Would it be discrimination if she didn't offer a gluten free alternative? Many places don't...

Very few people are required to order the gluten free meal. If one just wants to eat gluten free (or vegetarian, or vegan) it's his choice if he's willing to pay more for that.

What is the basis of the cost difference? Does it include the costs to keep the ingredients separate? Does it include the costs to clean the equipment between regular and gluten-free pies? Does it include increased setup costs per pie for the smaller gluten-free batches? A simplistic cost accounting may well overlook these real costs. And, no, it is not discrimination.

No, because of scale. The few gluten free pies may take proportionally more overheads than the regular pies. Every product has fixed costs and variable costs.

It's a good question though. It's not exactly profiting but at a tangent, European law forbids charging customers for the overhead of paying by card.

@JonCuster Proper Gluten Free can't even be baked in the same oven without a deep clean, let alone at the same time, which means in practice needing a separate oven!

@TigerGuy that doesn't apply to the fixed costs of production that are per batch, not per unit. Things like electricity or cleaning time. If it takes 60 cents of electricity to bake pies, no matter how many you put into the oven, then baking 10 normal pies adds 6 cents for electricity to manufacturing price, but baking 2 gluten-free ones adds 30 cents for electricity. If it takes 20 minutes to clean the tools after baking, the batch size becomes hugely impactful if that is 5 bucks for few pies or 5 bucks distributed on many pies.

@MichaelHall not applicable in this case since "You can get anything you want // At Alice's Restaurant."

@Nobody gets it.

Assume that the restaurant uses the same oven at the same time so that there is no overhead. They make no guarantees about cross contamination, however they offer it for people who are genuinely gluten intolerant rather than indulging a dietary fad.

It seems to me that as they are different products, albeit visually similar, with different ingredients (and maybe different preparation requirements) different pricing structures are perfectly legitimate.

@JonCuster you asked many questions in a hypothetical that set forth the factual basis of the question. Those are the price difference for the purpose of answering when such are, is that discrimination. You asked those and without waiting for an answer (despite it never mattered because the hypo is as set forth above, and OP never had to explain to you that you must consider all other factors equal because that’s what the question said) that it is not discrimination. On what basis!? If, regardless of what the answer is, that is the answer per law, why even ask it? You answered out of […]

[…] despise for people with an eating disability, is what you did up there.

@Rick different pricing accounting to the difference of the entirety of costs and expenses associated with the de-glutenization of the same product does not justify different profit margins merely based on another’s disability, and - wether the case is decided under UK law — a genuine argument should be supported under the ECoHR that such decision and underlying law is in contravention of international law.

@kisspuska - if the costs are not the same, it is not discriminatory to charge different prices. “Despise” is over the top and uncalled for.

@JonCuster It is discriminatory to use a different profit margin — at least in the case of people with such alimentary disabilities, in the U.S. one may not be compelled to prove the disability which leaves no choice but that the same profit margin be used, arguably for a good reason. My reasons are above in re the conclusory claim “”despise” is over the top and uncalled for”.

@kisspuska - my nice local Vietnamese place charges more to add shrimp vs chicken. Shame on them for discriminating against piscatarians (well, shrimpatarians)! If costs are higher, to keep the same profit margin you have to charge more. You have to show they have a higher profit margin in the first place. A good steak restaurant charges more for beef than McDonalds. That is not discrimination either.

@kisspuska, you stating that it is discriminatory does not make it so, that is your opinion. Higher volume products can make up for lower margins, while typically lower volume products have a higher markup. It's a fairly standard business practice...

@Timothy, I got Nobody's joke.

Given that cost of materials is probably in the ballpark of 15% to 35% of the restaurant's food sale price, increasing the cost of materials by £2.5 should increase the food's price by between £7.14 and £16.67. So, the sales price for the gluten free pie should be between £17.14 and £26.67. At £14, Alice's restaurant is massively undercharging for the gluten free pie. That doesn't even include the substantial added labor, added equipment, and very substantial added potential liability (e.g. a customer's negative reaction to gluten contamination could be up to and include death).

@kisspuska Is the allergy a disability protected by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010? Section 15 forbids discrimination arising from disability.

