275: Disney Food Allergy Case: Legal Viewpoints re: Events Before It Reaches Court

Tracy Stuckrath [00:00:01]:
Hey, everybody, and welcome to another episode of eating at a meeting. And I am there's some invitation. Okay. Remove. Hang on. Sorry. I am excited to bring to you live this conversation, about the oh, I lost my mouse. A lawsuit a wrongful death lawsuit that has been filed in, Florida for a woman who allegedly ate something and about 45 minutes, an hour later, passed away.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:00:37]:
And so we're here, I'm here with 4 attorneys that I know to talk about this, and the the plaintiff is the husband of the woman who passed away, and then the defendants are Disney, World, Disney Springs, and then the Raglan Road restaurant, which is where she ate. So, I wanna bring to the show here, up on top here with me is Mary Vargas. She is an attorney who does nationwide impact litigation on behalf of individuals with disabilities, including those with food allergies, celiac disease, and non gluten sensitivity. She's a founding partner at Stein and Vargas LLP. And below me is Joshua Grimes, who is a leading meetings and events attorney based in Philadelphia. He is a noted speaker on legal issues relating to meetings and conventions. And then diagonally from me at the bottom is Ryan Gabbala, who is an attorney with Julie Gabbala in Cleveland, Ohio. He chairs the firm's food and beverage industry practice and regularly consults issues involving legal liabilities of food allergens and represents those in the food service industry.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:01:44]:
Hello to the 3 of you.

Ryan Gembala [00:01:46]:
Hello, Tracy. Good to be with you.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:01:49]:
I'm glad that we're here and, and everybody, I'm gonna put this up here. This information in this broadcast does not serve as legal advice. Even though I have 3 attorneys on here, we're not giving legal advice. And none of the none of them represent any of the parties involved in this case. We're just here to discuss the case as it is presented so far. Correct? Did I got that right?

Joshua Grimes [00:02:10]:
That's right.

Ryan Gabbala [00:02:11]:
You have it.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:02:11]:
Okay. Perfect. So we given the competing claims in this case, we've got, you know, we've got Disney Disney World, which the restaurant sits on their property. We've got the restaurant and then we've got the husband of the wife who died, the plaintiff. How would you assess the potential legal liability for Disney and Raglan Road in this case as as it's presented? Anybody? Who wants to pipe in first?

Ryan Gembala [00:02:46]:
Well, Tracy, I think if you it's Ryan here. I think if you look at the allegations of the complaint and the answer and, again, they're just allegations, you know, subject to to strict proof and, of course, evidence at trial. But, in the, answer, Disney concedes that the restaurant's located on property that it owns and leases to the Raglan folks. Now the the allegation from the plaintiff's side food the estate, is that, in fact, Disney, by holding out some of the, information related to this restaurant and its offerings as part of its, Disney Springs destination, that the restaurant itself that there's an agency relationship there either, that Raglan's an actual agent at Disney World or an apparent agent based on the way they hold themselves out publicly. And so I think that certainly, is gonna be the the nature of the allegation from the plaintiffs and the way they try to tie in, both Raglan and Disney. Now will it be ultimately successful? You know, we don't know. Certainly, the the decedent was at the the Raglan restaurant at the the time that she, you know, consumed the food in question. But, how far the agency, relationship stretches to Disney will be an issue that I think, everyone's gonna be keeping a pretty close eye on.

Ryan Gembala [00:04:05]:
Right. If if I might, just add a few thoughts to what Ryan said. So, yeah. And I looked at the Disney website in a preparation for today, and and it does have this restaurant listed at Disney Springs and has has the menu of this restaurant. So there is I think there's some some validity to the sense that this is a Disney restaurant, whether Disney is liable or not. You know, we have a a legal saying, probably, you know, in probably everywhere in the country, sort of join all claims and parties, and there's a lawsuit. So if someone feels that they're wronged, they're going to add Disney and Raglan Food, and whoever else might be responsible, and let the court sort it out later. I suspect Disney has a contract with Raglan Road that makes Disney, as between the parties, not responsible and probably indemnified by Raglan Road, if for anything that might happen.

Ryan Gembala [00:05:13]:
But we don't know that today. That would come out at a at trial, and even then, that doesn't necessarily excuse Disney food liability. It's just if there was a judgment, Disney may be protected.

Mary Vargas [00:05:25]:
So Okay. If I could just add to that. So, you know, obviously, I am a lawyer, but I'm also the parent of, a child with food allergy. And so it's hard not to see, this case through sort of both lenses. And what I know through both lenses is that people with food allergies, have been told to trust Disney. They've learned that Disney is a place where they can go and they can actually go on vacation. They can obviously still have their food allergies, but there will be places where they can eat safely. And so when that's not true, when there's an allergic reaction that happens at Disney, and I've certainly heard about these personally, that the, there's there's a reaction that's different from when you go to a place that you don't know if it's safe.

Joshua Grimes [00:06:16]:
You've been told Disney was safe. Right. And, obviously, this was the worst case scenario. This is what, you know, every every parent of a kid with a food allergy, this is their worst nightmare. Yeah.

Ryan Gembala [00:06:29]:
Tracy, if if I could maybe piggyback on that for a second. I'm sorry. Yeah.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:06:33]:
No. Please do.

