Universal Studios new disability pass

[JT3000]

Do you really think the average guest has a better idea of the frequency of how many disability cards are in use on a given day vs. the employees who distribute them/scan them/fill them out?



I'm sorry, but I do believe you are not informed of the extent of the abuse of these disability passes.

Believe me, I WISH there was data posted online I can direct you to, but there never will be.

Of course the employees have a better idea of how many passes are distributed, but that's irrelevant to what I said, which is that the employees are not "dealing with it," they are merely doing their jobs. The people actually impacted by scammers are their fellow guests who have to wait longer because of them.

I don't need the actual numbers, I am informed well enough of the system's abuse to form an opinion, as I see it with my own eyes. More so than "the average guest."

 

[flynnibus]

The ADA doesn't cover both employers and businesses?

It does - with very different rules between them. I said act because the law in split up into separate sections which going from memory was Acts.... but since I was multi-tasking I could be wrong. Lets look.. sorry, titles is the correct term Title I is Employment, Title III is public accommodation.

Point being... don't move between employment and public interchangeably. The employer actually has a lot more validation authority under the ADA. Of course labor has other federal laws too.. but let's not go there

As for your last paragraph, businesses are obviously asking for documentation when patrons are asking for accommodation other than what is explicitly stated in the ADA. That is why this thread exists.

I know they are and you'll find my response to that earlier in the thread. The fact they are doing it doesn't change what I said... nor the liability they are facing. This model hasn't been proven in court yet. It's going to take someone explictly being the guneia pig of either being rejected and denied accommodations or refusing to go through the process and being denied accommodations... the former being the better case.

I think you may be ignoring the effect of shifting burdens of proof under the ADA; I don't know what you mean when you say patrons have no burden of proof and no obligation to provide evidence of the need

It means exactly that - the language and interpretation of Title III has been that patrons do not need to prove a disability or need - it is seen as discriminatory and limiting people's access to the right they have under the law. The only need to prove the legitimacy of the disability is in the courts - not at the public accommodation.

ITake a look at the cased I cited a couple of posts above and the Galvin decision that is cited within, especially in regards to what "fundamental alteration" means.

Determining if an accommodation is reasonable under the law is separate from the issue of eligibility/entitement. Im sorry but the references above are proving challenging to follow through to the actual concluding case and not actions before, etc. But AFAIK the previous WDW DAS cases were all about determining if the accommodation provided and requested were reasonable -- not about any requirement for documentation (because Disney's never required that either...)

 

[Chi84]

It does - with very different rules between them. I said act because the law in split up into separate sections which going from memory was Acts.... but since I was multi-tasking I could be wrong. Lets look.. sorry, titles is the correct term Title I is Employment, Title III is public accommodation.

Point being... don't move between employment and public interchangeably. The employer actually has a lot more validation authority under the ADA. Of course labor has other federal laws too.. but let's not go there



I know they are and you'll find my response to that earlier in the thread. The fact they are doing it doesn't change what I said... nor the liability they are facing. This model hasn't been proven in court yet. It's going to take someone explictly being the guneia pig of either being rejected and denied accommodations or refusing to go through the process and being denied accommodations... the former being the better case.



It means exactly that - the language and interpretation of Title III has been that patrons do not need to prove a disability or need - it is seen as discriminatory and limiting people's access to the right they have under the law. The only need to prove the legitimacy of the disability is in the courts - not at the public accommodation.



Determining if an accommodation is reasonable under the law is separate from the issue of eligibility/entitement. Im sorry but the references above are proving challenging to follow through to the actual concluding case and not actions before, etc. But AFAIK the previous WDW DAS cases were all about determining if the accommodation provided and requested were reasonable -- not about any requirement for documentation (because Disney's never required that either...)

There are a lot of moving parts under the ADA.

I would caution strongly against assuming that issues that have not yet been decided under the ADA will be decided in favor of the persons claiming its protections.

I believe they should be, but I have severe doubts on that score. The sections of the Act prohibiting businesses from asking for verification of a person’s disability even where explicitly covered by the Act (such as service animals) have come under fire recently because of widespread abuse.

It’s a mistake to believe that laws cannot be repealed or amended if they are being abused. That’s why I say there should be a special place in hell for people who fake the need for disability accommodations.

