Supreme Court Permits Maurizio Antoninetti's Lawsuit Against Chipotle

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court won't stop a disabled man's lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill for having counters too high for a person in a wheelchair.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Denver-based chain.

Maurizio Antoninetti sued when he found that he could not see the Chipotle food preparers because of the height of the counters. A federal judge ruled against him, saying Antoninetti had sued dozens of other places for access violations and dropped the suit after received cash settlements.

The judge said Antoninetti was insincere about wanting to return and eat at Chipotle.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judge's ruling, saying Antoninetti's litigation history cannot be used against him.

The case is Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maurizio Antoninetti, 10-1051.

Comments

[RageVsMachine]

01:36 PM on 04/28/2011

the media loves to report on lawsuits, so it gives people the idea that they can get money for nothing. Any law suit settlement or if a judgment gets handed down that says this guy gets money for this is b.s. The money should be split among every wheelchair-bound person in America for fairness sake. Not just this guy because he was the one who filed the suit.

[see-ellen2001]

11:47 PM on 04/24/2011

Why is this in the religion section? Are lawsuits sacred? Is Chipotle the great burrito god? Sign me, confused in Ontario

[Nukualofa]

09:39 AM on 04/19/2011

Next we will be hearing about the blind guy that wanted his hand gun manual to be printed in braille.

[RageVsMachine]

01:33 PM on 04/28/2011

hilarious. thanks for the laugh.

[debnran]

08:48 AM on 04/19/2011

I hope someone is thinking about checking with the Department of Health (and OSHA)regulations about the height of countertops in a restaurant. It might be that besides using standardized height countertops, it might be against either the Department of Health and/or OSHA regulations, in which case, the court would either have to change those laws or dump the case. I really think this is a nuisance case because the cost of purchasing new counters just because one guy is complaining that he can't see is going to put that chain out of business, or change their business model so that NO ONE will be able to see.

[pjgblg]

05:56 AM on 04/19/2011

What a CROCK! oooops, I mean "CROOK"...Gives disabled people a bad name.

[turleyguy56]

05:52 AM on 04/19/2011

Perhaps a posted menu listing available ingredients would help, though I really don't think anyone really wants a $12. burrito.
Yes, I said $12. burrito, and I ate it in the store which made me feel as though I was dining in a storage unit. Corrugated metal walls, and concrete floor combined with a parade of folks arriving in Prius cars, looking as though they had used an egg beater to comb their hair.
Colorado chic, I guess.

[debnran]

08:51 AM on 04/19/2011

$12 burrito? Don't know where you live, but here, it's $5.95 unless you get extras. As for the posting of available ingredients, they're listed on the menu, the website when you order online, on the ap, and on the wall. Maybe Mr. Antoninetti would be better served to order online because then you get to skip to the checkout.

[SubgeniusMustHaveSlack]

10:20 AM on 04/19/2011

Seriously, grandpa, just find somewhere else to eat.

Colorado is just fine.

[RageVsMachine]

01:34 PM on 04/28/2011

so do you think he is 56 or was born in '56. lol

[annie wheeler]

04:18 AM on 04/19/2011

This is the type of frivolous lawsuits just to make money that drive all our costs up and make people who really are being discriminated against have a hard time being taken seriously by managers.
If the person is dropping suits immediately after getting cash then the suit is nothing more than extortion. If someone is an activist and the money was going to a cause and changes were made...that is one thing but it sounds from the article that this is just a legal form of blackmail and extortion and the person should be arrested for those charges.
Definitely his history...not of filing the suits but dropping them when paid should be taken into consideration.
I wonder if the same lawyers are used each time? Someone should call them out for filing this type of suit.

[debnran]

08:54 AM on 04/19/2011

This kind of suit also clogs up the court so the real legal work takes a heck of a long time to get to court. I think they should make a ruling that a person can file only a certain number of law suits a year. Like 10 - no one individual should need to file over 10 lawsuits a year, unless he's a business. It would stop all those clowns in jail who file suits all the time to be able to get out of the prison to go to the court house, and there's nothing to the suit except that they want extra fruit with their meals or something like that.

[JoeyATL]

03:35 AM on 04/19/2011

Just yet another example of why we need major tort reform in this country. A loser pays legal fees law would be best. That would stop most needless lawsuits like this.

[Neal Feldman]

11:17 AM on 04/19/2011

No that would bar any but the very wealthy from having their day in court. It would effectively disenfranchise over 95% of the US population and allow those causing harms to others to get off scot free.

This guy may be a flake but the fact is MOST cases are settled out of court. And once the case is settled of course the suit is dropped. That is because it is SETTLED. Geez, people really need to study civics a LOT more.

But being in a wheelchair myself I am keenly aware of the denial of access and the making you feel like a second class citizen that exists today. I have never been in a 7-11, for example, that had uncluttered aisles the width required by the ADA. I don't sue over it because they have enough to deal with picking up all the racks, shelves and displays my chair knocks over because the aisles are too narrow. Once even had a domino effect where the end shelving unit toppled into the next and 90% of their products were strewn all over the floor, broken glass, etc. They tried to tell me I had to pay for it all and I pointed out that it would not have happened if their aisles were ADA compliant. They shut up at that point.

[PersonalityPlus]

01:18 PM on 04/19/2011

Exactly what the heck are you talking about MiSTER? How dare you tell me I am hateing on the disabled. You know knothing about me, and I could care less about your views. I said that he could have been put on a chair or lifted to see what was going on what is your problem? And as for going to court this will go no where its a waste of money and that is the truth. Now go and spout off to someone who cares I DONT! You seem to be insecure and wanting to start arguments for attention. Take your arguments elsewhere. I dont need them and your silliness. Grow up.