Ryan Gembala [00:06:34]:
I was gonna add because I think it maybe ties in the the comments that that Josh made and that Mary made. I think that, one of the interesting things about the the agency relationship here is that the allegation, at least from the plaintiffs, is that through the website, Disney and Raglan kinda working hand in glove hold themselves out, as a place where you can ask the chef and where they have people on staff trained to handle food allergies. And so that's raised in the complaint as an allegation to support the agency relationship between between Disney and between Ragland Road. But I think to Mary's point and to Josh's earlier, I think that, that's going to, that's gonna create some significant issues, I think, for the defense in this case, trying to maybe overcome, some of those allegations in light of what seems to be publicly available even apparently to this day on the website, the Disney website, I mean.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:07:32]:
Yeah. I agree. And, Josh, I wanna tie it a little bit to our meetings industry, which we you and I talked about yesterday, I believe, is that when it's and I'm just gonna it's a hotel brand. Right? And we're I'm gonna throw this out to a hotel. It's a hotel brand with that brand name on it, but it could be owned by Mary and managed by you. And when we're doing a contract and granted, they didn't sign a contract to come into this restaurant. But in that case, this could be turned into that kind look seen as the same kind of similar thing. They're gonna go after everybody.

Joshua Grimes [00:08:03]:
Yeah. Well, correct. And and look, your average guest doesn't wanna hear, well, it's not a Disney restaurant. It's a it's another company you never heard of. People don't understand that, and I think in a in a real world sense, that makes sense. You know, you go to a Marriott hotel, you don't wanna hear, well, we just manage this restaurant. It's really owned by 1845 Lick LLC, you know, corporation. But again, this is a matter for the courts to decide who's responsible ultimately.

Joshua Grimes [00:08:40]:
And also as between Ragland and Disney, I suspect there are contractual agreements as to responsibility, which may not bear on any ultimate judgment that the plaintiff gets here, but it bears on who's gonna pay it. If there is a judgment, who's gonna pay it?

Tracy Stuckrath [00:08:59]:
Right. Yeah. Mary, I wanna come back to, your statement. I mean, you're you're a mother of a child with food allergies, and you you try or whatever the you help protect people with food allergies in cases that they've they are filing or and and I know that you have you do a lot of cases that will make change. You're not doing it just for the sake of putting that case out there. You wanna make change. How I mean, to me, because it is Disney, it this is a case that will potentially make change in the disability side of the thing of the world. Do you agree with that?

Mary Vargas [00:09:39]:
Right. I mean, it it remains to be seen. Obviously, we we're very early in litigation, and and what happens in the litigation will dictate the lessons that everybody takes from it. I think it's been very interesting how the public perception of this case has been. Very often in food allergy litigation, there's a there's a hostile reaction, frankly, to, people with food allergies who file lawsuits, and we deal with that in all the cases we litigate. You know? You're just out for money. You just you know? Why are you coming after us? Reality, I've never had a client who comes to me because of the money. They don't want it to happen to someone else.

Mary Vargas [00:10:23]:
They wanna be heard. They wanna feel like they have some control and, power and ability to make change when something awful has happened. And so it's been interesting to see in this case, and I think my personal opinion is it's largely because of Disney's fumbling of the defense that the public reaction has been very different. And, and that may also be because this is worst case scenario. This isn't somebody who had an anaphylactic reaction and survived a scary experience. This is somebody who died. And so seeing the public respond revulsion, like a collective gasp to Disney saying, well, you signed up for Disney plus, so it's not our problem. I think that that was a public perception misstep along with, I would say, a few other kinds of missteps, but it seems to have shaped the public response to this case.

Mary Vargas [00:11:19]:
And we all know that there are certain landmark cases that have that kind of public response that remain in the public memory. And I'm thinking of, you know, the the McDonald's hot coffee case was fundamentally misperceived by the public in ways that food years after has caused the public to react to those kinds of lawsuits in a certain way. And I think there's the potential that Disney's, what I would say, misstep in saying we're not responsible that somebody died because you got a free trial of Disney plus. That comes across as very cold, and the public had a very, I think, appropriately negative reaction to that. I'm letting my bias show. But that that may have a long lasting impact on how the public with food allergies is perceived. And the fact that here, we have someone who, according to the complaint, asked all the right questions. They went to a place they thought they could trust.

Mary Vargas [00:12:18]:
They asked all the right questions. They confirmed and reconfirmed according to the complaint, and then they died. And so, it may, in some sense, be a turning point in how, in how responsibilities and consequences the people with food allergies are viewed.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:12:40]:
I agree. And that it it it I'm thinking like the you the McDonald's and the you you said it all. Right? It is how we're perceiving it. And and I did it. And in April, they brought back, like, hey. We're the landlord. And then in May or June, they said, hey. We're they signed up for the Disney plus.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:12:57]:
So it has been a couple of blunders in, in my mind as well. But I do think, you know, them stepping back on that and allowing it to go to course potentially could have impact across the board. And I kinda wanna bring that into Ryan because you work in the food service, you know, food service side of the thing of the business as well. The food labeling or FSMA, right, food safety modernization act, you know, requires, restaurants that have more than 20 locations and have standard menus to disclose the allergens and disclose the ingredients and and the dietary needs, but Raglan Road is not one of those restaurants, you know, because they don't have that. So how will that play into this at all?

