Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
A federal judge in California on Thursday dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against Jack In The Box that alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The class action lawsuit had argued that a policy making Jack In The Box drive-thru open late at night violated the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act because it violated the rights of the visually impaired.
According to the plaintiffs, limiting access to only the Jack In The Box drive-thru violated the rights of visually-impaired patrons because they cannot see to drive and, therefore, during late-night hours, have no access to the fast-food chain.
However, Judge William Alsup determined the plaintiffs had failed to make a valid ADA claim.
In granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Alsup said the plaintiffs had not shown they were discriminated against based on their disability.
While the plaintiffs had argued Jack In The Box drive-thru access put a greater burden on them than on “non-disabled pedestrians,” the fast-food chain maintained that equal burden was placed on all pedestrians in that no one is allowed to walk through the drive-thru.
The late-night Jack In The Box drive-thru policy “affects people based on, at most, their inability to drive for any reason, not on the basis of any disability,” the defendants had said.
Judge Alsup agreed with Jack In The Box, noting: “[I]t is even a narrower group of people that bear the burden of defendants’ policy: night-owls who do not or cannot drive for any numbers of reasons, who are within walking distance of a Jack in the Box and are willing to venture into the darkness during the most dangerous parts of the day to buy a burger and take it back home.”
In addition, Judge Alsup said the plaintiffs failed in their claims because “they are not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.”
The judge said they had met the requirement of establishing a physical impairment, but had not identified a life activity upon which they relied and had not established that their impairment “substantially limited the identified major life activity.”
“Specifically, as a matter of judicial common sense, plaintiffs’ claims rely on the life activity of driving, not seeing,” Judge Alsup wrote. “Indeed, plaintiffs’ own opposition brief illustrates this point: stating that ‘[p]laintiffs allege that the impairment is substantial in that it prevents them from safely operating motor vehicles.’”
And while the ADA’s list of major life activities “is non-exhaustive,” the judge wrote, “plaintiffs fail to show that driving in this context — to access a drive-thru for the purpose of enjoying a late-night burger — is a major life activity under the ADA.”
Plaintiffs Judy Szwanek and James Lopez II, each a visually-impaired resident of California, live within walking distance of Jack In The Box restaurants and regularly patronize the businesses.
However, Szwanek in 2018 and Lopez in 2019 had walked to their respective Jack In The Box drive-thrus late at night, only to discover they could not patronize the businesses because access was restricted to vehicles only.
The plaintiffs had suggested “modest accommodations,” such as walk-up windows or allowing blind patrons to enter the lobby would allow the visually impaired to have access late at night.
What do you think of the judge’s decision to dismiss the Jack In The Box drive-thru class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Glenn M. Goffin, and by Roberto Luis Costales and William H. Beaumont of Beaumost Costales LLC.
The Jack In The Box Drive-thru Policy Class Action Lawsuit is Judy Szwanek, et al. v. Jack In The Box Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02953-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
Diocese of Phoenix and Prep School Face Child Sex Abuse Lawsuit
Jack In The Box Class Action Alleges Cell Phone Advertising Text Messages
Taco Bell Class Action Says Drive Thru Violates ADA
What Can You Do if You Were Assaulted During a Ride in Uber?
One thought on Judge Dismisses Jack In The Box Drive-Thru Class Action Lawsuit
Wait, what?
This Jack In The Box lawsuit, October 2020, is thrown out and the September 2019 Taco Bell Drive Thru Class Action Lawsuit Case No. 3:19-cv-05729, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was not.
When Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was being interviewed for the Supreme Court Nomination she was very clear, she goes by the book.
I heard that. I am sure millions of others heard that too.
If I was a lawyer and heard that I may change how I present items to this judge. It will be the lawyers as usual who win or lose a case. Judges do not win or lose cases.
In this Jack In The Box case I believe the judge got it wrong because the lawyers for the plaintiffs allowed the Jack In The Box lawyers to sell the following thought:
We do not allow any pedestrians to walk up to the drive through therefore those with no disabilities and those with disabilities are treated equally and with equal burden.
The judge has incorrectly agreed. The plaintiff’s lawyers did a terrible job because the Judge is not visually impaired. How does he know that burden is equal?
The burden is not equal. Those with out disabilities can borrow a car from a family or friend, just as many people do daily when they need a car to pick up someone one at specific location, get to an appointment, or the supermarket.
Those with sight can borrow, rent, or steal a car to gain access to those services, with or without a valid drivers license. Those who are visually impaired cannot see to drive, cannot borrow, rent or steal a car to gain access to those services. Therefore they ARE being denied services by this business.