Jump to content
  • Join Our Community!

    Do you have questions about celiac disease or the gluten-free diet?

  • Jefferson Adams
    Jefferson Adams

    P.F. Chang's Temporarily Dodges a Gluten-free Bullet

    Caption: P.F. Chang's China Bistro. Photo: Wikimedia Commons--Injustifiable

    Celiac.com 08/05/2015 - Should restaurants be required to provide gluten-free food at the same prices it charges for regular gluten-containing items? That question is at the heart of a lawsuit brought by a woman who claims P.F. Chang's has violated federal anti-discrimination laws by charging more for gluten-free items. A federal judge has now "tentatively" dismissed that lawsuit.

    P.F. Chang's China Bistro. Photo: Wikimedia Commons--InjustifiableP.F. Chang's had asked the judge in February to dismiss Anna Marie Phillips' class action lawsuit, claiming that her celiac disease does not make her a disabled person under the Americans with Disabilities Act. At that time, lawyers for Chang's urged U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte to dismiss the suit to prevent what they termed a 'negative impact' upon restaurant industry as a whole.

    Phillips originally sued P.F. Chang's in a California state court in December, but the case was later moved to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. According to the motion, the dismissal rests largely on the failure of the plaintiff "to plausibly allege that she is disabled under any applicable statute since her condition constitutes only a minimal limitation on the major life activity of eating."

    In words that may raise the eyebrows of many people impacted by celiac disease, the judge goes on to say that the plaintiff can "still consume all gluten-free foods. No authority supports plaintiff's baseless position that she is disabled." P.F. Chang's also maintained that, because it charges the same price to all customers of its gluten-free items, it is charging based on the food cost, not adding a surcharge based on the gluten-free status of the customer, and is thus not discriminating on the basis of disability.

    The class action suit states that because a gluten-free diet is medically necessary for individuals with celiac disease, gluten-free patrons have no choice but to order at the higher price.

    Phillips brought suit on behalf of persons with celiac disease or gluten intolerance who ordered items from P.F. Chang's gluten-free menu in California within four years prior to the suit.

    In an interesting legal wrinkle, the CEO of the Celiac Disease Foundation said in a February Legal Newsline article that it did not agree with Phillips' claims.

    "Celiac Disease Foundation recognizes that restaurants bear a financial burden for the employee training and other accommodations that are required to serve meals that are safe for those with celiac disease," Marilyn G. Geller said.

    P.F. Chang's cited the article in its motion to dismiss.

    What do you think? If P.F. Chang's provide gluten-free food in accordance with the law, must it provide the food at the same price as its non-gluten-free items, or can it charge more to reflect its costs?

    Read more at: Legalnewsline.com


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Once any training and assigned areas is done and in place, there is nothing else. Prices should be the same or "minimally" higher.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I do not agree with Ms. Phillips. There are higher costs to establishments to offer gluten free foods. And, celiac diners DO have an option of whether or not to dine out or in most of the time. Those who travel a lot get caught, but, if they are traveling for work their expenses are usually covered. I am happy to pay more to ensure that my food is not cross contaminated and that I can enjoy a meal without having to worry about a possible cross contamination! I am totally willing to pay extra to make sure my servers, chefs, etc. are well trained against cross-contamination!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest Susan Swearingen

    Posted

    I have celiac disease. I am grateful that restaurants provide gluten-free options. Since the food often costs more, restaurants should be allowed to charge more.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    gluten-free ingredients generally cost more, so restaurants should charge more. Maybe what should be happening is celiac disease groups should go after fed and state gov't wheat subsidies - does a poison for so many need fed gov't subsidies with your tax dollars?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am so glad this case was at least tentatively dismissed. I understand the frustrations of having to may higher costs for gluten-free products in general, but I am so thankful for restaurants like P.F. Chang's that allows those with celiac to enjoy safely eating out with friends and family. Kudos to Celiac Disease Foundation for highlighting that it's simply more expensive for restaurants to offer a celiac safe gluten-free option. I continue to support P.F. Changs and hope the chain understands that most of those with celiac are grateful to have restaurants that understand their needs and offer them safe dining out options.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I feel they have a profit to make and should not have to provide expensive items for a "same price" as market products. There are examples, however, of only switching to gluten-free soy to make the item gluten free, that certainly do not call for a price increase for the gluten-free item.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    None of us like having to pay more for gluten free food but it sure beats being sick for days. If a restaurant takes the time to properly train their employees to prevent this, it is worth the cost. More restaurants could benefit by doing this and increase their customer base.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I for one am happy about this. PF takes great care to offer this and I believe there is extra expense. It's one of the few restaurants where I feel reasonably safe. I wish there was more choices in eating and I was bummed to see litigation involved.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Maybe if the judge were celiac or had to eat gluten free and was forced to pay higher prices for eating in a gluten-free meal and still run the risk of being cross-contaminated the judge's decision might be different. Both foods from restaurants and pre-packaged gluten-free foods from grocery stores seem to have the same motto: Half the product for twice the price!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think on a practical basis it needs to be dismissed. I disagree with the judges statement that it is minimal but fear there will be fewer gluten free options if this woman persists. I would be inclined to no longer offer gluten free options if it were my restaurant and I was the victim of this woman. California is drowning it's small businesses in paperwork and BS in general. Everyone should have their own business for a few years. They would be more practical. If you have a business in California you are probably breaking a law, even if you are unaware of it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • About Me

    Jefferson Adams earned his B.A. and M.F.A. at Arizona State University, and has authored more than 2,000 articles on celiac disease. His coursework includes studies in biology, anatomy, medicine, science, and advanced research, and scientific methods. He previously served as Health News Examiner for Examiner.com, and devised health and medical content for Sharecare.com. Jefferson has spoken about celiac disease to the media, including an appearance on the KQED radio show Forum, and is the editor of the book "Cereal Killers" by Scott Adams and Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.