Ryan Gembala [00:13:46]:
Well, you know, look, I think FISMA I think the way you know, a lot of the legislation surrounding FISMA is related to, food production and import export and some things that don't necessarily directly trickle down to, ready to eat service in a restaurant setting. I think, though, that what FSMA does is it puts into the public conscious and also into the food business conscience the notion that we have to have standards. There has to be a set of standards. You know, this is a is I'm sure Mary could tell you, is a place of public accommodation. And when I think of FISMA legislation and food safety acts in various states and even other kinds of, local regulatory codes and that kind of stuff, Tracy, what we're looking for is a is a set of standards. And I think when I talk with my about and related to tons of Is

Tracy Stuckrath [00:14:44]:
that just me or is that him?

Ryan Gembala [00:14:46]:
No. I Death. He's phasing out.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:14:51]:
Ryan, you're cutting in and out.

Ryan Gabbala [00:14:54]:
Can you

Tracy Stuckrath [00:14:55]:
Yeah. Are you okay?

Joshua Grimes [00:14:56]:
We can't hear you. We can't see you too well.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:14:59]:
Okay. Yeah.

Ryan Gembala [00:15:00]:
Well, that's fine. But thing was we standards and show that we complied with what our own food safety standards are. And that's that's safe handling ends. It's safe handling bacteria. It's other cleanliness issues in, Maine that we complied with those and establish kinds of things. And if I food in front of a junior 12, defending to be aware, there's a tragic con like what's happened here, Disney Kate. I wanna be able or, more and establish food safety seriously that in place to protect, and that, you know, we honor that in in our deed. We've we've done the training.

Ryan Gembala [00:15:56]:
We've, we've made sure to to take the steps we put in place. So, you know, maybe to piggyback a little bit on Ray was saying about the I think that in terms of, you know, how it shapes things going forward, I think she's absolutely right. The public's use more related clause and coffee case example. I don't that I've ever picked a jury, where I haven't asked the McDonald's, you know, who here is familiar with the McDonald's hot coffee case and had every juror put their hand up because I know, that that's, something I'm gonna have to either explain or dispel in some way because people bring that, notion of, of what that verdict meant and what it means against in the case they're actually hearing. And so I think the the same principle kind of applies to what happened with this Disney arbitration clause. You know, if you look at some of the legal arguments before Disney withdrew its motion to compel arbitration, its request for arbitration, There was a a whole lot of stuff going on there, in terms of who actually signed up for the Disney Plus account, an individual versus the estate, whether the clause applied beyond Disney Plus to other Disney operations with the controlling law was conflicting provisions on various platforms that Disney runs and and all the rest of it. Those were at least allegations, before Disney withdrew the request. But I think the the perception that Mary correctly pointed out was that Disney was trying to distance itself from this, was trying to get out from under this, was trying to, not be a part of this claim or or not be held accountable, and I think the optics of that, are something that they're gonna have to overcome going forward.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:17:50]:
Yeah. Definitely. Josh, how do we coming from a from a hospitality perspective, how do we take these negligence claims or, you know, to the meeting side of this? How if this was an event, you know, and not just 2 people eating there, how can a meeting planner, you know, and the the attendee of that event or that meeting organizer, like, look at this case?

Joshua Grimes [00:18:17]:
Well, the case is an eye opener for making everyone responsible in sort of in the chain of running a meeting understand that they have a role to play, because if this were to have happened in the context of a meeting or a convention or event, then, if someone were to be injured or die, they're going to look to the host organization and possibly the the meeting planner if they're a third party plan independent planner, as well as the restaurant and as well as the landlord, if you will, in the place of Disney for responsibility. So, this is like other things with due diligence. I think that it's yet another question that some planners should consider asking or looking into when you're planning a meeting. Do you have confidence that the hotel or the caterer will be responsive to to needs of people with allergy? The same, no different than people who need special meals for religious reasons and and other reasons. If particularly if the caterer were the were the these, food service provider has a bad reputation, that should be a warning sign. Now, you know, there's what the lawyers would do and then there's what most people would do in in in the meeting profession. Do I think that most meeting planners are gonna add yet another cause to their contracts, which many feel are already too long to say, you agree that you're responsible for allergic for for fulfilling needs of people with allergies and any bad effects. I think the bad effects could be covered in a in a indemnification clause that covers a lot of other things, but important to have that.

Joshua Grimes [00:20:13]:
Important for the planners to ask attendees, their guests, in advance if you have allergies that need to be accommodated or any other special needs that need to be accommodated. It's not the be all and end all because if someone doesn't respond to that but shows up and has, special needs, the restaurant, the food service provider should still be obligated to do their best to meet those needs or to certainly to tell them if they can't meet their needs, so the person won't eat something unknowingly. But this is all wrapped up in liability. Important for planners, for for meeting hosts to get indemnifications from the food service providers so that if something bad happens, that they're going to be protected. But we're never gonna eliminate these risks because, you you know, it all comes down to you can get as many promises as you as you, would like to get or as the providers willing to give you. But as in this example, it appears it comes down to the server on-site. It comes down to the chef on-site. And if they don't do their job as they're supposed to, which is is an issue here, I guess, things happen.

