Have you ever ordered an item from Amazon or another retailer, only to realize you didn’t actually need or want it anymore? What happens when you try to cancel that order? Usually, if it’s already been shipped, you’re still getting charged.
The same thing is true of food delivery services like DoorDash and Uber Eats. If you get a sudden craving for midnight pizza, and then feel guilty and try to cancel your order, it’s sometimes not possible to get a refund if the pizzeria has already begun preparing your meal and/or a delivery driver has picked it up.
Now, the question is, should the procedure be any different when you’re dining in person at a restaurant? Or, should customers still be forced to pay if their dish has already been cooked?
This man believes the latter is fair, but after he tried to enforce the policy on a female customer with autism a few nights ago, he received a discrimination complaint.
For some background, he’s a server at a local restaurant, and, at about 2:00 a.m., a married couple in their thirties came in to eat. While taking their order, he also learned the woman had autism and needed all the food to be served on separate plates, since she wouldn’t eat her meal if any food groups were touching.
Additionally, the woman wanted to order a kids’ meal, but according to the restaurant’s policy, those dishes could only be purchased for children.
“I explained that everything on the kids’ menu is available to adults for a slightly higher price (combined, it all came out to about $1.50 more in price),” he recalled.
“The husband agreed, and I sent the order to the kitchen.”
Well, that night happened to be pretty busy at his restaurant since it was homecoming weekend in his town, and numerous larger parties decided to dine out. So, he didn’t see the couple for about 20 more minutes.
Sign up for Chip Chick’s newsletter and get stories like this delivered to your inbox.
That was until the husband flagged him down, claimed his wife was having a panic attack, and said they needed to pay for their drinks and leave. At that point, he asked the couple to give him a moment so he could let the kitchen know their food order wasn’t needed anymore.
Once he got to the kitchen, though, he found out their order was already cooked. So, he asked his coworkers to box it up for the couple.
Next, he walked back to the table and stated that their meals had been prepared and were being packaged for takeout. This was when things went sideways.
The woman began talking about how she wouldn’t be able to eat the food due to her panic attack, meaning they shouldn’t have to pay.
“I explained that I am sorry she had a panic attack, but as they came into the restaurant, ordered the food, and it was already prepared, they would be expected to pay for the services rendered. However, I would comp their drinks if they would like,” he detailed.
Nonetheless, the woman didn’t understand why she should have to pay for meals she wouldn’t be able to consume anymore. This forced him to reiterate that it was company policy that any prepared dish, whether eaten or not, had to be paid for.
He also brought up a hypothetical scenario, saying that if they ordered the food, decided to stay in the restaurant, and still didn’t eat it, the tab would still have to be paid.
Rather than backing down, the woman then began arguing that he should’ve realized she was suffering a medical episode at the table. He responded by pointing out how he’s a restaurant server, not a medical professional.
“And that if she was being escorted out of the restaurant on a stretcher, then I would make an exception,” he reasoned.
“But as she was currently speaking with me coherently, I failed to see how her medical condition warranted her not paying her bill.”
Anyway, a few days later, he wound up receiving a complaint from his restaurant’s corporate office regarding this situation. The couple alleged that he’d discriminated against them by forcing them to pay for food that the woman couldn’t eat following her panic attack.
However, he made it clear that he would’ve enforced that policy with any customer.
“I actually think that making an exception for them solely because she is disabled would be a form of discrimination, as I would be treating her differently than I would treat others solely because of her disability,” he opined.
Regardless, in the wake of the incident, he’s been left wondering whether refusing to make an exception for this couple was actually the wrong thing to do.
Do you agree with him or the couple? How would you have handled this if you were in his shoes?
By Katharina Buczek
Katharina Buczek graduated from Stony Brook University with a degree in Journalism and a minor in Digital Arts. Specializing in... More about Katharina Buczek
