this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
220 points (97.8% liked)
Not The Onion
16263 readers
677 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Given that he is allergic, it's a reasonable thing to do, isn't it? Or is the health and safety of people with allergies not relevant?
On the one hand, I agree with you.
On the other hand, if you're deathly allergic to something as common as onions, you probably shouldn't rely on fast food workers to keep you alive.
I've got a friend with actual Celiac's disease. To the point where a drop of wheat could be the end of him. He does not take this kind of chance, ever. He trusts me to cook for him, but I care about his existence beyond just being a customer.
I worked fast food for a while. Sometimes we were so busy and understaffed that things became very hectic very quick. More than once, I forgot the meat on a hamburger order.
I can understand, from the employee perspective, how this could happen. It's very doubtful it was purposeful.
I don't think I've ever seen a McDonalds franchise fully staffed. They don't get enough business to have that many employees, but you can be sure they get enough business that it's too much for the employees they do have on staff when a rush comes.
"Probably" is a big deal, though. It's included in food stamps for a reason - many people, for various reasons, can't prepare their own meals.
I'm not aware of wheat being (directly) lethal to those with Celiac's.
Maybe not directly, but it does have an impact. According to this, it's got to do with accidental gluten ingestion and a lack of intestinal healing.
https://celiac.org/study-shows-slightly-increased-mortality-in-celiac-disease/
From the end of the article, emphasis mine:
Maybe there's a co-morbidity thing going on, but either way my point is he knows there's a real problem because he's been hospitalized as a result of eating wheat, so he takes no more chances.
No reason to take chances when the uh, post-ingestion symptoms are so severe. Not exactly gambling on long term consequences. :p
Yeah I unfortunately have celiac along with many people in my family and have never heard of it causing an immediately life threatening reaction. Pain, embarrassment, mental issues, long term mortality, a whole slew of problems but not "I'm going to immediately die".
I have it as well, thus mentioning my skepticism.
The worst glutening I experienced had some minor hypothermia, but it wasn't enough for a hospitalization, much less lethal.
If you're serving food to the public you should probably be careful not to kill them.
It's a nice ideal, but historically the companies don't think like that and in most cases the workers don't get paid enough to be that passionate. 4/5-star restaurants? Sure. Not fast food, though.
Also consider the sheer amount of food orders a fast food place gets in a day, especially with things like DoorDash on top of in-person and drive-thru.
I get where you're coming from. But I still disagree.
What you describe makes sense from a realistic standpoint BUT I don't see why we shouldn't hold corporations to a higher standard since they are selling this exact higher standard to us.
Yes Fastfood workers likely aren't paid enough to care about customized orders but that isn't a ME problem. It's the company's problem since they can't keep up with their promises. So time to hold them responsible.
Also my two cents to add to the general issue: if I can't cater to custom needs or don't want to, I can still lie to the customer and tell them it's not possible instead of risking to kill them through my apathy.
Reading the article and only applying the information available in it, this is the individual's responsibility.
The article states he asked for a no-onion order, not that he notified the restaurant that he had an allergy and needed the onions removed. Asking for an item to be left off and notifying of an allergy are very different because allergy prep is done very specifically.
Also, they had a similar issue at a different restaurant in 2024 that they sued for. If they can demonstrate negligence, which will be hard, then maybe they have a case but if the customer didn't specify an allergy and didn't check before eating the burger, then the failure is as much theirs.
When I was a child and learning about traffic safety we were taught that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way over cars but it was stressed that right of way won't stop a car from killing you if you step into traffic.
That's fine. I'm not necessarily saying it's a you problem, it's definitely on the company. Think, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" kinda vibe.
I just distrust both the corporations that are for-profit, and the government we would have to rely on to regulate and help us make them accountable. I just don't see companies changing for the good of the proles under the current administration, no matter how much we make a stink about it.
I guess my subconscious point is more along the lines of "vote with your wallet" and stop supporting companies that don't make this kind of thing a priority. There are certainly some fast food companies that actually do care, but I couldn't name one at the moment.
That's something I can wholeheartedly agree on!
And that's why it's fair to sue them. What you're describing is callous indifference to the well-being of others that has caused demonstrative harm.
I think everyone agrees on what the fast food place is thinking. The issue is that that line of reasoning is dangerous and has legal penalties.
Think of it with "hand washing" and "fecal coliform bacteria" instead. "It's too expensive to train our workers to wash their hands after pooping, and most wouldn't anyway because we don't pay them enough to care" just isn't a defense when someone gets sick as a result.
What I'm saying is stop supporting companies that don't care; stop giving them money and don't eat there again if they can't follow your request. I'll say it a 3rd time, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
That's not callous indifference, that's 1) voting with your wallet and 2) trying to promote a little self-reliance.
Just for the record, other people haven't necessarily seen other comments you've made. Acting indignant about that is frustrating.
What's callous indifference is the company having an attitude that allergy safety is too much work, not thinking you should vote with you wallet.
