Jump to content


Photo

Le Pigeon


  • Please log in to reply
234 replies to this topic

#181 Eric the Butcher

Eric the Butcher
  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 11:17 PM

And you think a restaurant should be held liable for some condition you have, awesome point of view.

Not just my point of view but it is actually the law. http://www.cbsnews.c...ain511109.shtml
If I am upfront with my dietary restrictions and restaurant can refuse to serve me or tell me that they can not accommodate me. If, the restaurant, agrees to accommodate my dietary restrictions they in fact become liable if they mislabel a dish. My kosher analogy may be a bad one but what I am trying to get at is that if a restaurant does not know wether what they are serving fits within someone's dietary restrictions they should let them know they are unsure or refuse to serve them. I don't know the specifics of this situation but restaurants are responsible for what they serve.

The blogging issue is different and I personally think this should be brought up with the restaurant before being blogged about.

You actually put up a post about McDonalds and how they got sued by some religious group who didn't think their f-ing french fries were vegetarian. That corparation lost $44,000 because those people were stupid. Thats your point? And I'm SORRY but i didn't see some law in there, just some bullshit lawsuit. So it would be ok if you sued a small restaurant for $4,000 because they didn't tell you every single thing on a dish. That could put a place out of business, how responsible do they have to be. Your Kosher analogy might have been bad, but this one is worse. Face it your wrong. Poisoning people is one thing, but having to role over for somebodies dietary restrictions because its spiritual is b.s. Come up with something better than that, seriously. Nobody cares about your hang ups in the scheme of things, especially a line cook.

#182 Eric the Butcher

Eric the Butcher
  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 11:27 PM

About the dietary restriction thing...there are about a zillion links I could post that show that restaurants are continually held liable for the food they serve. We are in agreement there.

But wrt blogging, I am in total disagreement with you, dagrassroots. By that logic, I should notify a restaurant in advance that I might discuss my meal with my coworkers the next day.

"How was your meal at Le Pigeon last night?"

"Can't say - didn't get the permission of the restaurant to comment."

Blogging is the above, writ large.

No way in hell am I going to get a restaurant's permission before I blog. Not. A. Freaking. Chance. No possibility. A restaurant owner always runs the risk of negative reviews every time a patron crosses the threshold. If they suspect that I am going to blog, and they don't want me to do so, they have every right to kick me out. But you can bet I'll blog about THAT, too.

-sacman

P.S. It's funny how blogging is never questioned when the blog post is 100% positive. If you can't take the heat, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, because its positive. Don't blog if you can't stand the heat. You have an opinion, we have an opinion. Guess what people disagreed with you its o.k. You'll be fine but you can't eat at a place and have a ton of good experiences and then blog when its bad, it makes you look bad. Sometimes places are off. Don't write about it if you don't want hear what everybody else has to say. Your wrong, take your licks.

#183 dagrassroots

dagrassroots
  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 11:32 PM

And you think a restaurant should be held liable for some condition you have, awesome point of view.

Not just my point of view but it is actually the law. http://www.cbsnews.c...ain511109.shtml
If I am upfront with my dietary restrictions and restaurant can refuse to serve me or tell me that they can not accommodate me. If, the restaurant, agrees to accommodate my dietary restrictions they in fact become liable if they mislabel a dish. My kosher analogy may be a bad one but what I am trying to get at is that if a restaurant does not know wether what they are serving fits within someone's dietary restrictions they should let them know they are unsure or refuse to serve them. I don't know the specifics of this situation but restaurants are responsible for what they serve.

The blogging issue is different and I personally think this should be brought up with the restaurant before being blogged about.

You actually put up a post about McDonalds and how they got sued by some religious group who didn't think their f-ing french fries were vegetarian. That corparation lost $44,000 because those people were stupid. Thats your point? And I'm SORRY but i didn't see some law in there, just some bullshit lawsuit. So it would be ok if you sued a small restaurant for $4,000 because they didn't tell you every single thing on a dish. That could put a place out of business, how responsible do they have to be. Your Kosher analogy might have been bad, but this one is worse. Face it your wrong. Poisoning people is one thing, but having to role over for somebodies dietary restrictions because its spiritual is b.s. Come up with something better than that, seriously. Nobody cares about your hang ups in the scheme of things, especially a line cook.


