Florida commission: Disney discriminated against autistic visitors

[PhotoDave219]

I think we're splitting hairs here. HIPAA is relevant because medical records are regulated by HIPAA. It's relevant because I'm skipping a few steps and thinking about the potential lawsuit, where HIPAA would certainly be brought into the mix as a grounds to establish discrimination and support what the defendant would claim is unreasonable.

And while you can't file for a private cause of action under HIPAA if a non-covered entity asks for your medical records, HIPAA still protects you. The Privacy Rule is meant to establish a national standard. No entity (save for covered entities and the government) is ever going to have a right to your medical records, except for you.



When someone asks for your medical records, though they are asking YOU, they're actually asking to do this very thing. They cannot force you to provide consent and you are not the steward of your medical records. That is why the rules apply to what HIPAA names as covered entities.

Anyways, again, I think we're splitting hairs because I do not think you disagree with me that a rule requiring people to provide some sort of proof of a disability in order to obtain a service is not enforceable.

HIPPA has nothing to do with the merits of the case. The case deals with ADA.

You're attempting to compare/confuse privacy laws with accessibility laws. Apples and oranges.

 

[englanddg]

HIPPA has nothing to do with the merits of the case. The case deals with ADA.

You're attempting to compare/confuse privacy laws with accessibility laws. Apples and oranges.

Not new. Any of these threads involve people tossing out alphabet soup letters without knowing what they mean.

 

[Matt_Black]

Not new. Any of these threads involve people tossing out alphabet soup letters without knowing what they mean.

"No, no, see it's classified in the DMZ, gotta go ASAP, you know, strictly BYOB. Bye!"

 

[StarWarsGirl]

I honestly thought my son was the only one that experienced "toilet terror" but it looks like it's more common than I thought.

When I was a kid, I was afraid of automatic toilets for the longest time. And I DON'T have autism. I also didn't like toilets that flushed too loudly. And yes, I would hold it until we could find another bathroom. We went to WDW so often that I memorized which bathrooms have automatic toilets and which ones did not (actually, even at 20 years old when I'm clearly no longer afraid of toilets and have not been for years, I can probably still tell you which bathrooms have manual toilets and which ones have automatic toilets). And the ones that didn't have a light on the sensor that flashed...those were the worst. So no, your child is not alone. Just his fear is probably way more intense than mine.

I wish I could tell you that it goes away soon, but I was afraid of them until I was at least 8 years old, and then was wary of them after that.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

If I were to try to come up with any way to balance things with the original policy is to allow no more than two additional people to accompany the disabled person.

The only problem with that is that you'll have larger families. For instance, we have four people in our family. Should one person have to wait while the other three ride using the DAS? That would mean we'd be splitting up an awful lot. Or what if it were a parent with three kids. Should one kid have to wait? That's my only issue with that idea.

The current limit is six people, including the disabled family member.

 

[PhotoDave219]

When I was a kid, I was afraid of automatic toilets for the longest time. And I DON'T have autism. I also didn't like toilets that flushed too loudly. And yes, I would hold it until we could find another bathroom. We went to WDW so often that I memorized which bathrooms have automatic toilets and which ones did not (actually, even at 20 years old when I'm clearly no longer afraid of toilets and have not been for years, I can probably still tell you which bathrooms have manual toilets and which ones have automatic toilets). And the ones that didn't have a light on the sensor that flashed...those were the worst. So no, your child is not alone. Just his fear is probably way more intense than mine.

I wish I could tell you that it goes away soon, but I was afraid of them until I was at least 8 years old, and then was wary of them after that.

Thats the most odd thing I've heard someone admit. Ever.

 

[Matt_Black]

Thats the most odd thing I've heard someone admit. Ever.

I thought Cadbury crème eggs contained actual egg yolks.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I thought Cadbury crème eggs contained actual egg yolks.

Nope. Though if you want to try and explain how we went from crucifixion and resurrection to rabbits and chocolate eggs, I'm all ears. Also, rabbits don't lay eggs.

 

[Matt_Black]

Nope. Though if you want to try and explain how we went from crucifixion and resurrection to rabbits and chocolate eggs, I'm all ears. Also, rabbits don't lay eggs.

