46

I am a vegetarian for religious reasons. I was at Chipotle on Saturday and ordered a sofritas rice bowl which is "vegan approved". To my surprise, I found a chunk of chicken in my bowl when I was halfway through eating it. Made me feel sick to the stomach realizing that I may have eaten chicken already.

Went back to the Order desk and showed the server meat in my bowl. They immediately offered a refund and asked if I wish to file a complaint. The manager brought out a complaint form and filled for me. Gave me a copy as well. I did not take any refund. just walked out, I was very upset.

My question is: Can I take a legal action against Chipotle?

feetwet
  • 21,795
  • 12
  • 80
  • 175
user559788
  • 909
  • 1
  • 7
  • 9
  • 123
    It was most likely a mistake on the part of the Chipotle workers rather than them actively desiring to cause you emotional harm, and they offered you a refund and the ability to submit a complaint as an attempt to make up for the mistake. Even if you could take legal action, I would say it would be unethical in this situation to do so. At the very least, it would be a significant overreaction given that neither you nor they intended for chicken to end up in your dish. – JAB Mar 19 '18 at 15:36
  • 60
    At what point do your dietary restrictions become someone else's responsibility? From a legal standpoint, I suppose this isn't a bad question (other than the fact millions of food orders are wrong every day, making this one not special). From a personal standpoint, this is absurd, unless you are claiming they did it on purpose to spite your religion. You should probably clarify your question. – Clay07g Mar 19 '18 at 18:46
  • 16
    @Clay07g When a restaurant advertises being vegan/vegetarian friendly, it means to me that restaurant unserstands how important being vegan is to someone. Chipotle, in this case, is advertising the rice bowl is vegan approved so it definitely does become their responsibility to ensure the meal is vegan because I am putting my blind faith in them. – user559788 Mar 19 '18 at 21:18
  • 36
    “I am putting my blind faith in them”: I truly envy the trust you put in perfect strangers. – DaG Mar 19 '18 at 21:25
  • 53
    @user559788 Chipotle prepares their food right in front of you. Right beside the meat. Your meal was prepared not 2 feet away from about a dozen animal products. If you have vision, these risks are clear. Chipotle doesn't care about vegans, they care about sales. As a vegan, stop going there. They aren't making great effort to adapt to your restrictions. That does not in any way entitle you to monetary compensation, other than a refund. Chipotle made a mistake, they aren't trying to trick you. There's nothing illegal about poor service. – Clay07g Mar 19 '18 at 21:56
  • 17
    What damages would you claim? – Cort Ammon Mar 19 '18 at 22:16
  • 6
    See the instance where McDonalds paid $10 million for advertising that its fries were vegetarian (NYT 2001, CNN 2002). But this was systematic misrepresentation; a CNN 2011 article on the case of the NJ restaurant (also mentioned in one of the answers below) says an isolated mix-up incident may not be as compelling. – ShreevatsaR Mar 20 '18 at 01:38
  • 4
    Something closer to this case: an article on Taco Bell (LA Times, 1999) settling for an unknown sum with a customer who was seeking $144,000. (Based on these examples, I suspect you may also find it interesting to contact religious organizations with experience with this sort of thing; surely this kind of mistake happens with some frequency.) – ShreevatsaR Mar 20 '18 at 01:48
  • 4
    @JAB I disagree that it would be unethical to take legal action. I am not a vegetarian or vegan - I love meat - but how would you feel if you accidentally ate cat or dog, because of someone else's mistake? Would it be any more ethical to press charges in this instance? Because it shouldn't. – ESR Mar 20 '18 at 03:07
  • 3
