Blind Strathclyde Uni law student uses legal know-how to secure payout after being booted out of McDonald’s for having guide dog

By on

One for the CV

Fraser Kane (via LinkedIn)

A blind law student has won a legal battle against McDonald’s after he was told to leave because he had his guide dog with him.

Fraser Kane, who is in his third year at Strathclyde University, was left “completely distraught” and “shaking” after he was asked to leave the Paddington branch in August last year, along with his seven-year-old guide dog Nelson.

“As I went to sit down and bent over to undo Nelson’s harness I heard someone shout at me: ‘No dogs! Get out. You’re not allowed to be here’,” Kane told the Times newspaper. “He was aggressive, loud and very arrogant to the circumstances. I was completely distraught. I was shaking. The embarrassment of it left me frustrated that this has happened.”

Kane was completing a summer placement in the Oxford office of national outfit Freeths but had travelled to London with Nelson to visit a friend.

Having been told by human rights groups that he did not have grounds to bring a claim for disability discrimination, the law student took matters into his own hands — with positive results.

The 2019 Legal Cheek LPC Most List

The newspaper reports the 21-year-old, who has Stargardt’s disease, has now thrashed out a financial settlement with McDonald’s worth up to £8,600 “in accordance with case law regarding injury to feelings”. The actual figure has not been disclosed.

Fraser Kane with his guide dog Nelson

A spokesperson for McDonald’s said: “We pride ourselves on being an inclusive and welcoming business, and would like to apologise to Mr Kane for his experience, which was unacceptable. We have taken this extremely seriously, and been in conversation with Mr Kane to find a resolution and ensure he is satisfied with the actions we have subsequently taken.”

They continued: “The employee working at the time has been given additional training and the restaurant team more widely has been reminded of our guidance in this area.”

Junior lawyer event: How to build a career at a US law firm in London, with lawyers from Cleary Gottlieb, Kirkland & Ellis, Shearman & Sterling and Skadden — this Thursday evening: REGISTER TO ATTEND



I’m lovin’ it. Well done lad.



I couldn’t agree more with your first two sentences.

But why do you make that suggestion in your third sentence?



For equality of course. What have you got against disabled people?



Because your suggestion does not amount to equality.

Surely equality is treating everyone the same irrespective of their particular characteristics?



So it’s this. Again.

So after being mistreated for 365 days a year, the disabled can’t even have one day of being prioritised? Really? What have disabled people ever done to you to be so cruel?

Let’s just call this site antidisabledcheek and have done with it.



Tim, I’m all for equal treatment (and it’s great that you’re such a strong advocate against disability discrimination) but it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest your proposal is about “equality” when your later reply shows what you in fact want is differential treatment. Maybe what you want is right; maybe it’s wrong – but at least he honest about it, or you’ll lose all credibility I’m afraid.

It might also help if you engage with comments constructively, rather than (wrongly) seeing them automatically as an attack on disabled people.



1. Firstly, I’m not a liar and resent the implication.
2. I want equal treatment, and as such a small gesture such as that I mentioned would not even scratch the surface in making things equal after decades, even centuries of anti-disability discrimination. Even if I called for an entire year of no non-disabled people being permitted that would not go far enough to address the imbalance.
3. I respond where necessary and appropriate. That’s why I called you out on your attack. I’m glad that you have seen sense and that you are now backtracking. I’ll await your apology.


Not a blind person

“Having been told by human rights groups that he did not have grounds to bring a claim for disability discrimination“

Sounds like poor advice to me.


Diane Abbot

Sounds like they didn’t even know he was blind. He was treated as a non-blind person that brought a dog into a mcdonalds. That’s not discrimination.



So someone kicks a poor blind guy out of McDonalds, for offending people by being blind, and you’re making excuses for this discrimination? You’re an appalling person.



Whilst I don’t want to feed the troll, if someone walks into somewhere with a guide dog, chances are they are blind. And McDs would have known that.


Archibald Pomp O'City

You fed the troll after all. You fucking moron.



U ok hun

Anon etc

You might want to look up indirect discrimination, s19 Equality Act 2010.

Just a quick tip: In this profession you will find you’re generally expected to do a little research before loudly proclaiming what the law is and isn’t.


Anon etc

This was supposed to be a reply to ‘Diane Abbott’. But it seems that, whilst I know a bit about quality and discrimination law, I know very little about basics like how to use a website.



Most Strathclyde grads end up working at McDonalds.



Do you have to be such a knob?






The irony of calling a disabled man stupid whilst spelling “McDonalds” wrong…



Did he get fries with that?



I’m speaking from experience here as a failed Strathclyde graduate and a sorry excuse for a troll … -Anon


Diane Abbot

It’s just like LC to give zero details of the import stuff.
Did he actually have a discrimination case or did maccas just settle because it was terrible PR to have a blind man coming after you?

Am I going to pay the Times just to find out? Probably not.


Anon etc

It is very clear on the facts reported that he had a good claim against McDonalds. That a settlement appears to have been awarded on the basis of the Vento guidelines suggests that Macs took it seriously.

You don’t need to pay a subscription to the Times. It’s much easier and cheaper just to figure this stuff out, or otherwise not assume that you know more about the law than experts in that particular field.


Diane Abbot

The relevant legal expert in this area actually said there’s no possible claim so actually you’re the one assuming you know more. If someone with perfect vision walks in with a dog and someone tells them to leave but they turned out to be blind that is not discriminashun. Your good uneducated guess is not a good substitute for legal reasoning.


Anon etc

I’m afraid you are wrong. As per my above post, go away and read up on indirect discrimination. It’s really very straightforward. My ‘guess’ (actually, my analysis) is based on many years of employment and discrimination law.



I am an employment Silk. This man plainly had a valid claim for discrimination.


Archibald Pomp O'City

You’re cotton, not silk.


Legal Cheek’s First CyberNat #VoteYes2020 #IndyRef #SNP

Well done to him.


Louis Braille

I did the same to Kentucky Fried Chicken some years back – it was Finger Lickin’ Good counting all the one pound notes.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories