Prices up…profits down…

[AdventureHasAName]

You’re the one who cited the motorized vehicle section in the first place!

You asked me to. You asked me where in the ADA a reasonable proof standard was enunciated. It's used in almost the entirety of the ADA, but in the motorized scooter section, it specifically outlined and it discusses that a verbal statement (absent contrary visible evidence) satisfies the necessary credible assurance of a mobility disability. The obvious legal takeaway from that clear statement in that provision is that a verbal statement is not necessarily sufficient to solely satisfy the credible assurance requirement in the rest of the bill.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

The standard of the law is no proof required.

Nonsense.

The DOJ has written implementation guidance and standards into the FR that have allowed barriers to access to accommodations be to applied in specific circumstances where businesses have previously argued it can't be wide open or shouldn't be for safety reasons.

Of course, the DOJ's written guidance is not the text of the bill or the understanding of the legislature that passed it.

And on top of that, the standard of proof the DoJ interpretations have all basically boiled down to... "I said so"... that's what the DOJ has reiterated time and time again in their interpretation of the ADA laws as passed. "reasonable proof" or "credible assurances"?? These are not policies the DoJ has codified for all public accomodations as acceptable barriers. Where barriers have spelled out, they have only been tactfully defined in very specific scenarios (like PMDs).

Just to be clear ... you're asserting that however the DOJ decides to interpret a law goes, right? So, in two months, when Trump's DOJ leadership comes into office, they can just change any law they want by fiat through new written guidelines, right? Or is it (D)ifferent?

You can't cherry pick language from a specific exception and then apply it broadly. You can make the argument of what SHOULD be based on the earlier interpretation the DoJ had in that specific scenario... but that's simply an opinion, not the law as it stands.

The DOJ's is simply an opinion, too. No more, no less. The only difference is that my opinion is based on the plain reading of the text. And now that Chevron deference got canned, the plain reading of the text is the only thing that matters.

 

[Chi84]

You asked me where in the ADA a reasonable proof standard was enunciated. It's used in almost the entirety of the ADA

I’m still waiting for a single citation to the words, “reasonable proof,” not your belief that it’s the same as other words.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I’m still waiting for a single citation to the words, “reasonable proof,” not your belief that it’s the same as other words.

Is this where you pretend over and over again that you don't understand the simple definitions of commonly used words?

"Hey, the law requires assurances, not proof!!"

"Hey, the law requires the assurances be credible, not reasonable!!"

--------

This whole discussion is bordering on ludicrous ... the conversation ended six months ago, when Disney implemented rules that for 30 years they refused to implement, when they put the new DAS system in place. That's a knockout in this debate. Disney refused to do it. A portion of guests (and legal experts) said they couldn't legally. A portion of guests (and legal experts) said they could. Thirty years later, Disney did it.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

The original FP was much better as it gave those first time visitors a chance to still have short waits. Availability for the original FP was reset everyday unlike FP+ where availability for most major attractions were gone 60 days out.

Agreed….

All standby and original FP were both fair to all visitors.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Agreed….

All standby and original FP were both fair to all visitors.

I'm old enough to remember when we needed to get to the Magic Kingdom shortly after it opened so my mother could go to City Hall and get us reservations for the Diamond Horseshoe Review for that afternoon. Somehow society didn't fall completely into chaos because we didn't have to repeatedly hit refresh on our web browser at midnight six months ahead of our trip.

 

[Chi84]

Is this where you pretend over and over again that you don't understand the simple definitions of commonly used words?

"Hey, the law requires assurances, not proof!!"

"Hey, the law requires the assurances be credible, not reasonable!!"

--------

This whole discussion is bordering on ludicrous ... the conversation ended six months ago, when Disney implemented rules that for 30 years they refused to implement, when they put the new DAS system in place. That's a knockout in this debate. Disney refused to do it. A portion of guests (and legal experts) said they couldn't legally. A portion of guests (and legal experts) said they could. Thirty years later, Disney did it.

I don’t know who you think you’re knocking out lol. I said from the start I don’t believe the ADA requires line -skip accommodations.

It’s not my fault you started to misrepresent what the ADA and the DOJ regulations state and going on about dictionary definitions instead of legal terminology.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I don’t know who you think you’re knocking out lol. I said from the start I don’t believe the ADA requires line -skip accommodations.

