# Chipotle lowering walls that block views



## mark handler (Oct 5, 2010)

Oct. 5, 2010

DENVER, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- U.S. fast-food chain Chipotle says it is lowering the walls that blocked a wheelchair-bound man's view of the burrito preparation area.

The company said it had started the work at its approximately 1,000 locations after a federal court ruled that the 45-inch wall violated the American with Disabilities Act, which sets a 36-inch limit on such restaurant walls.

The wall was challenged by Maurizio Antoninetti, who uses a wheelchair and complained he was blocked from having the same experience as ambulatory customers who could actually see their food being prepared.

The Kansas City Star said Tuesday the case was closely watched nationwide due to Antoninetti's past history of suing businesses over alleged ADA violations.

Chipotle had no direct comment on last month's ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Star said the San Francisco court's decision applies only to the western states within the 9th Circuit.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 5, 2010)

Court backs man in wheelchair who sued to enjoy ‘Chipotle Experience’

By DIANE STAFFORD

The Kansas City Star

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/04/2276637/court-backs-man-in-wheelchair.html#ixzz11WYmhy2B

Coming to a Chipotle near you: a lower counter to help more people see their burritos being made.

In a case generating national attention, a federal appellate court last month ruled that Chipotle Mexican Grill’s 45-inch-high wall screening its food-preparation counter was too high for Maurizio Antoninetti, who uses a wheelchair.

He couldn’t watch his food being prepared, so he was denied the full “Chipotle Experience.”

The decision applies only to the Western states covered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but Chipotle already has begun lowering the 45-inch walls nationwide. It declined to discuss the cost.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S. Justice Department guidelines set 36 inches as the maximum height for such restaurant purposes.

A company spokesman for the restaurant chain, which has about 1,000 locations, said Chipotle “has always worked hard to be accessible to all of our customers, including those with disabilities, and remains compliant with ADA provisions.”

The act, passed 20 years ago, requires equal treatment or accommodations for people with disabilities.

Like many employers, Chipotle has long provided accommodations for those with disabilities.

In Chipotle’s case, that included an official disability policy of bringing ingredients to the tables of diners with disabilities and doing tableside preparation.

But Antoninetti, a San Diego State University employee who has a history of filing ADA-related lawsuits, sued because he “could not watch the food-service employee combine those ingredients to form his order,” unlike a standing person who was tall enough to see the ingredient trays.

The food preparation counter itself is 34 to 35 inches high.

Lawyers, including those at the Kansas City law firm of Stinson Morrison Hecker, have been prompt about putting their clients on alert.

Places of public accommodation “need to consider the implications of this case and whether disabled customers are allowed to ‘experience’ their goods and services without impermissible barriers,” the Stinson briefing said.

The U.S. Labor Department, which observes October as National Disability Employment Awareness Month, notes that 54 million Americans have some form of disability.

Providing people who have disabilities improved access to the workplace remains a challenge, said Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, but the government is committed to “continue building a long-term infrastructure” to improve access.

That Chipotle should have to retrofit its restaurants raised some hackles, even among some people sympathetic to ADA concerns.

When news of the 3-0 appellate panel decision broke in the San Francisco Chronicle, one online reader opined, “Good Lord, people are complaining because they can’t see a taco, get a life.”

Others complained about Antoninetti’s litigation history. A blog post by Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, called it “an open scandal … that serial complainants and their lawyers carve out profitable practices … leveling ADA complaints that they then settle for cash.”

The appellate court awarded Antoninetti his attorney’s fees and damages but remanded the case to a district court to determine the reasonable and appropriate amounts.

For its part, Chipotle considers the court decision moot.

In addition to already retrofitting its California locations, “we are incorporating the same design into newly built restaurants and major remodels around the country,” said spokesman Chris Arnold.

To reach Diane Stafford, call 816-234-4359 or send e-mail to stafford@kcstar.com.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/04/2276637/court-backs-man-in-wheelchair.html#ixzz11WYi13Gf


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 9, 2010)

I don't remember seeing a 36" height limit for viewing purposes in ADAAG.  The only viewing height restrictions I know of are 40" for the bottom of mirrors, and 43" for vision lights in doors.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 9, 2010)

The restaurant Chain advertized “Chipotle Experience", watching your food being prepared, he was denied this "Experience".


----------



## texas transplant (Apr 18, 2011)

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court won't stop a disabled man's lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill for having counters too high for a person in a wheelchair.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Denver-based chain.

Maurizio Antoninetti sued when he found that he could not see the Chipotle food preparers because of the height of the counters. A federal judge ruled against him, saying Antoninetti had sued dozens of other places for access violations and dropped the suit after received cash settlements.

The judge said Antoninetti was insincere about wanting to return and eat at Chipotle.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judge's ruling, saying Antoninetti's litigation history cannot be used against him.

The case is Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maurizio Antoninetti, 10-1051.


----------



## Jim B (May 18, 2011)

The 2010 ADA Standard as well as the ANSI A117.1-2003 does address the visual issue from customer side to employee side:

_*2010 ADA Standard; 902.3.904.4 Sales and Service Counters*__. Sales counters and service counters shall comply with 904.4.1 or 904.4.2. __*The accessible portion of the counter top shall extend the same depth as the sales or service counter top*__._

_*ANSI A117.1-2003, 904.3 Sales and Service Counters*__. Sales and service counters shall comply with Section 904.3.1 or 904.3.2. __*The accessible portion of the countertop shall extend the same depth as the sales and service countertop*__._

So just putting a shelf on the front of a counter at 36” AFF with a “bump up” beyond is not compliant.


----------



## steveray (May 18, 2011)

We should have one of these in for permit in the next month or so....should be interesting...the architect already ASKED if we would LET them egress through the kitchen........not does code ALLOW......they don't care what is code...just what they can get away with...


----------



## brudgers (May 18, 2011)

texas transplant said:
			
		

> The judge said Antoninetti was insincere about wanting to return and eat at Chipotle.


If insincerity disqualified a lawyer's side, every case would end in a tie.


----------



## fatboy (May 18, 2011)

But if you can't egress through the kitchen, how do the kitchen workers egress the building??????

JK, use the same line for storage areas.......kinda funny if you think about it.

Yes, they all want to push the envelope, that's why we have jobs.


----------



## brudgers (May 18, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> We should have one of these in for permit in the next month or so....should be interesting...the architect already ASKED if we would LET them egress through the kitchen........not does code ALLOW......they don't care what is code...just what they can get away with...


As a profession, building officials foster and encourage that sort of approach.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 18, 2011)

> But if you can't egress through the kitchen, how do the kitchen workers egress the building??????


There is a difference from exiting through a kitchen as opposed to exiting from a kitchen


----------



## steveray (May 18, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> As a profession, building officials foster and encourage that sort of approach.


   That's like me saying all architects know nothing about building code, just pretty pictures......it may be true in some instances but we should all be trying to change the stereotypes.....You show me your code section and I will show you mine!


----------