[mywriter]

01:58 AM on 04/19/2011

Another sickening example of scummasters being aided by a liberal court. It's no wonder people hold the legal profession in such disregard and think the judicial system is, at times, a sick joke. The fact that this "gentleman" has already collected on similiar suits speaks to his chances of again cashing in, no matter how unfair it is. As long as we have mud-sucking attorneys and liberal courts out of touch with the collective mores of the nation, this type of situation will pop up again and again.

[debnran]

08:56 AM on 04/19/2011

If he was filing on behalf of the DAV or other organization for disabled people, I could understand it, but it looks like he's doing it to line his pockets and be a pain in the petard.

[Neal Feldman]

11:19 AM on 04/19/2011

Do you even KNOW what a 'petard' is? I do, and your statement is ludicrous as you show that you do not.

[SubgeniusMustHaveSlack]

10:21 AM on 04/19/2011

The judicial system is hardly "liberal".

republickan willful ignorance is sociopathy.

[Paul Kopacko]

01:57 AM on 04/19/2011

No one says he, or any disabled person, has to eat there. It's a privately owned business and they should be allowed to finish off the interior decor however they want. No one is holding a gun to this clowns head saying he has to eat there. If the restaurant has merit, i.e. good food and good service, it will flourish. If not, it will fail. If this idiot wants money, open a restaurant catering to the handicapped and watch the dollars pour in. That way he gets what he wants- dollars- and the fast food craving handicapped crowd gets what they want - a handicapped accessable and equiped restaurant. This whole thing is such bull as to be laughable except for the higher prices I have to pay due to some loser working the system and the liberal, activist judges who enable them to be such parasites on society.

[Acemont]

05:16 PM on 04/19/2011

Chipotle is not privately owned, it is traded on the NYSE

[Paul Kopacko]

12:17 AM on 04/20/2011

Makes no difference. It is not a government run business and so the government needs to butt out. The regulatory constraints on business to comply with rediculous conditions put forth by professional scammers need to be removed. Business is in business to make money, not cater to special interests. If the business has merit, it will flourish. If not , it will fold.

[Paul Kopacko]

01:50 AM on 04/19/2011

Why doesn't the guy get a larger wheelchair?

[Neal Feldman]

11:26 AM on 04/19/2011

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Another clueless troglodyte heard from apparently.

Ah well...

[Paul Kopacko]

12:13 AM on 04/20/2011

It means exactly what it says. Or are you to unintelligent to read English? If I am a troglodyte then you must be a Kobold.

[skyeagle]

01:14 AM on 04/19/2011

Whenever you see a cockamamie Appeals Court decision, it is from the 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals.

[Neal Feldman]

11:28 AM on 04/19/2011

Hey genius! The article is about the USSC ruling, which happens to have AGREED with the 9th circuit ruling.

When you extract your cranium from your rectum you can try and put your clearly meager mental facilities on to that fact.

Sheesh!

[IMRITENOTU]

01:02 AM on 04/19/2011

Another fine citizen living off of law suits.

[cosmo2001]

12:10 AM on 04/19/2011

"...Antoninetti had sued dozens of other places for access violations and dropped the suit after received cash settlements".
They may scout them out, but in most cases lawyers themselves cannot file ADA claims against businesses, they must use wheelchair-bound "mules", (no disrespect), to make the initial contact for them. Unfortunately, there are also a few needy & greedy physically handicapped individuals who have paired themselves up with these attorneys.
People like this Antoninetti huckster, who have crafted themselves into professional victims & self-appointed enforcers-for-pay, and have literally made it a career by carrying their ADA Checklist everywhere.
To disallow disclosure to a jury that this Plaintiff has (already) filed and collected money from dozens of identical types of lawsuits, is to deny the jury of the most pertinent evidence regarding his actual intention and motive.

Maybe treat these types of ADA violations as building "Code violations". If anybody has a problem with access, let them report it to their local Code Enforcement, who just like with any other complaint, will send somebody out and issue them a citation, if it's legitimate.
but...
"if based upon the nature of their business, any establishment which demonstrates that it has made every reasonable effort to accomodate and serve every patron in a dignified, ethical, and appropriate manner, they will found to be in full compliance".
Wheelchair or not, just because a person cannot see over the bar, and watch his dinner being made, does not mean he is injured.

[Neal Feldman]

11:34 AM on 04/19/2011

Sorry but you are clueless.

The past SUCCESSFUL lawsuits (settled is a success) are irrelevant to the facts of the case before the court. He either proves his case on the merits of THAT case or he doesn't.

The fact is most business fail the ADA access requirements and probably should be sued. That is the only way change is brought about sometimes.

I know the sidewalks in my city are in many cases so broken and buckled I cannot safely travel on them, and I have a RIGHT to travel on them. But the city did diddly squat until I filed a class action ADA lawsuit against the city about it. I did not get any money because I did not want any money... I wanted the money to go towards fixing the sidewalks. This case, too, was settled out of court. Was mine a 'frivolous lawsuit' too because the city settled because they knew they would lose the case?

[i2ambler]

01:52 PM on 06/14/2011

This guy sued because he could not enjoy the 'chipotle experience'.. its not like he sued because the doors were not wide enough for him to get in, or that there was no ramp, or no handicapped accessible bathroom. He sued because he couldn't see the food being prepared. This, in itself, is ridiculous. The guy is making a living from suing places.

[chasmani812]

12:01 AM on 04/19/2011

SO HOW WAS HIS CHIPOLTE BURRITO? NOT AS GOOD AS THE CASH HE IS GOING TO GET. SCAMMER.