A lawsuit is part of voting with your wallet. More specifically, giving them a financial incentive to take food safety more seriously.
I seriously doubt the guy is going to go back to either restaurant, so voting with his wallet and not giving them money for a burger is done, and likely doesn't cover the costs he incurred as a result of their error.
When is a lawsuit appropriate if not after a business decides to cut corners and hurts you?
What's frustrating is people thinking they can fight a corrupt system from within the corrupt system, playing by their rules. The story of Winston Smith in 1984 is a lesson, not something to model your life after.
Suing someone, if you have the capitol to do so and actually win, doesn't do a whole lot in the long run and it isn't accessible to a lot of people because of the cost. It's part of the operating costs for large corporations these days.
Let's take Whataburger. Their best year they pulled in $6.7m profit. If you had 7 suits @ $1m payout all occur at the same time and win, then great, you might do something. However, neither of the two cases this guy is suing for have come to a conclusion yet, and it's just one person. They also still have an income source from patrons that are still buying their product, so they will make it back and they know that.
If you instead spread the word and cut off their income source by raising awareness of it, it becomes much more effective and there's no BS legal crap going on that can be twisted by lawyers. Just pure loss of profits.
ETA: I repeated my comment precisely because I expected you didn't dig through all the comments. For those that do read through them all, they know I understand that I'm repeating myself because of all the spawned threads in here.
It can simultaneously be dumb for him to trust the company and for it to be the company’s fault that he was fed something he specifically asked not to be served.
Indeed. I said it in another comment just now, but what I'm getting at is more: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"
I'm of the same thinking; if there are things that you can't eat for health reasons, then you should check any food that you didn't prepare, yourself.
Trust, but verify.
If you verify it every time, you aren't really trusting the workers
Especially for something this simple.
Lift top bun "oh, this could kill me"
Exactly. Not blaming the victim, pls go ahead and sue the giant corp.
Still, I don’t like cucumbers, so I always take a look in my burger to make sure they got the order right. I’m not blindly trusting a tired 19 year old student worker who’s fighting a hangover. No judgment or anger there, I don’t go to fast food restaurants to get Michelin star food or service.
Exclusive photo of the plaintiff
It doesn't say that he's anaphylactic though, just that he sought out medical treatment. I mean he could have been, but as far as I know anaphylaxis from onions is rather rare. Medical treatment could mean that he had diarrhea and got medication for that.
That being said, I wouldn't step into a burger place with an onion allergy. Especially since the onion allergene can be airborne. I have a soy allergy and you won't see me in an Asian restaurant.
At least you still understood the point. I was just using "deathly allergic" as fuel for the argument.
I felt the same way about the "charged" caffeine lemonade that killed that girl a while back. Regardless of whether it was correctly signed or not, why are people ingesting food and drink they can't verify won't fuck them up?
Indeed. Self-reliance is the key here. Don't expect a money-making business to have your best interests in mind, especially the big players with billions of customers worldwide.
To reference Emerson a 2nd time: The first wealth is health. You alone are responsible for that.
When I was working in fast food we got a lot of people telling us that they were deathly allergic to onions. If all of their claims were true then every man woman and child in my city of 300,000 would have to be eating their at least once a week. It's a major disruption because if someone claims an allergy you have to do a special mini prep just for that order to avoid cross contamination. After a while we collectively just started treating them like regular no onion orders. I'd be shocked if most places didn't do the same.
I'm betting this is another example of subrogation..
I'd bet that this guy's health insurance refuses to pay out unless they can file suit in his name. The overwhelming majority of these bullshit lawsuits only exist because of scumbag insurers.
Remember that lady who sued her nephew? Her medical insurance refused to pay her medical bills unless they were allowed to sue the nephew's homeowner's insurance in her name.
Never attribute to the named plaintiff what is adequately explained by subrogation.
Yeah but isn't it a criminal act to poison someone with something they are allergic against, if the victim specifically informed the restaurant about the allergy?
I mean, if I was allergic, I wouldn't trust the restaurant either, but that doesn't mean that the restaurant can just ignore people's allergies. This all sounds like structural discrimination of people with certain health issues to me.
"Poison" implies someone deliberately intended to cause harm. Nothing has been presented to argue that someone deliberately intended harm.
Exactly. This is what a reasonable, prudent person would do. If the customer had checked their order, they would have discovered the problem before any harm arose.
Which is why this guy's health insurance should simply cover this: simple negligence by the insured is not a valid justification for denying coverage.
It would be different if we were talking about something that the customer couldn't have verified. But the presence or absence of onions topping a burger is easily verified before consumption; the customer was not reliant on the restaurant to ensure their own safety. They had the ability to prevent this particular harm through a simple, reasonable action that they failed to perform.
IMO, that means their liability here is the cost of the burger. They would have been expected to replace the burger if the customer had checked.
But the real takeaway here is Fuck Health Insurance. If this is, indeed, subrogation as I suspect, we should be picketing an insurance executive.