Restaurant Fined for Telling Disabled Kids to Leave

Back in May 2011, Danielle Duford and her four daughters went to the Golden Corral restaurant in Westland, Michigan. They were not able to eat their meal but were told they must leave immediately due to the appearance of three of Duford’s daughters. The three girls have a genetic skin disorder, epidermolysis bullosa, that results in them having blisters on their skin due to minor injuries and even changes in the temperature. Duford told the restaurant manager that her children had a disability and that they were not contagious but they were still made to leave, on the grounds that other customers had complained.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Justice Department stepped in and sued the Golden Corral for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), under which public accommodations including restaurants are prohibited from “discriminating against people on the basis of disability, or their association with an individual with a disability, in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods or services offered.” The Golden Corral has been ordered to pay $50,000 in damages to Duford and her children and $10,000 in civil penalties to the U.S.

With a view to preventing further incidents of what Barbara L. McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan calls “discrimination based on unfounded fears,” the Golden Corral must also “develop and maintain a non-discrimination policy” that covers both service to customers with disabilities and also provides employees with training about their obligations under the ADA.

At Another Restaurant, a Waiter Defends a Young Customer With a Disability

I was especially struck by McQuade’s use of the phrase “unfounded fears.” Despite the unstinting efforts of disability advocates, misperceptions about disabilities, and about individuals with disabilities, remain embedded in society. Another case in which a child with a disability was discriminated against in a restaurant revealed similar troubling attitudes.

Back in January, the Castillo family, whose 5-year-old son, Milo, has Down Syndrome, was at Lorenzo’s Prime Rib, a restaurant in Houston. Another family who was seated near the Castillos requested that they be seated elsewhere. Michael Garcia, a waiter, overheard a man with the family say (in reference to the Castillos) “special needs children need to be special somewhere else.” Garcia told the man “I’m not going to be able to serve you, sir” and also (as the man was leaving the restaurant), “How could you say that? How could you say that about a beautiful 5-year-old angel?”

The Castillos were regulars at Lorenzo’s Prime Rib. Garcia, who had indeed put his job on the line, was hailed on the national media as a “hero.” Donations poured in and Garcia won more acclaim after doing another good turn, giving the $1,145 he received to the inclusive preschool that Milo attends.

It’s no wonder that Garcia’s acts of kindness received national attention. Too often, we hear about public establishments (such as a†McDonalds where a worker got into a dispute with a mother about her autistic’s child service dog) failing to accommodate individuals with disabilities.

One issue that needs to be kept especially in mind is why someone like my teenage autistic son Charlie might be acting in what seems like unusual ways in a public place. Restaurants are places where — due to smells, lights, the noise of people talking plus clanking silverware and dishes — he experiences a potentially overwhelming sensory overload. We used to take Charlie out to quite a few different restaurants routinely but, as he’s gotten older and more sensitive to his surroundings, he has very much preferred not to eat out. I wonder, too, if his sensing other people’s responses to him made him anxious and unable to enjoy a meal?

The Justice Department’s decision on behalf of Duford and her daughters is definitely a step in the right direction. As Eve Hill of the Civil Rights Division comments, “No one should be excluded from participating in the basic activities of daily living on account of fears of their disability, nor should children be shamed from going out in public.”

Photo from Thinkstock


Stenpney John
Past Member 4 years ago

The stuff written in the blogs have allured me!!!

schaumburg il restaurants

Norma V.
Norma Villarreal4 years ago

Another opportunity to practice dignity, respect, and equality, and someone missed out!

Angela Roquemore
Angela Roquemore4 years ago

Can't eat at Golden Corral anyway. The closest one is about 30 miles from my apartment. Il;m NOT asking an uncle or a cousin drive me 60 miles to eat at a restuarant!

Esther Lance
Esther Lance4 years ago

That was unkind; and happy to hear about Gracia.......would that many more people were like him.

Michael H.
Mike H4 years ago

Are you kidding?

Vicki W.
Vicki W4 years ago

Yet another reason not to eat at Golden Corral.

Cathleen K.
Cathleen K4 years ago

Having a rare, little known disability that produces visible lesions like EB is a double whammy - the disease itself and the public's not unreasonable reaction in restaurants. We can all clearly see why the jerk who didn't want to have to look at a kid with Down's while enjoying his dinner was wrong, but in the other instance, where there were numerous complaints from other customers fearing infectious diseases, it's easier to understand the complaints and the restaurants decision to ask them to leave. This is precisely why we need a Justice Department - to get ahead of public perception and conventional norms, which change over time. When I was little, the jerk complaining about the Down's kid would have been in the mainstream, as were white people who refused to share water fountains, rest rooms and lunch counters with black people.

Lepidopter Phoenyx

Mary, a child with EB would not be serving herself from the buffet. One of the things that happens with EB is that the fingers contract and the person basically ends up with what looks like malformed fists for hands. The parent or other adult accompanying them would have to serve their plates. Other patrons would be in no danger of getting EB cooties in their food.
When EB patients go out, their wounds and blisters are bandaged. Having them exposed is not only painful but dangerous to th patient. They are at more risk of infection from the general population than the general population is from them.

Juliet, Marie, and Marilyn, why should a person have to carry their medical records with them to prove to strangers that their condition is not pretty but also not dangerous?

Allan Yorkowitz
.4 years ago

America, right?

Jenn C.
Jenn C4 years ago

Susan W. missed a little something in my response. I said: "Now I do see the point of the first story shared, it looked like the kids were diseased and people get protective/defensive about that." Do you see where I clearly did not say they *were diseased, but that they *appeared to be diseased?