Guest Assistance Cards ending, to be replaced with Fastpasses?

[disney david]

I thought it was pretty straight forward - Disney cannot ask for PROOF. It can, however ask about a disability in order to provide accommodation.

So, they can ask me about why, for example, I am unable to stand for an extended period of time in the sun, in order to provide appropriate alternative accommodation, but they cannot ask me to prove I have such a disability.

A doctor's note, however, might be a grey area. If it is taken as proof (or worded as such) of a disability, I guess it could be a problem. If instead it gives recommendations, I don't know. But since it is a grey area, I think Disney would stay away from it.

I guess it is but you have some people who are saying Disney asking what disability you have is not right. So I was just trying to double check with jack knowledge what can they and what can't they ask.

 

[Spoot]

So, they can ask me about why, for example, I am unable to stand for an extended period of time in the sun, in order to provide appropriate alternative accommodation, but they cannot ask me to prove I have such a disability.

But is my telling a CM that I have Chediak-Higashi Syndrome, Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome, Contact Dermatitis, or Lupus (all disorders where limiting sun exposure is suggested) really going to help them provide appropriate accommodations? I totally get the asking "why", I just don't see how the specific name of the disorder is helpful.

JCB - Thank you for the correction that it isn't illegal to ask. Based on the comments on the DISabilities forum, I always assumed it was illegal. As I said above, I don't see how it would actually be helpful, but interesting to know that it isn't illegal.

Back to the "looping" example - I totally see what explaining why a child/adult might need to loop (i.e. what happens if they don't) is helpful, but whether that need is due to autism versus OCD versus something else isn't (in my opinion).

 

[lanejudy]

With regards to asking about the disability...put simply, Disney CMs are not medically trained. By asking for the disability they could find themselves swimming in a literal "alphabet soup" of diagnoses -- from acronyms to multi-syllablic nearly-unpronounceable words. Most of these medical diagnoses will mean absolutely nil to a Guest Relations CM. The same need is likely similar for many diagnoses; one diagnosis may involve multiple needs but not necessarily the same need(s) for each guest with that diagnosis.

Whether or not there might be an actual legal ramification, it comes down to what will the CMs understand. They understand plain language, not medical terminology.

Asking for clarification of the "need" for accommodation does not necessarily have to be the specific diagnosis. If I state "I cannot be in the sun for extended periods of time." The CM can ask me to clarify that, and rather than a medical diagnosis I can explain that my body is unable to regulate internal temperature the way most people can and I will overheat if I an in direct sunlight for more than 15 minutes, which causes me to pass out/become disoriented/etc. The CM may then decide whether that qualifies for an accommodation, or he/she could ask me to elaborate further.

As for proof of disability...it can be required only if the accommodation provided is intended to be "greater than" the experience provided to a non-disabled person. A doctor's note is generally construed as providing proof, and also is not usually written to explain the patient's needs as related to touring a theme park but tends to state the diagnosis (medical terminology again) and maybe a broader request such as "can't be in the sun."

 

[ZehnJahren]

Actually, David, the ADA says no such thing. I just read it. To be sure, the ADA prohibits employers, unions and the like from asking applicants or employees about medical conditions except in certain circumstances, one of which is so that the employer can make a reasonable accommodation to the employee. There is no similar prohibition in the provisions that apply to Disney as a theme park (it obviously has to comply with the employment rule as an employer). The DOJ regulations that govern theme parks ambiguously prohibit Disney (and others) from asking for proof of a disability (in most scenarios) but the DOJ isn't helpful in saying why asking violates the ADA.

I don't believe the issue is the ADA - I think the actual protecting influence from having anyone ask for proof of disability are the HIPPA laws as Disney is not a qualified medical provider nor do they provide confidential health-related services.

 

[doconeill]

But is my telling a CM that I have Chediak-Higashi Syndrome, Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome, Contact Dermatitis, or Lupus (all disorders where limiting sun exposure is suggested) really going to help them provide appropriate accommodations? I totally get the asking "why", I just don't see how the specific name of the disorder is helpful.

No, the specific name is not really needed. A description of the problem is fine, although they may need deeper details than "I can't be in the sun" in order to accommodate in the best way possible. That is what I really meant.

 

[lanejudy]

I don't believe the issue is the ADA - I think the actual protecting influence from having anyone ask for proof of disability are the HIPPA laws as Disney is not a qualified medical provider nor do they provide confidential health-related services.