    @EdmundReed I certainly would not feel good about it (I grew up with both) and it would probably make things awkward, but if it were an honest mistake then I would not hold it against those who accidentally served it to me, particularly if I did not make it clear to the servers that they should be extra careful to not put in dog or cat meat. If, on the other hand, I were talking about how much I love my cat and was then purposely served cat meat despite requesting something else, I would certainly want to take action. Though I'm not sure I'd go as far as suing over it even then. – JAB Mar 20 '18 at 03:14
  • 45
    They made a mistake. They acknowledged it. They offered refund and possibility to file a complaint. Why would you need to sue them if they voluntarily offered to pay for that mistake? Becoming upset simply because someone made a mistake is rude. You could be upset if they were refusing to acknowledge. One can only avoid mistakes if he doesn't do anything. Now all that you want is to get easy money from them and it has nothing to do with the harm their mistake has created. You should have accepted their offer if it was important for you to get compensation. – ElmoVanKielmo Mar 20 '18 at 08:43
  • 20
    @EdmundReed: The crucial bit you're brushing under the rug is how on Earth you would eat cat or dog meat unless the restaurant already served it. If it mysteriously appears out of nowhere in a restaurant that advertises nothing of the sort, you have every right to be outraged. If it appears because it accidentally came from the tray right beside the one you ordered, you don't freak out, you realize that was a naturally inherent risk in choosing to order from this restaurant; you move on. Same goes for any other kind of food, whether it's beef, dog meat, peanut butter, or lettuce. – user541686 Mar 20 '18 at 09:21
  • 13
    @user559788: People have already lectured you about how it's common sense that there will be some cross-contamination when the ingredients are next to each other right in front of you, but let me also just say that if this is due to a religious reason, you might want to double-check that your religion is really so unforgiving about this incident. The religion(s) I'm aware of are forgiving about unintentional things like this that occur despite reasonable efforts on your part to the contrary. You'd spit out your food, rinse/clean your mouth, and move on. No need for eternal damnation. – user541686 Mar 20 '18 at 09:26
  • 24
    You know how when you buy something in a supermarket and it says on the packet "made in an environment that processes milk, nuts, etc, etc.", well you going to a non-vegan restaurant and asking for vegan produce is you knowing full well that they prepare meat in that environment. If you are that strict about it, DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT THAT SERVES MEAT. – ggdx Mar 20 '18 at 09:42
  • 10
    @user559788 No, the restaurant have absolutely no idea how your vegetarianism is important to you. In fact, nobody has - until you tell them your story. – Agent_L Mar 20 '18 at 11:38
  • 12
    Aside from it being a simple accident, they have a disclaimer on the "Allergens & Special Diets" page of their website that states "Individual foods may come into contact with one another during preparation", so I don't think you'd get very far. – Herohtar Mar 20 '18 at 13:24
  • 22
    What are you trying to accomplish? Crass cash payout i.e. Legal lottery win? Get warm fuzzies of getting a judge to agree you're right? Restrain Chipotle to do a specific thing to change how they work? Get religious forgiveness? – Harper - Reinstate Monica Mar 20 '18 at 13:39
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – feetwet Mar 20 '18 at 16:33
  • 6
    @ShreevatsaR one difference from OP vs. the $144,000 lawsuit: "Taco Bell refused to give him a refund or apologize for the April 1997 incident." – stannius Mar 20 '18 at 16:44
  • 1
    I believe there's a fair amount of evidence on the books supporting the idea that humans are capable of making mistakes, that actions made by mistake are distinct from actions made out of malice, and that, sadly, bad things do sometimes happen to good people. (It's a known problem.)