Simple. As any scholar of Arthurian lore will tell you, the Holy Grail was guarded by a rabbit, who could be dispatched with the egg-shaped Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. DUH.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Simple. As any scholar of Arthurian lore will tell you, the Holy Grail was guarded by a rabbit, who could be dispatched with the egg-shaped Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. DUH.

How did I forget that one?!? Oh well. To Camelot!

 

[Todd H]

How did I forget that one?!? Oh well. To Camelot!

On second thought let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place.

 

[ToInfinityAndBeyond]

I think you didn't read my comments. HIPAA has nothing to do with this case. It is relevant in response to someone's comment about requiring doctor's notes. That is all.

 

[jmmc]

The only problem with that is that you'll have larger families. For instance, we have four people in our family. Should one person have to wait while the other three ride using the DAS? That would mean we'd be splitting up an awful lot. Or what if it were a parent with three kids. Should one kid have to wait? That's my only issue with that idea.

The current limit is six people, including the disabled family member.

Yes, it wouldn't be ideal of course, but I'm trying to think of a way that would keep the original policy intact but cut down on the abuse.

Agh! We wouldn't be having all this discussion if people didn't suck.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Yes, it wouldn't be ideal of course, but I'm trying to think of a way that would keep the original policy intact but cut down on the abuse.

Agh! We wouldn't be having all this discussion if people didn't suck.

Unfortunately it seems that whatever Disney does, there will always be people who try to use the system and abuse it. It's tricky trying to cut down on the abuse while still ensuring that those who need it can actually use it.

You're right. It would be so much easier if people were honest.

 

[Matt_Black]

Yes, it wouldn't be ideal of course, but I'm trying to think of a way that would keep the original policy intact but cut down on the abuse.

I think it's time to revisit my modest proposal regarding wiffle-bat wielding vigilante mobs. If people knew they were going to get a good smack on the patoot with a plastic bat, that would dissuade dishonesty!

 

[flynnibus]

I think you didn't read my comments. HIPAA has nothing to do with this case. It is relevant in response to someone's comment about requiring doctor's notes. That is all.

Still doesn't apply to your theoretical

Hippa does not forbid asking for your medical info. Hippa is about how that data is handled and secured in the medical industry

 

[PhotoDave219]

I think you didn't read my comments. HIPAA has nothing to do with this case. It is relevant in response to someone's comment about requiring doctor's notes. That is all.

It is against the law (ADA) to ask someone for a doctors note to prove a disability.

In fact, requiring that is grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

 

[Sudcaro- Sudcaro]

It is against the law (ADA) to ask someone for a doctors note to prove a disability.

In fact, requiring that is grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

Maybe THAT is the thing that needs to be fixed, then...

 

[PhotoDave219]

Maybe THAT is the thing that needs to be fixed, then...

Talk to congress.

 

[ToInfinityAndBeyond]

It is against the law (ADA) to ask someone for a doctors note to prove a disability.

In fact, requiring that is grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

You're not entirely correct. It is not against the law to ask for a doctor's note. It is against the law for an employer to ask for a doctor's note (and in most cases medical records) for any reason other than to prove the need for a reasonable accommodation when a disability is not apparent, but enough about employment. That's for the EEOC to worry about.

However, you are absolutely correct that asking for a doctor's note to prove a disability in order to gain a service is grounds for a discrimination lawsuit under the ADA. In said lawsuit, the ADA, HIPAA, and other relevant state and local laws will be brought into the mix to show that this request is beyond reasonable. That is why you will not find a company who will ask for your medical records or a doctor's note, regardless of if you are handicapped. Just to be clear, I'm not taking about employment. That's an entirely different ball game.

One last time, I know that HIPAA does not directly forbid people from asking for medical records, but it is absolutely, 100% relevant in a hypothetical situation where records come into play, because in the (hypothetical) lawsuit, it will be used as grounds to prove discrimination and unreasonable standards.

For your amusement, here's a portion of the ADA:
"§ 36.201 General.
(a) Prohibition of discrimination. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any private entity who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."

And:
"§ 36.202 Activities.
(a) Denial of participation. A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

(b) Participation in unequal benefit. A public accommodation shall not afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals."

This part is relevant for the federal case and original post:
"(c) Separate benefit. A public accommodation shall not provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others."

Anyways, I'm still sure we don't disagree on the point. They're not going to start asking for medical records or doctor's notes.