@user there are two answers to that question: Either yes per case law or no. But in any case, I’m sure it would be subject to Article 14 of ECoHR Prohibition of discrimination providing that “[t]he enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [ECoHR] shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as […] birth or other status.” clearly, a gluten intolerance that makes one disabled from consuming a substantial portion of food for human consumption, especially where possibly, shall not b the subject of discrimination. Alice can ask that people wanting to pay […]

[…] based on an equal profit margin, assert so (without requiring proof) imposing a moral duty on the patrons to not take advantage of the shops compliance with equal protection supra-constitutional rights of those of alimentary disabilities.

@Makyen you still don’t get that this is law.SE, the question is a hypothetical with the objective to inquire into law. Not whether the factual premises are in line with actual economics. The point is, greater profit margin applied in no proportion with the increased costs and expenses. Is £14 representative of that? It doesn’t matter. If anyone more will keep pushing on this so as to divert or disrupt the discussion of the question, I will edit it and flag the comment for moderation. If you want to discuss this in an economic angle, you are welcome to post that on a number of other SE’s.

@nobody (exceptin' Alice.)

@kisspuska No, I understand that. However, I'd argue that you appear to not be reading the question critically and/or you're assuming what is intended to be asked about. The question asker has given facts and then made assumptions about what those facts mean and implied the belief that some class has been discriminated against. It would be a lawyer's duty to advise a client presenting those facts and reasoning that a discrimination/profiteering case is unlikely to be successful, because, among other things, the underlying facts don't represent discrimination/profiteering.

While someone could ask a clearer, general question about perceived profiteering and then present an example, that's not how this question has been asked. If it was presented that way, then the example could just be edited to make it clearer both that it's just a hypothetical example and to make the numbers more clearly show an economic bias to making more profit per sale to the affected class, which could, potentially, be profiteering/discrimination. Unfortunately, that's not how this question is written.

In addition, as a question with an example that isn't even close to accurate from an economic standpoint, it, unfortunately, also perpetuates people's misconceptions about how economics work, which the comments on this Q&A clearly indicate contribute significantly to at least some people's feelings of being wronged by prices which they see as biased. Thus, not having more accurate information from an economic standpoint is harmful, particularly when the inaccuracy isn't pointed out.

Let’s not forget that eating pie is optional…

I really need to see the 8x10 glossy colored photographs of all these pies.

Uber was sued by the justice department for not accommodating disabled riders, They have a "wait time" fee, for taking too long to get in the car. Which obviously hits mobility impaired people more than your average person. Seems similar enough to me.

@stonemetal, there are actually no similarities between using a transportation service and eating pie. (unless taking Uber to Alice's?!)

@PMF What does the number of allergic people have to do with anything?

Just out of curiosity, what if Alice actually made all the pies exactly the same, but if someone wanted one that is said to be gluten-free an extra charge applies? (question extension inspired by some similar pricing in the semiconductor industry)

I don't think the answer would apply to the semiconductor case though, due to semiconductor features not implicating disabilities or other protected characteristics as far as I'm aware.

@SpehroPefhany That'd be fraud.

@JosephP. I believe the question hinges on the legal question if gluten-free products are deemed similar to normal flour products, and I have the feeling that a court would rule they are only as similar as cheap ply toilet paper is to a premium brand - almost certainly dissimilar.

I base this feeling on the knowledge that on one hand we have a vastly higher initial costs - gluten free flour costs at least twice what normal flour costs, but there are also vastly increased fixed costs from the higher cleaning requirements - and that the two products are deemed very different by buyers as far as request and demand go: even if priced the same, people wouldn't grab one or the other as 'replacement' for each other.

@SpehroPefhany not necessarily if the "regular" ones weren't explicitly advertised to contain gluten. It would be no different from a postal service that offers guaranteed next day delivery for a fee along with first class post, which may well arrive next day anyway as 91% of first class letters actually do. It just isn't pledged and guaranteed to (be gluten free).

I completely disagree because the allergic would certainly take the cheaper option in lieu if they were only able. That makes them interchangable but for medical problems which means they are quite similar in nature indeed.

@MichaelHall And that eating pie made by someone else another choice.

Surely there's a difference between prepared food and foodstuffs sold at the grocery.

Prepared food is service more than it is product.