Joshua Grimes [00:21:32]:
So indemnification and insurance, are important to have.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:21:39]:
Yeah. Mary, I wanna because somebody just piped Teresa just piped this question in. Is I understanding dietary restrictions requirements are covered under the ADA. How does this come into play for this case? So I wanna bring it back to you and I have had multiple conversations about this, you know, and this is a general consumer walking into a restaurant. It's not necessarily an event attendee or an employee of a company. How does this how does the ADA come and be involved in this at all?

Mary Vargas [00:22:07]:
So this case doesn't include any ADA, counts at all. It's not a discrimination complaint. But where I think there's potential intersection is, is how the industry responds to this lawsuit. I think there are a couple different ways it could go. There could be a very knee jerk response of saying, we don't want this responsibility. We don't wanna serve people who ask for, accommodations to, you know, to menu items based on their disabilities. That then becomes a disability discrimination issue from my perspective. And it it's hard to give a food, hard fast answer for every circumstance.

Mary Vargas [00:22:54]:
But as a general rule, I don't think a restaurant can say, we're not gonna make any accommodations for people with food allergy, and I do see that on menus certainly all the time. I see disclaimers on menus all the time saying, you know, forget forget what we told you. There's always gonna be a chance of anything being in your food. And I think, you know, the ADA does require accommodation or modifications that are necessary because of disability. Food allergy, celiac disease, these things can be, qualified as disabilities under the ADA. What accommodations or modifications are required by law is gonna defend depend on very specific circumstances. If somebody has a peanut allergy and they're going to a restaurant that's everything peanut and all their menu items contain peanut and the place is, you know, massively cross contaminated, the obligations are gonna be different than if somebody is going to, you know, a local chain restaurant that serves general American fare and they, you know, they disclose that they have an allergy and ask for an accommodation that could be made. I would hope that the response is not the knee jerk, potentially discriminatory response of we're just not gonna serve you or we're just not gonna make modifications.

Mary Vargas [00:24:18]:
I I would hope the lesson would be that we do need to make these modifications, and we need to take it seriously. In the same way, when someone installs a ramp for a wheelchair into a restaurant, you don't install a crumbling ramp that can't hold the weight of the wheelchair that's supposed to pass across it. You need to take care, and make sure that you're fulfilling the obligation to provide access, and that means to do it safely. Right.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:24:52]:
Well and and kinda to both of your points, I got an email last week saying a hotel is like, well, you have to tell us in advance what the allergens are, and, otherwise, we're not responsible for anything. And I'm like, you know. I'm like, here's a different way to word it back to them, and they accepted that. You know? I'm like, we'll let you know, but you will modify your meals, you know, to the best of your ability. Right? Yeah.

Joshua Grimes [00:25:16]:
If I might just interject though, Tracy, to what you just said, there's a difference between the hotel telling you presumably in your capacity as a as a planner of some sort, in terms of the meal, that they're not that and then there's what the guest knows when the guest is showing up to eat.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:25:35]:
Yep.

Joshua Grimes [00:25:36]:
And, you know, they could be 2 dir and, you know, just because the hotel or the caterer says that to you, doesn't mean that that knowledge is automatically transmitted to the guest.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:25:47]:
Mhmm. Yeah. And from a very different

Mary Vargas [00:25:50]:
perspective, you can't contract away your legal obligations. So if an event planner is legally obligated to ensure an accessible event and they contract with xyzhotel to provide the food, you know, the venue, and they don't do it, they don't provide access, they say, you know what? You didn't tell us soon enough, so therefore, we're not feeding you. We're not feeding you safely. I don't think that discharges the discrimination aspect of of of that situation.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:26:25]:
I I see that and understand that. Ryan, in our when we spoke back in May, and I'm gonna this is a quote that you said to me and it kind of comes back to knowing who, you know, the who knows the information. But you said, once anybody on the team is aware of a condition, deemed legally aware of that condition. So whether it's the hostess or that waiter, I mean, do you think that will play, and that they understand that they to execute what I call the chain reaction to carry out that service? And I know from looking at the legal filings, the plaintiff has requested video and policies and procedures, etcetera, to manage all of that. Is that gonna come into that? And that they understand that they to execute what I call the chain reaction to carry out that service. Okay.

Ryan Gembala [00:27:16]:
Got a little echo there. Well, I I would certainly expect it to. Mhmm. So the the chain reaction, that's the it's we kinda touched on it earlier as between Disney and Raglan, the notion of agency relationship. But what what you and I were discussing this spring, was the idea that, you know, for a for a food service entity, you know, we act through our employees and through our agents. And so that's that's a that's front of house. You know, that's the host or hostess. That's the waitstaff.

Ryan Gembala [00:27:47]:
It's the head chef. It's the cooks. It's the it's the buzzers. It's everybody. They're all agents, of our restaurant. And so for purposes of the restaurant being on notice, say, of a diner with a food allergy, food food allergy, I train folks that if one person on your staff is on notice, you as a whole, the restaurant itself is on notice. And so that's where the chain reaction comes in, Tracy. And the the idea of the chain reaction is, for example, if a waiter in this case, one of the allegations is that the the waiter was notified of the food allergic condition, for the decedent.

Ryan Gembala [00:28:25]:
So the chain reaction would mean, well, hey. If if that information comes in, now we've got one person on our staff that's aware of it. How do we make the rest of the folks that are gonna be involved in, in serving this guest aware so that we can, handle things safely. And this is where your training kicks in. And so maybe it's a situation where the waiter goes to the head chef who notifies the cook to get the allergen free station set up. Right? That would be our our best practice in allergen a dedicated allergen free station with allergen free utensils. Maybe it's not a dedicated station, but we get as far away as we can from everything else, and we use allergen free utensils. Maybe it's thing else.