If they don't give a shit than they should tell the customer that they will not meet their dietary needs. I don't care if a restaurant is not willing to accommodate someone but when they say they will and then don't follow through that is a problem. The legal issue is liability. The bartender who is making minimum wage damn well knows that if they over serve a patron and something happens they could be held liable. I don't advocate suing small businesses rather I think an issue like this should be taken up with the owner.

Again I am not saying le pigeon was wrong in any way. I am just making a statement that restaurants should be held accountable if they say they accommodate a food allergy or dietary restriction and don't follow through.

#184 HappyHourHero

HappyHourHero
  • Members
  • 199 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 11:32 PM

And you think a restaurant should be held liable for some condition you have, awesome point of view.

Not just my point of view but it is actually the law. http://www.cbsnews.c...ain511109.shtml
If I am upfront with my dietary restrictions and restaurant can refuse to serve me or tell me that they can not accommodate me. If, the restaurant, agrees to accommodate my dietary restrictions they in fact become liable if they mislabel a dish. My kosher analogy may be a bad one but what I am trying to get at is that if a restaurant does not know wether what they are serving fits within someone's dietary restrictions they should let them know they are unsure or refuse to serve them. I don't know the specifics of this situation but restaurants are responsible for what they serve.

The blogging issue is different and I personally think this should be brought up with the restaurant before being blogged about.

You actually put up a post about McDonalds and how they got sued by some religious group who didn't think their f-ing french fries were vegetarian. That corparation lost $44,000 because those people were stupid. Thats your point? And I'm SORRY but i didn't see some law in there, just some bullshit lawsuit. So it would be ok if you sued a small restaurant for $4,000 because they didn't tell you every single thing on a dish. That could put a place out of business, how responsible do they have to be. Your Kosher analogy might have been bad, but this one is worse. Face it your wrong. Poisoning people is one thing, but having to role over for somebodies dietary restrictions because its spiritual is b.s. Come up with something better than that, seriously. Nobody cares about your hang ups in the scheme of things, especially a line cook.


OK since you are so good at arguing your point (by the way I love the face it your wrong part- very effective) lets put this under dietary restrictions. This will make it so that we aren't just dealing with "hang ups" but also act.ual food allergies. So let's say I'm lactose-intolerant, I think everyone knows what that is. Should I avoid a restaurant, or should I ask if they can accommodate me and if so, what dishes don't have dairy in them. If they say yes and offer me dishes that do have dairy in them, is it their fault? I'm gonna say yes and I that's alright I can inform them that those have dairy in them. If they still bring me out something with dairy in it, I am gonna stick with my argument and say that it is their fault. I'm not gonna sue, but I may be disappointed and send it back.

I don't have any restrictions and don't expect to be sending anything back anytime soon. I'm also done hijacking this thread. Here's some Pigeon love:

Posted Image

#185 Eric the Butcher

Eric the Butcher
  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 11:54 PM

And you think a restaurant should be held liable for some condition you have, awesome point of view.

Not just my point of view but it is actually the law. http://www.cbsnews.c...ain511109.shtml
If I am upfront with my dietary restrictions and restaurant can refuse to serve me or tell me that they can not accommodate me. If, the restaurant, agrees to accommodate my dietary restrictions they in fact become liable if they mislabel a dish. My kosher analogy may be a bad one but what I am trying to get at is that if a restaurant does not know wether what they are serving fits within someone's dietary restrictions they should let them know they are unsure or refuse to serve them. I don't know the specifics of this situation but restaurants are responsible for what they serve.

The blogging issue is different and I personally think this should be brought up with the restaurant before being blogged about.

You actually put up a post about McDonalds and how they got sued by some religious group who didn't think their f-ing french fries were vegetarian. That corparation lost $44,000 because those people were stupid. Thats your point? And I'm SORRY but i didn't see some law in there, just some bullshit lawsuit. So it would be ok if you sued a small restaurant for $4,000 because they didn't tell you every single thing on a dish. That could put a place out of business, how responsible do they have to be. Your Kosher analogy might have been bad, but this one is worse. Face it your wrong. Poisoning people is one thing, but having to role over for somebodies dietary restrictions because its spiritual is b.s. Come up with something better than that, seriously. Nobody cares about your hang ups in the scheme of things, especially a line cook.


