Ergo the problem, how do you prove that? When Disney distances themselves from it, they distance their responsibility as well. "hindering" is an active thing.. they can achieve the same result easily passively without being liable. If Disney isn't obligated to pay the employee for that time... NOT paying for their time is not 'hindering' them.
When the CM can't get enough hours to afford to pass up shifts... Disney isn't 'hindering' them from assisting the police, but passively they are because the CM literally can't afford to not work.
If Disney prevented the police from reaching the employee.. ok. If Disney would not give the employee allowed time off to deal with the police.. ok. But Disney doesn't have to go that far to passively influence behavior. For instance, noting the incident on the employee's record and handling it in a negative light.
Even when you have specific whistleblower laws in place protecting people - its incredibly hard to qualify and pursue action against an employers for retaliation, etc.
What does the 'cm contributed' have anything to do with this hypothetical or the real case? If the CM did it, Disney would try to further themselves from it even more. What does this have to do with the case at hand? Or how Disney stands BEHIND it's CMs?