Ryan Gembala [00:29:08]:
But then the, notification goes to the servers too so that they know to keep an eye out for the plate that's marked allergen free. In this case, I understand they used flags. Sometimes you see the purple ring or something. Yep. Typically, you know, we ask folks to get that stuff out of the kitchen as soon as it's ready. Even though for, an allergen free table, maybe it would wait to serve everything all at the same time. To reduce the risk of cross contact, we would maybe wanna get that out of the kitchen as quick as we can. So it's that's the chain reaction is making sure that once somebody is on notice, it's your establishment that the rest of the folks that are gonna be involved in, serving that guest are also on notice because we don't want something to slip through the cracks just because of misinformation.

Ryan Gembala [00:29:54]:
And so that really comes back in large measure to me, to training because we have a a certain a turnover in the hospitality industry at a baseline post COVID. I think everybody can agree just this isn't me wearing my lawyer hat, but just as a consumer that, that has been even more challenging. And so keeping up on training, making sure folks understand what to do, when a diner comes in and discloses a food allergy, is is important. And, you know, I I think maybe to, you know, to come back to something that Mary said, she had had said, look. We hope the reaction from industry isn't kind of, hey. We just can't do this, and so we're not gonna serve you. And I I certainly agree that I I hope that that's not not the reaction. I think in in today's climate with the kind of the prevalence of food allergies, I think from a business perspective, I would want my clients to think kinda long and hard about what it means to turn away everybody that has a food allergy and how that's gonna going to impact the bottom line, and and maybe a better a better way to address that would be to find some reasonable accommodations, which to her point is gonna vary pretty wildly based on what you're serving, where, what the allergen conditions are, and so forth.

Ryan Gembala [00:31:13]:
But there is a, you know, setting aside ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, just a general, kinda negligence sort of standard. There is part of why I like having protocols in place and having chain reactions and having menu disclosures and kind of redundant checks. You know? Is there a menu disclosure at the bottom? Is there also an ingredient list? Do we have an icon? You know, the little I've seen the little shrimp or the little crayon shell or the little peanut. Do we have waiters that affirmatively ask folks when they sit down with their allergens at the table food allergies at the table? It's because there is a reciprocal duty on patrons, right, to take reasonable care of their own safety. And so we've got, we have our duty to act reasonably on the restaurant side, and we have our duty to act reasonably, as patrons. And so all of those steps and and making sure that the the people that are involved in the chain have that training, I think, is critically important. Because the the look. The the risks, as this case illustrates, I mean, the the stakes are high.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:32:20]:
Yeah.

Mary Vargas [00:32:20]:
And I think to the extent that those, not just the training, but the the policies and procedures are really well thought through and documented is to everyone's, benefit. It it not only puts in the fail safes if, you know, a waiter's having a bad day or a chef's having a bad day, that there are protections that, you know, some restaurants have these policies, only a manager will deliver the, you know, allergy order to the customer. And to the extent, whatever those policies are, that customers are invited to be a part of understanding what the policies are. I think the scariest thing for somebody with food allergies to hear is an answer from, you know, when they ask if something is safe, if, you know, something has dairy in it, if they have a dairy allergy, and they get a response that's too easy. It's too, I know all the things, this is so simple. That's the answer as a parent that I don't trust. I would much rather have more information about this is what we do, this is what the steps we take to make sure you know what's in your food and it doesn't include your allergens, and then the the customer has the ability to assess that risk. When you go to a place like Disney that is understood by the food allergy community, rightly or wrongly, to be a place that they can go and, be included and eat safely when that's the impression.

Mary Vargas [00:33:43]:
A place like Disney has a lot of work to do to make sure that they're living up to that impression, or that they're being clear what their what their goals and their policies, practices, and procedures actually are.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:33:56]:
Right. Yeah. And it's been a long time that they've had that perception from this community. And whether it's Disney World or Epcot or Disneyland or Disney Springs, that that perception from that from the food allergy community and celiac disease community is huge. And it's you you can go online and find all kinds of stories and and, like, go eat here and this is how you ask and this is how they great they do. So I do think it's a perception thing too. If I

Joshua Grimes [00:34:27]:
if I could just it it it sort of interject the thought here, and and I know my role is to help answer questions, not ask others questions. But, I went on the Raglan Road restaurant website right before this, and I was going to just read their current statement. Not to prove in this case because I'm guessing they may have altered it since this incident happened. But it now says, and this is on the menu also. It says, for guests with food allergies, kindly note that we are not, in all caps not, a gluten allergy free restaurant. We cannot, all caps, guarantee that any dish we prepare is free from gluten, allergen, or free from cross contact. Guests must notify their server of any allergy friendly requests. A manager will discuss our allergy menu with you.

Joshua Grimes [00:35:20]:
Guests must use their own discretion to make informed choices based on their individual dietary needs. So that's what it says this morning. And I wonder if that kind of warning and I this is more forgive me for asking a question, but does that vitiate or modify in any way sort of the faith that people have in Disney, that that everyone was just discussing. And I don't know the answer to that.

