Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Camarillo v. Carrols Corp.

September 25, 2006

ALICE CAMARILLO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CARROLS CORPORATION; MAGLIOCCA STORES, INC.; REEHER MAJIK, INC.; EL RANCHO FOODS, INC.; AND WENDONIE, INC.,*FN1 DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe U.S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Alice Camarillo alleges, pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (ADA), that defendant restaurants discriminated against her in the full and equal enjoyment of the services offered at their fast food restaurants. Pending under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are defendants' motions to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motions are granted.

II. Facts

Alice Camarillo is legally blind. See Pl. Am. Compl. ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 32. Each of the restaurants falls into the category of a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12182 and New York Executive Law.*fn2 See id. ¶ 13. Due to her disability, Camarillo cannot read the list of foods and prices displayed at defendants' fast food restaurants. See id. ¶ 14. She is, however, able to read large print held closely to her face. See id. ¶ 15.

A. Burger King and McDonald's Restaurants

On numerous occasions between August 2002 and the present, Camarillo has patronized the Burger King restaurants in Catskill and Hudson, New York and the McDonald's restaurants in Catskill, Cairo, and Hudson, New York. See Pl. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23, 36, 48; Dkt. No. 32. On each occasion, Camarillo asked whether the restaurants had large print menus, informing the cashier that she is legally blind and cannot read the posted menu. See id. ¶¶ 25-26, 37-39, 49. On each occasion, she was informed that the restaurant did not have large print menus. See id. ¶¶ 25, 40. Before placing her order, Camarillo has asked that the list of food and prices be read to her. See id. ¶¶ 29, 37. To the extent that Burger King employees have complied, their delivery has been "reluctant, impatient, incomplete, and half-hearted." See id. ¶ 34. On other occasions, Burger King employees have been hostile to Camarillo and stared and laughed at her. See id. ¶ 30. Once, they directed her to the men's restroom and laughed at her humiliation. See id.

Similarly, McDonald's employees often expressed annoyance or impatience. See Pl. Am. Compl. ¶ 42; Dkt. No. 32. On one occasion, the cashier pointed to promotional literature on placemats on the counter, insisting that the promotional materials were the same as the posted menus. See id. ¶ 42.

B. Taco Bell and Wendy's Restaurants

On numerous occasions between August 2002 and the present, Camarillo has patronized the Taco Bell restaurant in Kingston, New York. See Pl. Am. Compl. ¶ 60; Dkt. No. 32. On at least two occasions between January 2005 and the present, Camarillo has patronized Wendy's restaurant in Hudson, New York. See Pl. Am. Compl. ¶ 72; Dkt. No. 32. As in the other restaurants, Camarillo has asked on each occasion whether Taco Bell and Wendy's have large print menus, explaining each time that she is legally blind. See id. ¶¶ 62-64, 73-74. Likewise, on each visit, she was informed that the restaurants did not have large print menus. See id. ¶¶ 64, 74.

While employees at Taco Bell and Wendy's have not offered to read Camarillo the menu or provide another form of communication, Camarillo has requested that they do so. See Pl. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 64, 76; Dkt. No. 32. To the extent that Taco Bell and Wendy's employees complied, their delivery has been "reluctant, impatient, and incomplete." See id. ¶¶ 70, 78.

Defendant Wedonie claims to have a large print menu at one of its restaurants in Hudson, New York. See id. ¶ 83. This menu, which was never offered to Camarillo, contains only a partial selection of the food offered for sale at the restaurant and does not display prices. See Pl. Am. Compl. ¶ 83; Dkt. No. 32.

III. Procedural History

On August 4, 2005, Camarillo filed her original complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Greene County. See Dkt. No. 1.On October 27, 2005, defendants timely removed the case to this court. See id. After all defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, the court granted Camarillo an additional thirty days to amend her complaint. See Dkt. No. 29. On April 4, 2006, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.