NEW YORK CITY An appeals court decision, involving a blind woman who says she was mocked by workers in fast-food restaurants, is a fresh reminder that employees frequently need to be reminded about -- or retrained in -- handling individuals with disabilities.

When the woman, who is legally blind, was mistreated by employees at several restaurants she filed suit against four restaurants under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

The restaurant workers apparently became irritated when she asked them to read menus to her, with employees at one establishment even directing her to a men's restroom and then laughing at her embarrassment, she claims.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here reinstated Alice Camarillo's lawsuit last month, dismissing a lower court judge's ruling that she suffered no harm because she was always allowed to eat at the restaurants.

The appeals court judges said Camarillo sufficiently claimed the restaurants failed to ensure "effective communication" of their menus.

In her suit, Camarillo said the restaurants near her home in the small upstate community of Catskill do not have large-print menus that she can read. She said that when she asked workers to read her the menu items, they sometimes made fun of her, or stared at her, or forced her to wait until customers behind her were served.

Camarillo made the claims against Burger King restaurants in Catskill and Hudson, N.Y., McDonald's restaurants in Catskill and Cairo, N.Y., a

McDonald's in Hudson; a Taco Bell restaurant in Kingston, N.Y., and a Wendy's in Hudson.

The appeals court said restaurants are not necessarily required to have large-print menus on hand, but they must ensure that menu options are effectively communicated to legally blind individuals.

The appeals panel said it did not disagree with the lower court's finding that federal anti-discrimination rules cannot ensure workers will never be rude or insensitive to people with disabilities.

"Camarillo alleges more than mere rudeness or insensitivity, and more than one or two isolated mistakes," the panel of judges wrote. "Rather, a reasonable inference to be drawn from her complaint is that defendants failed to adopt policies or procedures to effectively train their employees how to deal with disabled individuals."