I work with healthcare information and am trained on HIPAA regulations. Actually, it's these very reasons that HIPAA does NOT come into play. HIPAA is directly related to healthcare providers. If I voluntarily share a doctor's note with Disney (or anyone else), there is no HIPAA violation. There can be no violation because 1) I have voluntarily shared the information, and 2) because Disney is not a healthcare provider.

 

[Spoot]

No, the specific name is not really needed. A description of the problem is fine, although they may need deeper details than "I can't be in the sun" in order to accommodate in the best way possible. That is what I really meant.

Which totally makes sense.

This line of posts started because it was said that a certain accommodation was only available for those who have autism. That is what I was having an issue with - asking for the specific name of the disability/illness and granting accommodations based on that.

 

[doconeill]

Which totally makes sense.

This line of posts started because it was said that a certain accommodation was only available for those who have autism. That is what I was having an issue with - asking for the specific name of the disability/illness and granting accommodations based on that.

Well, Disney _could_ prep the Guest Relations CMs with a potential list - "If the guest says that have X, then do Y..." to make some things easier. But it can't possibly encompass everything.

Of course, this still invites abuse.

 

[jcb]

I guess it is but you have some people who are saying Disney asking what disability you have is not right. So I was just trying to double check with jack knowledge what can they and what can't they ask.

I pretty much agree with Doc.

Generally, Disney can ask if it is necessary. As many have pointed out, what is necessary depends on the precise situation. (I didn't really mean to distinguish between asking about the disability by name and asking about the guests' symptoms but I agree that the name of the disability alone often tells CMs pretty much nothing.) To oversimplify, the more non-traditional the requested modification, the more it would be "necessary" for Disney to inquire. Also, should a requested modification pose a potential "direct threat" to the guest or other guests, Disney's latitude to expands significantly.

 

[disney david]

Well, Disney _could_ prep the Guest Relations CMs with a potential list - "If the guest says that have X, then do Y..." to make some things easier. But it can't possibly encompass everything.

Of course, this still invites abuse.

Yes I not saying they can't just some people are upset by it and was just asking if they can.

 

[disney david]

I pretty much agree with Doc.

Generally, Disney can ask if it is necessary. As many have pointed out, what is necessary depends on the precise situation. (I didn't really mean to distinguish between asking about the disability by name and asking about the guests' symptoms but I agree that the name of the disability alone often tells CMs pretty much nothing.) To oversimplify, the more non-traditional the requested modification, the more it would be "necessary" for Disney to inquire. Also, should a requested modification pose a potential "direct threat" to the guest or other guests, Disney's latitude to expands significantly.

Of course..... Thanks for the help

 

[ZehnJahren]

I work with healthcare information and am trained on HIPAA regulations. Actually, it's these very reasons that HIPAA does NOT come into play. HIPAA is directly related to healthcare providers. If I voluntarily share a doctor's note with Disney (or anyone else), there is no HIPAA violation. There can be no violation because 1) I have voluntarily shared the information, and 2) because Disney is not a healthcare provider.

Good to know - I have limited knowledge on that area, but had read some articles saying this very thing. Glad I won't carry on the lack of knowledge!

 

[cmwade77]

I'm not sure I would say it is necessarily "illegal" (as in an ADA violation, which it would be for an employer) but I agree it is not a good idea. Even Disney doesn't need to take on the DOJ over something so silly as asking about an individual's disability. It most instances there is no need to ask and in most others a short description of the symptoms tells Disney more than enough.

My point was simply there is an unworkable assumption here. Expecting a public accommodation like Disney to be unable to merely ask - as opposed to requiring "proof" (in all but an extreme case) - when a guest seeks a policy modification is something like telling a physician she can't ask about a patient's family medical history.

ETA: I revisited the DOJ regulations (mentioned above) and its explanation for them. Two points are worth making.

First, criteria that screen out individuals with a disability are illegal (unless the criteria are necessary for providing the goods). One excuse that is per se unacceptable is "The wishes, tastes, or preferences of other customers may not be asserted to justify criteria that would exclude or segregate individuals with disabilities." (I'll provide a cite to anyone who PMs me.)

Second, a DOJ regulation (it has said) "prohibits attempts by a public accommodation to unnecessarily identify the existence of a disability; for example, it would be a violation of this section for a retail store to require an individual to state on a credit application whether the applicant has epilepsy, mental illness, or any other disability, or to inquire unnecessarily whether an individual has HIV disease." This statement is in the DOJ's explanation for a regulation it adopted in 1991, not in the regulation itself.

