities, if, in the normal course of its operation, it makes special orders on request for unstocked goods, and if the accessible or special goods can be obtained from a supplier with whom the public accommodation customarily does business.
From my understanding Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk. As they do not do special inventory orders for customers, they could remove the non-dairy milk options from the menu without violating the ADA.
But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:
A public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.
In my amateur reasercher’s opinion, this case seems sound. Charging extra for milk alternatives is probably a violation of the ADA.
It seems not a slam dunk here, to me, specifically because of the first section. Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk as an accommodation, according to your first quote.
Since Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk, that last paragraph doesn’t apply at all, because they aren’t charging more for a required accommodation.
My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don’t want to conclude anything beyond that, because that’s what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.
If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
You make really good points. But I’m going to call out this point…
But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:
Oat milk is not milk. It’s a completely different product made from grain, not mammals. If I’m lactose intolerant at a bar can I request vodka? It has about as much relation to cow’s milk as oat milk. In fact, I think vodka arguably closer to oat milk than cow’s milk. The only reasonable one for one replacement for cows milk is lactase treated cow’s milk. Anything else is not comparable.
Or, what if Starbucks stocked lactase treated goat’s milk. Is that a substitute for cow’s milk? It’s much more similar to cow’s milk than oat milk.
The relevant regulation is Title III of the ADA, which is the part that applies to private businesses.
36.307 Accessible or special goods:
From my understanding Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk. As they do not do special inventory orders for customers, they could remove the non-dairy milk options from the menu without violating the ADA.
But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:
36.301© Charges.
In my amateur reasercher’s opinion, this case seems sound. Charging extra for milk alternatives is probably a violation of the ADA.
It seems not a slam dunk here, to me, specifically because of the first section. Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk as an accommodation, according to your first quote.
Since Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk, that last paragraph doesn’t apply at all, because they aren’t charging more for a required accommodation.
My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don’t want to conclude anything beyond that, because that’s what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.
If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
It wouldn’t change their inventory at all though.
You make really good points. But I’m going to call out this point…
Oat milk is not milk. It’s a completely different product made from grain, not mammals. If I’m lactose intolerant at a bar can I request vodka? It has about as much relation to cow’s milk as oat milk. In fact, I think vodka arguably closer to oat milk than cow’s milk. The only reasonable one for one replacement for cows milk is lactase treated cow’s milk. Anything else is not comparable.
Or, what if Starbucks stocked lactase treated goat’s milk. Is that a substitute for cow’s milk? It’s much more similar to cow’s milk than oat milk.