Mary Vargas [00:35:51]:
I don't I don't know the

Mary Vargas [00:35:52]:
answer to

Mary Vargas [00:35:53]:
that it does. I think there are certain restaurant chains, certain venues in the United States that, the food allergic community has historically been drawn to for a variety of reasons. There's this perception that they are going to be very accommodating for food allergies. Well, then they actually need to pay. They need to do it safely. We've seen this with other fast food chains who have, you know, said things about the kinds of ingredients they use and that they're gonna be, you know, whole foods and no hidden ingredients. And so the food allergy community, of course, is drawn to that because it's really hard to know what's in your food, when you when you go to a restaurant and you're putting your trust in other people. So there are things that draw in the food allergy community, and that's wrongful.

Mary Vargas [00:36:40]:
And it's, you know, for families, it's to have a place you can go is huge. It's hugely important, and there's a great degree of loyalty to those places who deliver on the promises that that they've made. But I don't think that that kind of, warning on the the bottom of a menu really changes anything, in either direction.

Ryan Gembala [00:37:03]:
You know what? I think it's it's somewhat, sort of disclaim all legal liabilities by by just saying, hey. You know, no guarantees. I I think to to Mary's point, I think that can be tricky. I think when I hear a disclaimer like that, I think part of, maybe and, again, I I didn't I don't work with Raglan. I didn't write this, but I think part of what they may be trying to do is to, highlight that reciprocal duty that I was just discussing on the, on the diners, on the the guests, and the patrons themselves to affirmatively come forward and let us know if you have an allergy condition, so we can figure out the best way to to try and accommodate that safely.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:37:48]:
Well, in in this is in Europe or in the UK. I mean, somebody posted an a statement similar to that, Josh. You know, somebody called up and asked and she's got a legume allergy and, you know, can I see the ingredients in what you're serving? And they're like, no. Here's our allergen statement. You can go read this online and just shut the person down, and I think that's a way to lose a lot of money. Like, we don't want the secret recipe. We just wanna know what the ingredients are, and especially for those allergens that are not top 9 or top 14 when you're talking about the UK. But and Raglan is not a chain restaurant that has 20, you know, 20 locations that are required to list their nutrition and allergen information in there.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:38:37]:
So it makes that a little bit harder for them. I mean, I say that, you know, maybe naively, you know, for them to provide that information. Is that yeah. Sure. I mean, because they and then I know in the UK, they have different regulations around all of this food, but and you could jump to Massachusetts, and I'm just going by, you know, a statement that I saw. They have a food allergy regulation in Massachusetts, and it says, please inform your servers if you have a food allergy before you order your food. But when you're at an event, I mean and a restaurant's a little bit easier to do, but, I mean, I've seen that sign on posters at events with 3,000 people in it. We can't notify our server before we eat that food.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:39:25]:
Right? So I I don't know where my question is and all that. But

Joshua Grimes [00:39:32]:
I think that these kind of warnings and advisories are are are there, you know, partly for for legal liability and to get people to speak up if they have allergies and other things have to be met. But also, there may be some element of the public that if someone suffers an injury, maybe not a death, but some other lesser injury, that the restaurant the first call is to the manager of the restaurant, they say, look at what's on the menu. And some people may be may not fight it anymore because they see that, that there was a warning there in advisory, and that may be one reason besides information on why those things are on there. Just like when you go into the parking garage and they give, we're not liable for your car, for any injured damages to your car, which in most places is not worth the ink that that that that warning is printed on, but people don't know that unless you know that. So just another theory on that.

Mary Vargas [00:40:37]:
I just don't know from from the perspective of a person, you know, with food allergies or a parent of someone with food allergy. I don't feel that the way that particular warning is worded is helpful. There's a tone to it, first of all, that's not particularly welcoming. It's more like we don't wanna be responsible.

Ryan Gembala [00:40:56]:
Yeah.

Mary Vargas [00:40:56]:
Right. I think there is a way to word that kind of information in a way that is useful and sort of provokes a conversation that you want to happen between the customer and the server. And some of it's tone, some of it's, you know, letting people know to share the information. We will, you know, make the accommodations as we can, and we will let you know where accommodations can't be made for safety. I I think it's a lot of it's about wording. The way that one reads is sort of like the thing you read when you go skiing, and they say, you know, it's dangerous. And if you get hurt, it's not our problem, and it is your problem, actually. And, certainly, I recognize this is different, but we had a lawsuit, involving food in a venue, that ended up going to one of the appellate courts.

Mary Vargas [00:41:46]:
And one of the judges, in a Disney in that appellate decision talked about, you know, foodborne illness in food. And, you know, restaurants obviously have an obligation to keep foodborne illnesses out of food, and I think, you know, where I hope we're headed is that allergens are viewed in sort of the same way, that this is a sacred and an important duty, and there needs to be free and full and open disclosure of the critical information from both sides so that everybody, can make decisions about what can be done safely.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:42:22]:
Right. Sure. Bernard posted up here, we have way over 80,000,000, just the fact that you mentioned foodborne illness cases in this country every year. It's a lack of training and awareness the consumer is exposed to. We are need much more proactive to face the danger of foodborne. I mean, kind of on that note, but it the food allergy training has to come into place, and I know that there's some states that have enacted stronger food allergy trainings. Not every state has it. And I knew the food code has got some wording in there about labeling, but, again, the food code is a guideline and not law.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:42:57]:
Colleen also piped in here, if we see the Raglan Road statement in all restaurants and group contracts, why would a food allergic individual feel comfortable eating? It's a vicious cycle that excludes the food out allergy community.