Don't misunderstand. No one should take this as saying Disney can require proof of a disability. It would, at a minimum, be foolish. I tend to agree with the DOJ's conclusion that requiring "proof" or even unnecessarily asking an individual about a disability would not be consistent with the prohibition against unnecessary "segregation" or even "exclusion."

The DOJ's explanation does mean that Disney could ask a guest to identify the existence of a disability where it is necessary.

(P.S. I enjoyed your Peter Pan photo.)

Actually, it IS illegal to ask for proof to provide access to something that would otherwise be inaccessible to a person with a disability.

However, if they offered something of monetary value or something that would allow access to something that a nondisabled person wouldn't have access to, then they can require proof for that.

For example, if they said we will give a 50% discount to those that are disabled, they could require for proof. Or if they said we are going to have a lounge that is only available to the disabled, once again, proof could be required. But these items cannot be tied to providing equal access for those with disabilities.

But a person cannot physically wait in a line and there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made to get around that a line, then they cannot ask for proof from that person, even if the way they are using to get around this would provide a benefit that would normally allow them to require proof.

Bottom line is if equal access is not available without it, no proof can be asked for or required without it being an ADA violation.

 

[jcb]

Actually, it IS illegal to ask for proof to provide access to something that would otherwise be inaccessible to a person with a disability.

However, if they offered something of monetary value or something that would allow access to something that a nondisabled person wouldn't have access to, then they can require proof for that.

For example, if they said we will give a 50% discount to those that are disabled, they could require for proof. Or if they said we are going to have a lounge that is only available to the disabled, once again, proof could be required. But these items cannot be tied to providing equal access for those with disabilities.

But a person cannot physically wait in a line and there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made to get around that a line, then they cannot ask for proof from that person, even if the way they are using to get around this would provide a benefit that would normally allow them to require proof.

Bottom line is if equal access is not available without it, no proof can be asked for or required without it being an ADA violation.

What is your authority for it being "an ADA violation". I'm not saying I disagree. As I have said, I can see how requiring "proof" in every instance might violate the ADA but you seem to be saying it is never permitted (absent a discount, which, by the way, concerns me).

 

[WebmasterMike]

What is your authority for it being "an ADA violation". I'm not saying I disagree. As I have said, I can see how requiring "proof" in every instance might violate the ADA but you seem to be saying it is never permitted (absent a discount, which, by the way, concerns me).

I agree, Jack. I read through Title III of the ADA and found nothing about "illegal", just "in violation of." Everything pointed to Civil litigation and/or mediation for reasonable accommodation. This is very subjective in nature and very hard to apply evenly across the board. There is more emotion than facts driving this discussion. There is also nothing illegal about volunteering information. Volunteering a doctor's note is not in violation of Title III of the ADA.

 

[jcb]

I agree, Jack. I read through Title III of the ADA and found nothing about "illegal", just "in violation of." Everything pointed to Civil litigation and/or mediation for reasonable accommodation. This is very subjective in nature and very hard to apply evenly across the board. There is more emotion than facts driving this discussion. There is also nothing illegal about volunteering information. Volunteering a doctor's note is not in violation of Title III of the ADA.

scintillating stuff, huh?

 

[WebmasterMike]

scintillating stuff, huh?

It reads like most of the meats in Germany, very dry with lots of different gravies.

 

[cmwade77]

What is your authority for it being "an ADA violation". I'm not saying I disagree. As I have said, I can see how requiring "proof" in every instance might violate the ADA but you seem to be saying it is never permitted (absent a discount, which, by the way, concerns me).

Actually, you misread what I said, I said proof can only be required if there is something that goes above and beyond what everyone else can get. If the accommodations are intended to provide equal access, then proof cannot be required under the ADA.

The exact portion that specifies this can be found on these boards. I will leave it at that based on the current tone of this thread.

 

[jcb]

Actually, you misread what I said, I said proof can only be required if there is something that goes above and beyond what everyone else can get. If the accommodations are intended to provide equal access, then proof cannot be required under the ADA.

The exact portion that specifies this can be found on these boards. I will leave it at that based on the current tone of this thread.

Fair enough, though what you say you said is what I thought you were saying.

 

[WebmasterMike]

Fair enough, though what you say you said is what I thought you were saying.

So say we all...