OK since you are so good at arguing your point (by the way I love the face it your wrong part- very effective) lets put this under dietary restrictions. This will make it so that we aren't just dealing with "hang ups" but also act.ual food allergies. So let's say I'm lactose-intolerant, I think everyone knows what that is. Should I avoid a restaurant, or should I ask if they can accommodate me and if so, what dishes don't have dairy in them. If they say yes and offer me dishes that do have dairy in them, is it their fault? I'm gonna say yes and I that's alright I can inform them that those have dairy in them. If they still bring me out something with dairy in it, I am gonna stick with my argument and say that it is their fault. I'm not gonna sue, but I may be disappointed and send it back.

I don't have any restrictions and don't expect to be sending anything back anytime soon. I'm also done hijacking this thread. Here's some Pigeon love:

Posted Image

I agree that burger is true love. Thank you for the argument degrassroots and happyhourhero, you are a true peace maker, thank you. I enjoyed having this blog with you and am sorry if I got harsh with my tone. I get defensive about places I love and stick to my brotherhood. Something that has always stuck with me.

Till we blog again,
P.S. I became lactose intollerant recentlly, it sucks!

#186 dagrassroots

dagrassroots
  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:03 AM

I agree that burger is true love. Thank you for the argument degrassroots and happyhourhero, you are a true peace maker, thank you. I enjoyed having this blog with you and am sorry if I got harsh with my tone. I get defensive about places I love and stick to my brotherhood. Something that has always stuck with me.

Till we blog again,
P.S. I became lactose intollerant recentlly, it sucks!


Like wise and I am thinking one of those burgers is in my near future. Unfortunately for the burgers sake, I am not hindu or kosher.

#187 jennifer

jennifer
  • Moderator
  • 3,012 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Beaverton

Posted 21 July 2009 - 09:45 AM

P.S. I became lactose intollerant recentlly, it sucks!


Lactaid is your new best friend. Eat two 9000IU tabs before eating dairy and you're golden. Costco sells a 160 tab generic pack for around $15. Cheapest in town. You'll be eating ice cream, cheeses and whatever else, no problem.

#188 Amanda

Amanda
  • Moderator
  • 7,624 posts
  • Location:NE Portland
  • Interests:Eating, cooking, kayaking, canoeing, letterboxing

Posted 21 July 2009 - 09:53 AM

LOVE THAT, Epicurious!

Honestly, I know many people have legitimate dietary restrictions, but I feel it is in the best interest of all involved if the patron who has the issue takes responsibility and should not expect the restaurant to cater to specific needs. Eating at home might be a better option. I agree your service was horrible for sure, but it's crazy to think a restaurant has to bend over backward over every single little dietary thing. It gets annoying for the staff and those who have to dine with or around the allergic person if they are preceived to be such a pain about it. Believe me, I know. I think I may be a tad touchy about this subject because of quite a few of my group dining experiences when someone is unyielding about what they can/can't eat or like/do not like then and won't let everyone else order differently because of it.

This dietary situation is new to you, Sacman, so perhaps you and your lovely wife will gain knowledge on how to learn to navigate the waters in a different and more courteous manner in the future. That said, except for the comment about folks taking responsibility for their own allergies, I'd say the server was pretty darn nasty, overall. I'm sure in time you'll get the hang of learning how to deal with this in restaurants and your dining out with celiac problems will become easier over time. I know a number of people with this problem and they have learned how to deal politely in public without getting on people's last nerve. It probably took some time for some of them to get there, though. Good luck and I hope your next dining adventures are much more positive.

Best regards,

Amanda

P.S. Don't eat at Beast. It sounds like they will accommodate NO dietary concern in anyway You eat what they serve you with whoever they want to sit you next to and you pay the price. I hear the food is very good, though, if you play by their rules. Celiac and vegetarian won't cut it there, though, methinks.

#189 nervousxtian

nervousxtian
  • Members
  • 1,894 posts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 10:49 AM

Honestly, I think it comes down to Sacman thinking his server was a douchebag. Bottom line, end-of-story. Bad service has a way of making everything other little issue a big issue. The onion rings were an oops, he even said the guy mentioned it, he was just making like he always does, and forgot, but if Sacman's server wasn't being difficult, I'm sure it wouldn't have been an issue.