Joshua Grimes [00:43:09]:
And you know what? That if I may, that that's was my reaction to this. My reaction is and and I would say being as someone who does not have someone in my family who's has allergies that they have to be concerned with this, so I'm not as familiar with that aspect of this as others. But I would read this to say, you know, buyer beware. And if I'm not sure based on my own experience that I there are things I can eat on this menu without being harmed without being harmed, maybe I should choose another place to eat. And I'm not suggesting that's right, but I'm saying that's the way this reads to me, because they're basically saying you shouldn't trust us. And even even if the server tells you something, you know, take it for what it's worth. You know, that that that, you know, at the end of the day, you make your own decisions. So I'm just saying this is I'm not saying that's right, but I think in some sense, that's what this is telling us, and this is maybe where we are with some restaurants.

Mary Vargas [00:44:16]:
I think in some sense I totally hear what you're saying, but I think in some sense, those statements read to me, and this may be my mom ears rather than my lawyer ears, but it reads to me as, you know, water is wet. There's dirt there's there's dirt in the ground. Like, of course, there are other allergens in a restaurant. When you go to a restaurant that's not a gluten free, dedicated restaurant, of course, there's gluten there. A statement that there's gluten there really tells me nothing. What what I wanna know, I wanna have a conversation with you about what do you do to mitigate that risk. This is what we need. Are you able to do that? And I want, you know, a a reasoned and considered response, not of just generally, well, there's gluten here.

Mary Vargas [00:45:00]:
We can't help you. Or there's gluten here. You decide. I wanna know what do you do that will make my meal safe or not.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:45:10]:
Right. Well, it's it and, Ryan, I'm gonna come to you with a question in a second, but it reminds me of going to a hotel in Tampa and eating in their restaurant. And I said, well, do you have I was asking about french fries. Well, do you have a dedicated fryer? And 2 different servers on 2 different occasions said, well, yeah, we do have a dedicated fryer, but it gets used a lot for all the other items. And I'm like, so your training is we don't. Right? So why do you even say that you do have one, but it gets used for other things? So, you know, Ryan, I mean, coming back from your from your perspective of really supporting and working with food service providers, that training is is lacking in that in that situation, but how are we how can we help, you know, these restaurants understand, hey. You can put down aluminum foil on a griddle and cook that person's steak so that it's not contaminated with, you know, with the bread or whatever. Is it Yeah.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:46:10]:
Is that what we're looking at too?

Ryan Gembala [00:46:13]:
You you know, I I think in in part, Tracy, I think it's a it's a function. You know, there's, really, there's there's kind of I mean, there's multiple components to safety. Right? 1 is having policies in place that make sense. 2 is training on the policies. 3 is actually carrying them out in the heat of the moment. You know, when I do trainings or when I'm talking to groups of people, I think it's in that setting, it's kind of easy to think through what the safe course is. It's not always as simple when it's a busy dinner service, when you've got a lobby full, when you've got a bar area full, when every table's full, when people are flying around like crazy, when you've got 4 people that started that day, and when you've got other challenges is just getting the service out. And that's why I say training is important is because those are the times that you really need to be able to rely on your training, that you know what the policy is, and you know how to implement it.

Ryan Gembala [00:47:09]:
So maybe the the example that that, that Mary gave, you know, having a dedicated or, Tracy, maybe it was you having a dedicated hours and, free fryer is only helpful if it's only used with hours and free ingredients. Right? If you've got, standard ingredients in there, well, by the then in that case, they're all you know, it's you might as well use any fryer. Right? And so somebody, in that instance thought it was important enough to have a policy on that, but the either the training or the practice wasn't carried all the way through. So either the the individual that you chatted with was misinformed and then miscommunicated to the public, which is a problem, or, the folks in the back who are actually using the fryer are using it the way that individual represented, there's a problem with implementing the policy, which is this is a dedicated allergen free only fryer. So Yeah. Look. I think you're absolutely right that that those are gonna be issues. I think to maybe, to bring it back to this case, I think it's gonna be interesting to see as the case develops what, the evidence does show because I do think to to Mary's point and Tracy's and maybe Josh's food, I think Disney is viewed by the public as a leader in some of these spaces, and I think it will be, interesting to see what policies and so forth they do have in place and and whether they were complied with in this instance.

Mary Vargas [00:48:38]:
One of the things I thought was very interesting about the complaint, and, of course, this is an allegation that has to be proved, so we'll see, you know, how it turns out, but there's an allegation in the complaint that, this woman who passed away had allergies to both nuts and dairy and that the cause of death was determined to be exposure to both nuts and dairy. So I thought that was, surprising, you know, that if that's correct, that this person was exposed to not just one of their allergens but 2 of their allergy, you know, how does that happen? That's a pretty profound, fact from my perspective.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:49:19]:
And elevated and elevated amounts, not minimal. Mhmm.

