Blogs & News

Leslie Bower, a lactose intolerant woman, has filed a lawsuit against Biggby Coffee, a Michigan-based franchise, seeking $5 million in damages. The lawsuit alleges that Biggby Coffee imposes an unjust surcharge for non-dairy milk alternatives, arguing that this practice discriminates against individuals with lactose intolerance, which is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Bower contends that the surcharge is disproportionate compared to the cost of regular milk substitutions and claims that Biggby Coffee could easily accommodate such requests without additional cost, similar to how they handle other dietary modifications for customers. This case raises significant questions about accessibility, corporate responsibility, and the legal obligations of businesses towards customers with dietary restrictions.

Introduction

In recent years, the issue of accommodating dietary restrictions and preferences in public establishments has gained increasing attention. Leslie Bower's lawsuit against Biggby Coffee exemplifies this debate, focusing on the fairness and legality of charging extra for non-dairy milk alternatives. Bower, citing her lactose intolerance as a disability, asserts that Biggby Coffee's additional fees violate her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), sparking a legal battle that challenges corporate policies and societal norms regarding inclusivity.

Background

Leslie Bower's journey through multiple Biggby Coffee locations in Ohio and Michigan since 2020 reveals a persistent struggle familiar to many with lactose intolerance. Facing symptoms ranging from bloating to fatigue, Bower opted for oat milk as a substitute for traditional dairy, as recommended by her medical physician. However, each time she made this substitution, she was met with an additional charge ranging from 50 cents to $1, prompting her to investigate the basis for this surcharge and its implications under federal law.

Legal and Ethical Dimensions

At the heart of Bower's lawsuit is the contention that lactose intolerance qualifies as a disability under the ADA, entitling her to reasonable accommodations without incurring financial penalties. The lawsuit argues that Biggby Coffee's policy of levying surcharges for non-dairy milk alternatives constitutes discrimination, especially when compared to their willingness to accommodate other dietary needs, such as sugar-free options for diabetics or weight-conscious individuals, at no extra cost.

Moreover, the lawsuit highlights inconsistencies in Biggby Coffee's approach to customer service, pointing out that modifying beverages to meet specific dietary preferences or health conditions often requires minimal effort from staff, as evidenced by their existing practices. This raises ethical questions about whether charging extra for lactose-free alternatives reflects genuine operational costs or constitutes unjust profiteering from customers with dietary restrictions.

Corporate Practices and Customer Rights

Biggby Coffee, a franchised chain with a substantial national footprint, faces scrutiny not only over its pricing policies but also over its adherence to ADA regulations and broader principles of corporate social responsibility. As Bower's lawsuit progresses, it calls into question how businesses should balance profit motives with obligations to accommodate diverse customer needs equitably.

Public Reaction and Industry Standards

The lawsuit has sparked public debate and garnered attention from advocacy groups focused on disability rights and consumer protections. Supporters of Bower argue that businesses should proactively ensure accessibility for all customers, including those with dietary restrictions arising from medical conditions. Conversely, critics caution against potential unintended consequences for business operations and pricing strategies, urging clarity on legal standards and industry norms regarding accommodation practices.

Implications for Future Cases and Legal Precedents

The outcome of Bower v. Biggby Coffee could set a precedent influencing how similar cases are adjudicated in courts across the United States. Depending on the court's interpretation of ADA provisions and the specifics of Biggby Coffee's policies, the case may establish guidelines for businesses on accommodating customers with dietary restrictions, potentially impacting corporate policies and customer relations strategies nationwide.