I've had many great servers around Portland, and more than a few bad ones.. and being a server is a tough job, but you better grin and bear it.. that's what you get paid for. Some joints need to police this shit better, as servers can be one of the main things that drive me away from a restaurant for good.. I can forgive food misses, late dishes, order mishaps, billing errors, everything else.. if my server is pleasant.. if they aren't.. fuck them.

#190 ExtraMSG

ExtraMSG
  • Admin
  • 18,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Felony Flats
  • Interests:Me like food.

Posted 21 July 2009 - 10:55 AM

My take.

The server's attitude at the counter was unacceptable. It's one thing if they walk in before they're open and get in her way or something, it's another if they're open and taking their seats. I've definitely experienced attitude at Le Pigeon. However, I will also say that diners often misinterpret how a server reacted and I wasn't there.

Sacman, celiac is your problem. I agree with HHH. The restaurant staff should know or find out what ingredients are in a dish, but you need to know what you can and can't eat. They're not doctors; they're cooks and waiters. And even if they did believe they knew, it seems crazy to depend on a $12/hour non-healthcare professional's opinion about a disease or allergy. I'm decently well-read and it was only a couple years ago that I learned that potatoes didn't have gluten when the issue came up at Ken's Place. I had thought they did because they get so chewy and gluey when you beat them too much. I had to look it up later and admit my error.

Seems to me the salad issue was an easy mistake. Sounds like you guys were going all around the menu and mistakes would be natural. While it shouldn't really be necessary for the diner to do so, in those cases I often repeat back the entire order to the server just to make sure there weren't miscommunications.

It sounds to me like we're missing the other side here, though. Sounds like some of it was exasperation on the part of the server that was probably due to you not being as good a diner as you could have been, such as with the comment about it being your allergy, which is true. Then again, it also sounds like the server let the situation get the best of them. A pizza joint or sandwich shop, I think that's par for the course and a bit expected. Fine dining? Nah, you get paid to take it on the chin and then bitch about them behind their backs later, not to their faces.

Seems like the issues with the swordfish were generally fair. Onion rings can just be moved aside. No big deal. Again, though, this is more your responsibility. But it is nice when descriptions match dishes.

I think it was a pretty fair review and definitely appreciate you putting it up. We don't all have to agree. If you put your opinions out there, though, you have to be willing to take criticism as well. I think you did an admirable job of separating out your service experience from your dining experience, too. Often people can't bring themselves to admit the food was good if their experience suffered in other ways.

I think the comments about photographers are stupid. I didn't want to get off on the tangent with Ken's comments before, but unless you're using a flash, which you didn't, a camera should not be an obstacle to anyone enjoying their dining experience. It's a stupid suggestion. Perhaps to the dining companions, but that's for them to worry about, not the person at the next table. Anyone who has an issue with a person taking photographs at the next table without using a flash has issues and should see a shrink.
The greatest service chemistry has rendered to alimentary science, is the discovery of osmazome, or rather the determination of what it was. ~Brillat-Savarin

Nick Zukin, Mi Mero Mole & Kenny & Zuke's

#191 nervousxtian

nervousxtian
  • Members
  • 1,894 posts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:18 PM

I dunno, calling Sacman a bad diner is letting the server off the hook. It's their job to put up with difficult customers (and none of us were there to even know if Sacman was being difficult beyond the dietary restrictions). At the price point of Le Pigeon it is fine dining, irregardless if you think it should have 3-4 star service, it's at the upper-end of price in Portland. when you can pay $100 for dinner you expect good service, I could care less what is said behind my back, but it better not be said to my face.

#192 Jill-O

Jill-O
  • Moderator
  • 7,021 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Eastside, on the cusp between N and S

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:26 PM

It sounds like sacman had lousy service in general aside from the celiac debate/issues.

I don't think it is on the restaurant to know what has gluten in it or what celiac disease is. It is their job to let you know what exactly is in the dish and how it is prepared (and yeah, it is nice when you get most of that info on the menu, but sometimes you don't). They should be able to answer your questions.

But I do think it is on you to decide, from that info you get, if you can safely eat the dish or not. It means that you have to ask very detailed questions about not just the ingredients used but also the prep involved (yes, even down to asking what kind of oil is used if you are allergic to peanuts and whether they dredge something in flour before they pan fry it). If it means that you have to continually ask if something has regular flour in it, well, I guess you have to.