Ryan Gembala [00:49:24]:
Yeah. Yeah. Again, the the allegation is that she had self administered epinephrine, and that it, you know, wasn't enough. So I I was that caught my eye too, Mary, and the fact that, she was a physician, as I understand it anyways in the allegation. And so a consumer that's reasonably sophisticated and you would think would be making sure to do some of the, the the that we would we would hope for are kind of our most defining

Tracy Stuckrath [00:49:54]:
Yeah. Okay. So to wrap this up, I mean and I don't know how long it's gonna take to go to court. I'm keeping an eye on it weekly, you know, looking at the website, and seeing what's submitted. What I I don't wanna say what do you hope to come out of this, or is that the right question to ask, or what do you see it going forward? Just to wrap it up.

Joshua Grimes [00:50:20]:
I mean go ahead, Ryan. Please.

Ryan Gembala [00:50:23]:
I was gonna say food from my perspective, I I harp on about training and and policy and procedure, but I hope to see, an emphasis on having the policies in place, making sure they're complied with, and understanding how critical, a component training on the policies is. You know, you you never wanna be in a position where you've got an employee who had a deposition on a witness stand says that he's never seen a particular policy or a particular policy manual. And so I'd be looking for, some of those things to be highlighted or the other. I'm with her a bit. You know, maybe there was a mis

Mary Vargas [00:51:04]:
My heart really goes out to this family, and all their loved ones, and I hope that, whatever the outcome, there's some peace for them and, that they feel that there's something that comes out of the litigation in this horrible situation. And I hope that the litigation process is gentle with them. I they've suffered a unfathomable loss, and I think sometimes the courts are, are very harsh with people who are, seeking justice in those circumstances, and the public as well can be harsh. And I I hope that the public continues to, to recognize their this fundamentally at the bottom of this case was a terrible loss.

Joshua Grimes [00:51:56]:
So Yeah. Forgive me if my I I I agree with what Mary just said. In terms of, I my response would be a little more businesslike.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:52:11]:
I never have businesslike. I I

Joshua Grimes [00:52:13]:
say that at the risk of people think me as less empathetic, which I hope I wouldn't be be seen. But to me, this is a putting people on notice who were involved with, meetings, convention, groups, events that you have to ask questions. It is, people have allergy. People are gluten free. They have other health conditions, and it is more common that that you need these things are in society. People have the right to enjoy your meeting, event, conference, whatever. And if you're planning them, you need to ask the questions, of the people who are preparing the food. You need to put means in place for making sure that those people can eat safely.

Joshua Grimes [00:53:05]:
And, at the end of the day, again, if you're planning a meeting or a conference, you should allocate respond. Although everyone is has some responsibility for making sure that food is served safely for your guests, at the end there should be allocated responsibility by contract including an indemnification if you're not the party preparing the food. And also you should have insurance to cover the risk, because we hope nothing happens, but things sometimes do as as evidenced by what we're discussing today.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:53:43]:
Yeah. I wholeheartedly agree. And Carolyn Browning pipes in another insightful topical conversation. Thanks, Carolyn. And Mary and Ryan, Keith chef Keith says hello to you, Norman. He was on Instagram. So I can't show you some of the

Ryan Gembala [00:54:00]:
He's such a he's such a good egg.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:54:04]:
He is. And he was actually leaving to go do a training. That's good.

Ryan Gembala [00:54:08]:
Glad to hear it.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:54:09]:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm glad he was able to listen to it. But I really appreciate it. I would love to have you all back after it goes to court and we find that happens to discuss, you know, the what the results of that, court would be. Actually, Josh, Heather Reed just piped in. Should we ask for specific language reindemnification related to food preparation and service?

Joshua Grimes [00:54:32]:
Well, sure. I I I mean, and I and I assume that Heather's asking that, not just the Canadian answer to that question. How does it matter? You know, the the the answer is you you could be as specific as you want. The indemnification clauses, like everything else in meeting contracts, are getting longer and longer, but there's reason for that. And I think every meeting planner needs to assess their own risks, in cooperation with their competent counsel who helps them put together their contracts.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:55:09]:
Right.

Joshua Grimes [00:55:10]:
Death.

Joshua Grimes [00:55:11]:
Did I put that right?

Tracy Stuckrath [00:55:13]:
I think so because we're not giving legal advice here, but that was a very good known rule term. Yeah. No. But thank you all very, very much. Margaret just typed in here. Thank you all on this panel. Very enlightening. We I'd also love to hear their thoughts on the United Airline pilot lawsuit at a later date, which is I don't know if any of you have heard that lawsuit, but he is celiac, and he was denied, food that he could eat while working.

Mary Vargas [00:55:42]:
I'm the lawyer representing the plaintiff in that case.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:55:45]:
Oh, you are? Okay. So let's talk about that later, Mary. Unless you wanna mention something now or you don't wanna do that now, do you?

Mary Vargas [00:55:51]:
Yeah. Not at

Mary Vargas [00:55:52]:
the moment. Yeah.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:55:53]:
Not at the moment. So yes. Okay. And Heather piped in fabulous discussion. Thanks to all. So, hopefully, we'll come back in a couple of months and and talk about what happened in the case, and we'll go from there. But thank you, everyone. I appreciate you.

Ryan Gabbala [00:56:07]:
Thank you, Tracy, for the, opportunity to be a part of this panel. Thanks.

Tracy Stuckrath [00:56:11]:
Yeah. You're welcome. Bye. Everybody, until next week. Stay safe and eat well. Thanks.

Ryan Gabbala [00:56:16]:
Great. Take care.