This you? ...

One or two people with a disability. There would be many more people these days, as the definition of disability has been greatly expanded.

There are laws involved.

 

[flynnibus]

Of course, the DOJ's written guidance is not the text of the bill or the understanding of the legislature that passed it.

No, but you should be familiar that the law delegated that the DoJ will be responsible for deciding on the actual design standards and they are incorporated into law with their registration into the FR. The ADA law itself was passed without the actual definitions of what physical accessibility would be, etc.. instead focusing on definitions of what was in scope and what would be protected (from a more philosophical level if you want). The ADA text itself is very very on the side of accessibility without burden.. and was fortified even more so when the law was amended after the courts had limited the original's interpretation.

Just to be clear ... you're asserting that however the DOJ decides to interpret a law goes, right? So, in two months, when Trump's DOJ leadership comes into office, they can just change any law they want by fiat through new written guidelines, right? Or is it (D)ifferent?

No, I'm saying the standards the DoJ has codified into the FR act as the law.. which.. includes the PMD topic that was being used as an example. Sometimes they just issue opinions as letters on the topic or supplemental guides which themselves are not part of the registry nor act as the specific standard in force. But in the case of the examples being highlighted, like PMD and ticketing - they are actually part of the regulations entered into the FR.

There is a process of proposals and reviews before they issue new requirements. Would the new DoJ pursue changes? Who knows... but no point in talking about how to dismantle something that hasn't actually happened or isn't imminent.

The DOJ's is simply an opinion, too. No more, no less. The only difference is that my opinion is based on the plain reading of the text. And now that Chevron deference got canned, the plain reading of the text is the only thing that matters.

No. They wrote the implementation standard and guidelines too - which were delegated to them by Congress in the passing of the law.

Now you could try arguing the DoJ's interpretations are in conflict with the enabling law's text... but I'd imagine that's a tough hill to climb. Suing the DoJ to change their regulations won't be cheap. And for those who are pursuing a discrimination case, civil cases don't like trying to redefine the text of law... The more likely situation, is that the guidelines as written do not explicitly cover the scenario in question, and judicial interpretation is required. Which is exactly where the Six Flags case will head eventually. Standards for theme park accessibility in terms of line waits or controlling access to them have not yet been covered in the DoJ standards nor case law really. Only that DAS (as it was previously) was a sufficient accommodation vs the argument the customer wanted front-of-the-line access. They didn't contest any of the registration aspect or "proving" needed. They simply argued that DAS was insufficient of an accommodation for their disability... and the court disagreed with them.

 

[Chi84]

This you? ...

Yep. We were talking about Disney requiring documentation and how the disability laws have expanded.

I agree that ultimately skipping lines at a theme park is not something that would be required by the ADA.

I do agree that line-skip systems are likely not required by the ADA.

I’ve said more than once that line-skip systems likely would not be required as reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The DOJ regulations do not require them and it would not be reasonable to require a business to give away a product it’s selling to everyone.

All of these comments were in direct response to yours but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re seeing them now for the first time

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Standards for theme park accessibility in terms of line waits or controlling access to them have not yet been covered in the DoJ standards nor case law really.

Bingo . And I'd go further and state that if the DOJ tried to mandate that an entity (like Disney) couldn't ask for reasonable evidence of a disability before providing an accommodation, and it was challenged, the courts would step in. Except in very narrow circumstances (motorized scooters, buying theater tickets), the law does not mandate (or even mildly suggest) the honor system.

 

[Chi84]

Bingo . And I'd go further and state that if the DOJ tried to mandate that an entity (like Disney) couldn't ask for reasonable evidence of a disability before providing an accommodation, and it was challenged, the courts would step in. Except in very narrow circumstances (motorized scooters, buying theater tickets), the law does not mandate (or even mildly suggest) the honor system.

I look at it somewhat differently.

The default position of the ADA is that people with disabilities be included and requires barriers to full participation in society removed to the extent possible. The ADA contemplates that this be done without a person having to answer questions about or provide evidence of their disability. This language appears in the Title III.

As you know there’s a ton of case law on reasonable accommodation and the shifting burdens of proof involved.

My take is that Disney feels very safe in adopting the position that almost all disabilities can be accommodated in their queues. By re-working the queues, training CMs and limiting the DAS program as it has, it doesn’t need to get into the position of inquiring into one’s specific disability or asking for documentation. I believe Universal now makes IBCCES optional.