  • Related Articles

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/08/2007 - On May 30th, federal judge Elaine E. Bucklo dismissed key parts of a lawsuit against McDonalds regarding the gluten-free status of their famous French fries.
    The case, In Re McDonalds French Fries Litigation (MDL-1784), was brought in February 2006, by two Florida plaintiffs on behalf of their autistic daughter who allegedly suffered ill effects from eating McDonalds French fries. At the time, the company claimed that the French fries were gluten-free.
    The lawsuit claimed in part that McDonalds "failure to disclose the fact that their French fries contained gluten constitutes deceptive, unfair, unconscionable, misleading and fraudulent trade practices," and that "McDonalds unfairly and unjustly profited from their conduct. The judge dismissed claims of fraud, breach of implied warranty, and a request for injunctive relief, but left intact two counts, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
    In its arguments for dismissal, McDonalds claimed that most of the plaintiffs legal causes of action were barred as a matter of law. Basically, McDonalds asserted that the plaintiffs pled themselves out of court by arguing facts that undermined their own claim.
    The plaintiffs fraud allegations were rejected because they failed to meet the specificity required under the federal rules. McDonalds argued that the plaintiffs claim of fraud and misrepresentation failed to state how, when, or where the alleged misrepresentations took place. Federal Rule 9( of Civil Procedure requires that all claims of fraud be stated with particularity; otherwise, they face dismissal.
    Judge Bucklo rejected the plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief because she found there was no threat of future wrongful conduct. The company revised its web site in 2006 to show that its fries and hash browns contain gluten. Also, the publicity brought by the suit arguably eliminated any need for injunctive relief.
    The plaintiffs have 28 days to amend their complaint or the lawsuit will go forward based on the two remaining counts.
    health writer who lives in San Francisco and is a frequent author of articles for Celiac.com.

    Destiny Stone
    Celiac.com 06/08/2010 - Paul Seelig of Durham, owner of Great Specialty Products; a bread company that claimed to manufacture gluten-free bread which actually contained gluten and made many people sick, is now facing additional indictments for false murder implications.
    Selling, 48, is facing nine felony fraud charges for selling gluten contaminated bread which he claimed was gluten-free. People began complaining about Seelig's bread products after getting sick from them, which led state state officials to close Seelig's business in January, and arrest Seelig on criminal charges in February.
    In March, State School Board member Kathy Taft was raped and left for dead. She later died, and almost two months after that Jason K. Williford was charged with Kathy Taft's rape and murder. Prosecutors said that Seelig volunteered information about Taft's killer to barter for reducing or dismissing  his felony charges. Seelig implicated a  former co-worker who was entirely innocent, and had no connection  to Taft's murder.
    On Monday, Seelig was expected to plead guilty to his felony charges and accept a plea deal, but he refused. Instead, Wake Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens arraigned Seelig on felony charges, is seeking additional indictments against Seelig for false murder accusations, and at the prosecutors request raised Seelig's bond to 750,000.
    Sources:

    NewsObserver.com News-Record.com

    Scott Adams
    Celiac.com 02/02/2015 - On December 9th, 2014, Anna Marie Phillips filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, for discrimination and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit claims that P.F. Chang's forces people with celiac disease to pay higher prices for gluten-free versions of their menu items. According to the complaint, P.F. Chang's charges one extra dollar per gluten-free item, however, they do not add these surcharges on to their regular menu items.
    The lawsuit is seeking class action status, and claims that over the past four years more than 3,000 people in 39 states have been affected at P.F. Chang's 204 restaurants. The plaintiff claims that the gluten-free diet is medically necessary for those with celiac disease, and those who eat at P.F. Chang's are forced to pay higher prices for gluten-free dishes, even if the dishes they order are naturally gluten-free. The plaintiff asserts that this arbitrary and unequal treatment constitues discrimination against consumers who have celiac disease and gluten intolerance, and that the added surcharge is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    In the lawsuit Ms. Phillips and her attorneys, Anthony J. Orshansky and Justin Kachadoorian of Counselone, P.C. in Beverly Hills, California, seek an immediate injunction against any further surcharges on gluten-free items, civil penalties, compensatory damages and punitive damages. P.F. Chang's is represented by Jon P. Karbassakis and Michael K. Grimaldi of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, in Los Angeles, California.
    On January 23, 2015, P.F. Chang's removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (case number 5:15-cv-00344).
    Source:
    legalnewsline.com

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/23/2015 - Not only did a gluten-free diet and lifestyle changes NOT cure Australian "wellness" blogger Belle Gibson of terminal brain cancer, but the 23-year-old is admitting that she never actually had cancer in the first place.
    Gibson published a book and even created a popular cellphone app, "The Whole Pantry," and in the process made at least $300,000 from people who also hoped to cure cancer or other ailments by changing their diet. She had promised to donate a portion of those proceeds to cancer charity, but apparently kept all the money, which proved to be the catalyst for her subsequent downfall.
    Deeper scrutiny and investigation of Gibson's claim revealed that she never actually had cancer in the first place.
    Since being revealed as a fraudster, Gibson, 23, claimed that she had been taken in by a German "magnetic therapist" who told her she had cancer in various internal organs, which she never bothered to investigate further before starting a business based on how a change to a gluten-free diet had cured her.
    Now, Gibson is in the news for admitting to the Australian Women's Weekly that she never had brain cancer either.
    Is it worse that she claimed a gluten-free diet cured her cancer, or that she never had cancer in the first place? 
    Sources:
    BBC The Frisky.

×
×
  • Create New...