You cannot rely on anyone knowing what ingredients have gluten in them, but you should be able to rely upon them telling you what ingredients themselves are in the dish.
Never give up! Never surrender!

#193 Prone to Hyperbole

Prone to Hyperbole
  • Members
  • 658 posts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:53 PM

Epicurious:
Loved the post!!! So funny, I laughed out loud a few times. You've clearly been at this industry for some time. Good laugh, and actually a couple of "pings" in my side of things I realized I've done. Thanks for that. Oh, and #1 is my fave! That one always gets me. I wonder if those people will remember that meal after whatever restaurant closes it's doors for waving corkages for every diner who asks. (I get this privilege bestowed on me regularly, and I'm always very grateful, and never "expect" it.)

Sacman:
You don't need any more opinions about your post. But I will say I think you are always (on this board) SOOOO polite and well spoken! Nice to read your kind attitude in a cyber world were negative energy can be prevalent. This post of yours caused reactions that almost made me think I was on "the other" food blog in town where this sort of banter is the norm (by posters, not the moderator). I agree with some of your points and some of others'. But not gonna even go there. I hope you have an excellent experience next time. And maybe the barista attitude won't happen again.

Cheers,

PtH
breakin' the law, breakin' the law!

#194 jennifer

jennifer
  • Moderator
  • 3,012 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Beaverton

Posted 21 July 2009 - 09:06 PM

I second PTH's comments. Please keep posting. Your reports are refreshing and a delight to read, as well as very informative. Sounds like you had a really crappy night at a place you otherwise normally love. Hopefully your next visit will be back on track and that server will have the night off.

#195 sacman

sacman
  • Moderator
  • 684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gladstone, OR
  • Interests:FOOD

Posted 21 July 2009 - 10:40 PM

Hi! Hope this is an entertaining post...

What's most irritating to me here is that my statements are being misinterpreted and flat-out ignored. We never asked anybody to change anything in the restaurant. There was never any adversarial interaction between us and the staff. They made a series of mistakes during our meal that we essentially ignored or glossed over at the time. I believe that the staff regarded our whole meal as a pretty congenial interaction (assuming nobody there has read this thread!). Far and away the worst issue during service was the bad attitude we got from the server.

I personally love going to restaurants. I am ecstatic that I am finally at a point in my life where I can afford to occasionally visit good restaurants. I go into each restaurant I visit - even fast food joints (rarely) - with huge enthusiasm and optimism. FFS, just read my previous posts. Double FFS, read my previous post on Le Pigeon! I really love this place!

It truly grieves me when I encounter a negative situation; I always do my best to interact on a human level with the staff. Me and Mrs. sacman never ever ever go into a restaurant with a chip on our shoulder, and we are about the least demanding customers you could imagine. I suppose, though, that you'll have to take my word for it. That being said...

MSG said: "celiac is your problem. I agree with HHH. The restaurant staff should know or find out what ingredients are in a dish, but you need to know what you can and can't eat."

Perhaps I was not clear. We never asked the restaurant to divine what "celiac" meant. We mentioned "celiac," but also specified verbally that wheat, rye, and barley were items we needed to avoid. We did not ask them to remove these ingredients from any dish; we simply asked which dishes were free of these ingredients. The server AND the chef positively identified several dishes as being totally free of these ingredients. They were wrong on at least two accounts, and we ended up getting served a dish containing one of these ingredients.

IMO, this is much different than if the restaurant staff had said "We don't know," or "these dishes might all contain these ingredients."

Restaurants and other food providers have been sued time and time again for this exact chain of events. The outcome of these lawsuits varies, but many of these lawsuits result in the restaurant paying money to the customer. If you give a customer (consumer) false information, you are opening yourself up to liability. Give out false information to a celiac sufferer at your own peril. Hell, ignore a religious dietary request at your own peril.

In short, you are out of your mind if you think a restaurant is not liable for guests who communicate food allergies to the restaurant's staff. Your own restaurant's insurance policy contains specific liability coverages for just this circumstance (see your products and completed operations section). Oregon's own Foodborne Illness Prevention Program links directly to this manual that (page 17) advises you to have a "plan for handling the special order." In addition, it is just barely possible (but still possible - see section C-b on neglect) that you may be held criminally liable as well.