DAS is a Disney program, not something mandated by the ADA. I fully believe Disney intends to keep it but limit it to those with developmental disabilities, etc. But just as in the A.L. case and the Six Flags litigation, it likely will be challenged.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I look at it somewhat differently.

The default position of the ADA is that people with disabilities be included and requires barriers to full participation in society removed to the extent possible. The ADA contemplates that this be done without a person having to answer questions about or provide evidence of their disability. This language appears in the Title III.

Contemplates it? Sure ... in very, very narrow circumstances. The obvious inference being that in the circumstances where it isn't explicitly stated (and narrowly tailored), like motorized scooters, then the ADA does not prohibit a person having to answer questions or provide evidence of their disability.

 

[Chi84]

Contemplates it? Sure ... in very, very narrow circumstances. The obvious inference being that in the circumstances where it isn't explicitly stated (and narrowly tailored), like motorized scooters, then the ADA does not prohibit a person having to answer questions or provide evidence of their disability.

Do you think the ADA envisions people with disabilities having to disclose and prove them to get accommodations? I’ll try to find some cases but I still think we should take this to PMs.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Do you think the ADA envisions people with disabilities having to disclose and prove them to get accommodations?

Of course. Now in many instances, the disability will be obvious (which doesn't really requiring disclosure or demonstration/documentation), but the person entity/person expected to make the accommodation should be reasonably certain the disability before accommodating it.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

All of these comments were in direct response to yours but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re seeing them now for the first time

I saw them. But the portions I quoted were prior to these statements and were clearly you suggesting Disney was powerless (under the law) from preventing people from skipping attraction lines and could not require any evidence of disability.

-----------

ME: "It was much better before. It was fundamentally fair. You got on line ... depending on how long the line was, you could reasonably judge how long it was going to take for you to get to the front of the line ... the line was constantly in motion ... you didnt have to pay extra to ride an attraction ... and nobody got to skip in front of you in line (and if they did, it was one or two people with a disability who were basically hidden because they came in through the exit)."

YOU: "One or two people with a disability. There would be many more people these days, as the definition of disability has been greatly expanded."

ME: "That's on Disney. They don't have to let everyone skip the line on the honor system; they choose to."

YOU: "There are laws involved."

 

[Chi84]

I saw them. But the portions I quoted were prior to these statements and were clearly you suggesting Disney was powerless (under the law) from preventing people from skipping attraction lines and could not require any evidence of disability.

-----------

ME: "It was much better before. It was fundamentally fair. You got on line ... depending on how long the line was, you could reasonably judge how long it was going to take for you to get to the front of the line ... the line was constantly in motion ... you didnt have to pay extra to ride an attraction ... and nobody got to skip in front of you in line (and if they did, it was one or two people with a disability who were basically hidden because they came in through the exit)."

YOU: "One or two people with a disability. There would be many more people these days, as the definition of disability has been greatly expanded."

ME: "That's on Disney. They don't have to let everyone skip the line on the honor system; they choose to."

YOU: "There are laws involved."

Right, but If a line-skip system is not required at all, the documentation requirement never comes into play.

If the ADA does require a particular accommodation(such as the allowance of service animals or accessible seating, hearing aids, etc.), the general rule is that people with disabilities are not required to prove they’re entitled to it.

This has nothing to do with price increases and profits. But some of what you’re saying is just not supported by either the wording of the ADA or the case law interpreting it. @flynnibus has pointed this out in detail along with the other errors in what you’re saying.

If you insist on continuing, I’m still waiting for a cite to the ADA’s use of “reasonable proof.” If dictionary definitions are all that matters, what’s the point of going to law school?

 

[Lilofan]

As the video says FP+ worked great for those who went often and new how to play the game.

The original FP was much better as it gave those first time visitors a chance to still have short waits. Availability for the original FP was reset everyday unlike FP+ where availability for most major attractions were gone 60 days out.

FP in 2008 was the early bird gets the worm. At rope drop run full speed or NYC pace speed walk to Tower / Coaster then go to Toy Story Midway Mania to snag the 3 FP. When Toy Story first opened some fellow guests were selling to willing buyers FP to TS for $10 each in front of the FP machine at TS in the afternoon.