It seems not a slam dunk here, to me, specifically because of the first section. Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk as an accommodation, according to your first quote.
Since Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk, that last paragraph doesn’t apply at all, because they aren’t charging more for a required accommodation.
My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don’t want to conclude anything beyond that, because that’s what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.
If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
It seems not a slam dunk here, to me, specifically because of the first section. Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk as an accommodation, according to your first quote.
Since Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk, that last paragraph doesn’t apply at all, because they aren’t charging more for a required accommodation.
My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don’t want to conclude anything beyond that, because that’s what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.
If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
It wouldn’t change their inventory at all though.