Jill-O, hopefully you can see that we surely did ask detailed questions about the menu. We didn't simply ask "what's got gluten in it?" We asked "What has gluten in it? That means what has wheat, rye, or barley in it?" We were even advised to stay away from the latkes, despite my question about them being potato pancakes, and presumably safe. Don't order them, we were advised, because they are prepared with wheat flour. We received something other than what the restaurant specified, however - onion rings battered with flour containing wheat. It's analogous to a peanut-allergy sufferer asking if a salad roll has peanut sauce in it, being told no, and then being served a salad roll with peanut sauce anyhow.

Quo Vadis, insofar as photography goes...

There is NO "right to privacy" in a public space, which a restaurant surely is.. None. This holds true with regard to photography. Over and over again, the courts in the United States have found this to be the case. If I am in a retail establishment, unless I have done something criminal (like shoplift), the best the proprietor can do is kick me out. They can't demand my film, detain me, search me, hold me, or anything other than kick me out.

You may have a personal issue with being photographed in a restaurant, but you may also have a personal issue with me wearing a green shirt. Either issue of yours is pretty much irrelevant to me, as I am not harming you in any way by photographing you in a restaurant or wearing a green shirt. If you think you have a legal or moral right to not be photographed in a restaurant, please cite the law, case, or Hammurabi's code that supports this.

In any event, this was not the case with Le Pigeon. I specifically asked, as I always do, if I could "take pictures in here." Not "pictures of the food," not "pictures of the food and the staff only." Just "pictures in here." This is purely a move made out of politeness. If you as a fellow diner have an issue with this, the best you could possibly hope for is to get management to order me off the premises - because that's all they're empowered to do.

I am sorry that this caused so many issues with people in this thread, but I have yet to hear a coherent argument about why I was in the wrong. I certainly can take criticism - witness Nick schooling me in the construction of a typical PDX Cuban. I don't know it all, I am always learning and I don't want this to change.

Thanks for letting me spew, and I hope at least my response has given my critics something to think over.

-sacman
- I am an employee of a Portland-based firm that has business relationships with several local food-related businesses.

#196 Chambolle

Chambolle
  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 12:02 AM

Wow. Just....wow.

#197 ExtraMSG

ExtraMSG
  • Admin
  • 18,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Felony Flats
  • Interests:Me like food.

Posted 22 July 2009 - 12:27 AM

Perhaps I was not clear. We never asked the restaurant to divine what "celiac" meant. We mentioned "celiac," but also specified verbally that wheat, rye, and barley were items we needed to avoid. We did not ask them to remove these ingredients from any dish; we simply asked which dishes were free of these ingredients. The server AND the chef positively identified several dishes as being totally free of these ingredients. They were wrong on at least two accounts, and we ended up getting served a dish containing one of these ingredients.


Sacman, that's not what your narrative above describes, however, under any reasonable interpretation, I don't think. You wrote:

The chef told the server - within easy earshot of us - that we shouldn't order a certain dish because it has potatoes in it, and potatoes contain gluten (completely wrong). Then the server came over and gave us recommendations. One of the dishes on the recommended list was the halibut, which uses semolina pasta. "Semolina is not made from wheat," the server told us. I disagreed, and had to whip out the trusty iPhone to settle the argument - sorry, but I AM going to do something that rude when it comes to Mrs. sacman's celiac.

Essentially, we were advised to stay away from a dish that had no gluten, and strongly recommended to order a dish chock-full of gluten. Come on, that's really unacceptable.


What you say here is that the restaurant staff didn't know that semolina had gluten and that potatoes didn't and that that was unacceptable.

In short, you are out of your mind if you think a restaurant is not liable for guests who communicate food allergies to the restaurant's staff. Your own restaurant's insurance policy contains specific liability coverages for just this circumstance (see your products and completed operations section). Oregon's own Foodborne Illness Prevention Program links directly to this manual that (page 17) advises you to have a "plan for handling the special order." In addition, it is just barely possible (but still possible - see section C-b on neglect) that you may be held criminally liable as well.