    And I say this as someone who has spent almost half my life being vegetarian for reasons that tie in closely with my spirituality and personal morality.

     – Bemisawa Mar 22 '18 at 17:17
  • This is just practical advice, not legal in nature at all, but: Since your vegetarianism is for religious reasons rather than merely a personal preference, you may be able to minimize the risk of this scenario by requesting your food be prepared under a "food allergies" process. I'm not aware of Chipotle's processes specifically, but a stir-fry restaurant I frequent will honor such requests by preparing your food in a separate wok (as opposed to the regular practice of preparing all meals on a large grill, where there is a small chance of tiny food bits making their way into an adjacent meal). – Dan Henderson Jan 26 '21 at 22:50

2 Answers2

77

An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of "vegan approved" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract.

The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower court was part right and part wrong.

The important thing to understand is that you have to claim a specific legal wrong (and your attorney would advise you about that). Those plaintiffs made a claim under NJ product liability law, and that was dismissed because the product wasn't defective, it was simply the wrong product.

They also made a claim regarding fraud, and there was at least a legal question behind that claim, but because there was no ascertainable loss (e.g. the plaintiffs were not hospitalized because of the omission), so that claim too was dismissed. Likewise a negligence claim was dismissed.

Plaintiffs did get to first base w.r.t. the claim of emotional distress arising from breach of contract. I have no evidence regarding the final disposition of the case: the point is that there might be a legal basis for a lawsuit in your state, but you would need to secure the paid assistance of an attorney.

feetwet
  • 21,795
  • 12
  • 80
  • 175
user6726
  • 214,947
  • 11
  • 343
  • 576
  • 20
    Along these lines, keep your eye out for general disclaimers posted in the store, presumably to avoid claims like this (often saying something like "we make every effort to keep 'vegan' products vegan but accidents may occur"). – bta Mar 19 '18 at 20:28
  • 8
    .... And to add, since there are no legal definitions for vegan food labels and such, these disclaimers may not even be required. In this case, it might even be implicit, as Chipotle makes the food right in front of you, where you can see your vegan dish being prepared 8 inches away from a bunch of different meats, and then subsequently packaged without inspection. – Clay07g Mar 19 '18 at 22:14
  • 11
    It's also important to note that in some jurisdictions, the offer of a refund could be considered a settlement offer, and rejecting settlement offers cannot always be done blindly without having some prejudicial effect. This is highly fact dependent, but a superficial breach of contract damages estimate here would place it at the value of the meal. The restaurant offered to refund the value of the meal. Is there sufficient likelihood that the award after trial would substantially exceed that offer? That's an important part of the analysis, and the answer may not be immediately obvious. – K_foxer9 Mar 19 '18 at 23:48
  • 48
    This answer, whilst correct, seems extremely incomplete. The remedy a court would find for the breach of contract (where I live, and to the best of my knowledge) would be undoing the contract (i.e. a refund) and any damages ($0, unless OP has a meat allergy). So taking legal action would just be a very expensive way to get the refund that OP was immediately offered and has already refused. – Scott Mar 20 '18 at 00:37
  • 11
    @Scott I think the meat of the question (sigh) is whether the damages are indeed $0 or not. That probably depends on the OP's circumstances/arguments. If you consider the McDonald's 2001 case where they paid $10 million to various religious and vegetarian groups, or Taco Bell who settled in 1999 a $144000 suit after a similar situation, there's some history for nonzero damages. (I suspect it also depends to some extent on the prevailing culture and that of the judge, e.g. I wonder how the typical American would react if told they'd just eaten human meat, and how much a judge would sympathize.) – ShreevatsaR Mar 20 '18 at 04:09
  • 6
    @ShreevatsaR The McD's case was a class action from many not just one person. Also the McD's case wasn't that a single chunk of meat fell in the rice bin by accident, it was wide-spread either ignorance or fraud. Maybe the Taco Bell case is relevant but then again that case didn't settle for $144000, that's just how much they sought. – Dean MacGregor Mar 20 '18 at 04:24
  • 2
    @DeanMacGregor Yes of course I know the settled amount was probably a lot lower than the $144000; I didn't have space to fit it in the comment. But that's why I said nonzero (since the claim I was countering that the damages would be $0). – ShreevatsaR Mar 20 '18 at 06:20
  • 3
    A settlement isn't indicative that there were any legal damages at all. It's entirely possible, although not definite, that Taco Bell said "This legal case will cost us $X to successfully defend ourselves in. We will pay the plaintiff $(0.5)X to make them go away." – Monica Apologists Get Out Mar 20 '18 at 13:25
  • @Adonalsium not definite? Very definite, that's exactly what a settlement is. It's a Monty Hall game, this or what's behind door #2. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Mar 20 '18 at 13:31
  • 4
    Well, yes - but it can also mean "We are going to lose, we are very guilty. Lets settle and not set a precedent." My point is that a settlement does not indicate that anyone is guilty of anything, or not guilty of anything. – Monica Apologists Get Out Mar 20 '18 at 13:37
  • 1
    IIRC the Taco Bell incident was different than this one because they refused to acknowledge their mistake or offer refunds, no? – Patrice Mar 21 '18 at 13:49
63

The goal of civil proceedings is to make the injured party whole.

Your damages amount to the cost of the meal that you ordered. You have no other demonstrable, concrete damages. If you were, for example, so deeply emotionally scarred by eating the food Chipotle offered that you developed an eating disorder and needed to see a therapist, you could probably sue for the cost of the therapy (or your insurance would do it for you). As it stands, your damages are the cost of the meal.

Monica Apologists Get Out
  • 661
  • 5
  • 9