Jack in the Box Class Action Says Coke Machine Violates ADA

Jack in the Box allegedly violates the ADA by failing to provide equal access to their soda fountain dispensers for sight-impaired customers.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law that requires all public accommodations to provide equal accessibility to disabled individuals.

This includes sight-impaired individuals such as plaintiff Sean Licea who recently filed the Jack in the Box class action.

The restaurant reportedly uses Coca-Cola’s “Freestyle” soda fountains which allow users to select from more than 100 possible beverages with additional flavorings. This results in a uniquely customized drink for the customer.

Although the Freestyle machines are an attractive feature in restaurants, the use of a visual interface is reportedly required to control the soda machine. This means that individuals like Licea, who are visually impaired, are allegedly unable to use the machine without assistance.

“Freestyle machines do not utilize otherwise readily available technology, such as the tactile controls and screen reading software utilized by blind accessible ATMs, which would allow blind individuals to use the Freestyle machines without assistance from sighted companions or strangers,” the Jack in the Box ADA class action lawsuit claims.

Licea notes that the use of screen reading features and/or tactile controls would allow him and other sight-impaired consumers to access the machines. Licea also argues that these concessions would not “fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor cause an undue burden to Defendant.”

Additionally, Jack in the Box allegedly has no policies or procedures in place which require their employees to offer and provide assistance to consumers who cannot access the Freestyle soda machine due to a visual disability. This allegedly provides further barriers for sight-impaired consumers.

Because sight-impaired individuals are unable to use the Freestyle soda machines, they are reportedly incapable of having equal access the services and goods offered by Jack in the Box.

“Customers with visual disabilities are denied full and equal enjoyment of Defendant’s good, services, and facilities as these customers are effectively denied access to the unique experience offered by the Freestyle machines to Defendant’s non-visually impaired customers,” the Jack in the Box ADA class action lawsuit claims.

According to Licea’s Jack in the Box class action, he was denied access to the Jack in the Box location owned by defendant DMSD Foods near his brother’s home in Riverside, Calif. In each of his visits, Licea was allegedly not offered assistance in the use of the Freestyle machine and had to seek out help from a stranger or employee.

“On each of Plaintiff’s visits to [Jack in the Box], Plaintiffs access to the Freestyle was based entirely on the good will of Defendant’s employees or third parties,” the Jack in the Box ADA class action argues.

Licea seeks to represent a Class of individuals with an obvious visual disability (use a white cane or guide dog) who have attempted to access Freestyle machines at Jack in the Box locations owned by DMSD Foods but were denied access and were not affirmatively offered assistance by employees.

The Jack in the Box ADA class action lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Licea and the proposed Class are represented by Eric D. Zard and R. Bruce Carlson of Carlson Lynch LLP, and by Gerald D. Wells III of Connolly Wells & Gray LLP.

The Jack in the Box ADA Class Action Lawsuit is Licea v. DMSD Foods Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01564-DMS-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

McDonald’s Customer Fights To Preserve Drive-Thru Class Action

Diabetes Drugs Could Lead to Flesh Eating Bacteria Infection

Uber Class Action Alleges Lack of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles

Cerebellar Degeneration from Dilantin Sparks Lawsuit Investigation