Fair enough, though others challenged you on this, I will only say: 1) often there is much more context on these cases when you look into them, such as continued blatant lying, rather than just being mistaken. 2) this attitude may not get you the results you want. Likely, many restaurants will just throw up their arms and go the Beast route and say that there are no substitutions or go the route that many commercial goods take of just saying that everything may contain common allergins like nuts, milk, etc, even if they likely don't. Net result: celiac sufferers' options quickly disappear because the hassle is greater than the reward for such a niche market. My suggestion: make things as easy as you possibly can on restaurants.

There is NO "right to privacy" in a public space, which a restaurant surely is.. None. This holds true with regard to photography. Over and over again, the courts in the United States have found this to be the case. If I am in a retail establishment, unless I have done something criminal (like shoplift), the best the proprietor can do is kick me out. They can't demand my film, detain me, search me, hold me, or anything other than kick me out.


I actually researched this pretty thoroughly recently because of an issue at K&Z, research that included discussions with lawyers. The rules on this change a lot from state to state and even from locality to locality and from case to case. I wouldn't base your legal opinions on Wikipedia. There are things proprieters can do to greatly limit your "right" to take and publish photographs. However, those also change based on locality and situation.
The greatest service chemistry has rendered to alimentary science, is the discovery of osmazome, or rather the determination of what it was. ~Brillat-Savarin

Nick Zukin, Mi Mero Mole & Kenny & Zuke's

#198 sacman

sacman
  • Moderator
  • 684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gladstone, OR
  • Interests:FOOD

Posted 22 July 2009 - 06:39 AM

MSG, my original narrative also makes crystal clear that wheat IS something to be avoided.

"One of the dishes on the recommended list was the halibut, which uses semolina pasta. "Semolina is not made from wheat," the server told us. I disagreed, and had to whip out the trusty iPhone to settle the argument..."

That quotes makes it pretty obvious that we used the word "wheat" in terms of something to be avoided.

-sacman
- I am an employee of a Portland-based firm that has business relationships with several local food-related businesses.

#199 EatinMachine

EatinMachine
  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 08:02 AM

I have never been to Le Pigeon and will probably never go there. Why? Because of all the useful posts on this site that focus on descriptions of the food serve there. The food is the reason I go to restaurants. It's not ambiance, it's not service, it's about the delight I get from a really good meal, well prepared, with foods that I like. It matters not a wit to me that a restaurant like Le Pigeon garners rave reviews. Those reviews describe food that doesn't strike my fancy. Same with a place like Sel Gris or Beast. Give me a good burrito over something like bone marrow or a juicy steak. So I love this site since it gives me a pretty good picture of the restaurant and helps me decide where to spend my limited dining out dollars.

What bothers me about Sacman's post that has generated so much controversy is too much ego! I read the post before everyone jumped in and my thought was that it added nothing to the overall sense of the quality of the food or service at Le Pigeon. It focuses too much on an experience that tells me nothing about what might happen to me if I were to visit Le Pigeon. So you had a bad experience. Do you really need to lay it out for everyone to see, illustrated by photos even?

I mean really, you've been to this place multiple times. You've seemed to have a satisfying experience each time. So what is the point of making a big deal about one experience that is clearly out of the norm?

I understand the concern about food allergies and getting served potentially harmful food. It's an issue worth discussing, but it doesn't make any sense to bring it up under an individual restaurant's thread. I can't divorce the issue from the restaurant and it led me to believe there was something in the way you interacted with the staff that led to the experience you had. I'm sorry, but conflicts have two sides. Since this seemed to be a one-off experience, I'm just not going to take your version as the truth.

Sometimes it's better to say nothing if you really have nothing to say that contributes to helping someone figure out if the restaurant is a place they want to visit. And if your intention was to discuss restaurants and food allergies, there are better places on this site to start it up.

#200 Jill-O

Jill-O
  • Moderator
  • 7,021 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Eastside, on the cusp between N and S

Posted 22 July 2009 - 08:07 AM

Just for the record, when I used "you" in my post, I did not really mean sacman in particular, I meant a person in general. I know it reads like it...especially since my first line was in agreement that you, sacman, had lousy service (and I stand by that ;o).

I should have used "one" instead of "you" because I was commenting on the more general what one should expect from a restaurant and what one should be responsible for themselves.

Sorry for the lack of clarity!
Never give up! Never surrender!