This thread is not about Disney’s system, but if so many people start getting DAS that it significantly impacts Disney’s ability to “sell” the rides to its other guests, I think they will go the way of Universal. And the Galvin case has an interesting take on that scenario. At the very least, abuse may lead to further limits on DAS.

 

[flynnibus]

There are a lot of moving parts under the ADA.

I would caution strongly against assuming that issues that have not yet been decided under the ADA will be decided in favor of the persons claiming its protections.

The stance I'm taking is long standing, along with guidance from the DOJ. Sure, new cases could result in new judgements, but I'm not trying to project the future. What I said was just because these entities haven't been challenged doesn't make them right, it will take someone with standing and motivation to fight.

I believe they should be, but I have severe doubts on that score. The sections of the Act prohibiting businesses from asking for verification of a person’s disability even where explicitly covered by the Act (such as service animals) have come under fire recently because of widespread abuse.

It’s a mistake to believe that laws cannot be repealed or amended if they are being abused.

Sure, but until they are repealed or changed - the law is as it was.

Fundamentally the portion that will be the most defendable is someone being denied when they had a legitimate need. Not 'what accommodation' but being denied the accommodation they would otherwise be entitled to because of this referral system.

My guess is they are super lenient to avoid that issue and then just through fear they get the kind of abuse reduction they want. If someone goes and can't complete this 'registration process' onsite without prior planning.. I bet they find ways to bend the rules for them. Because there is too much at risk to not.

 

[Chi84]

The stance I'm taking is long standing, along with guidance from the DOJ. Sure, new cases could result in new judgements, but I'm not trying to project the future. What I said was just because these entities haven't been challenged doesn't make them right, it will take someone with standing and motivation to fight.



Sure, but until they are repealed or changed - the law is as it was.

Fundamentally the portion that will be the most defendable is someone being denied when they had a legitimate need. Not 'what accommodation' but being denied the accommodation they would otherwise be entitled to because of this referral system.

My guess is they are super lenient to avoid that issue and then just through fear they get the kind of abuse reduction they want. If someone goes and can't complete this 'registration process' onsite without prior planning.. I bet they find ways to bend the rules for them. Because there is too much at risk to not.

I understand your position, but I don’t believe the issue of businesses requiring the type of verification they’re asking for (need for accommodation and what accommodation would be necessary) has been covered at all in the context being raised here. I don’t see any long-standing guidance from the DOJ or any cases on this particular issue.

The only cases I have seen are not exactly on point, but go against the request for accommodation. I’m not arguing the correctness of the decisions, just noting their existence.

What we see in the case law is that requests for disability accommodation not specifically covered in the Act (as are wheelchair ramps to certain buildings or service dog assistance) are generally very fact-specific to the patron and the business.

It’s really difficult to go into more detail because the internet is not conducive to legal analyses. The cases cited provide some insight. I can try to find more in the way of support but I don’t know how much exists.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The people actually impacted by scammers are their fellow guests who have to wait longer because of them.

Genie+ has made some of the FP lines so long even with a DAS it can be a real challenge. There’s been a few times we’ve walked to the “DAS”/G+/ILL line and it was so long we didn’t even bother because we knew the wait would be too much to handle.

On some rides there’s work arounds like asking to go in the wheelchair entrance but then we’re using the system in a way thats not necessary for my GFs disability (or shouldn’t be if the normal DAS line wasn’t 45 minutes long) and we are essentially abusing the system and making it worse for those that genuinely need that entrance.

G+ has negatively impacted DAS more than all the people scamming the system combined.

 

[flynnibus]

I understand your position, but I don’t believe the issue of businesses requiring the type of verification they’re asking for (need for accommodation and what accommodation would be necessary) has been covered at all in the context being raised here. I don’t see any long-standing guidance from the DOJ or any cases on this particular issue.

Right from the DOJ's Technical Assistance Manual - https://www.ada.gov/resources/title-iii-manual/

III-4.1100 General.
A public accommodation may not impose eligibility criteria that either screen out or tend to screen out persons with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered to individuals without disabilities, unless it can show that such requirements are necessary for the provision of the goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.

The only defense for these kinds of screening programs is the last line where they try to argue that it's necessary to provide the accommodation. And the argument against them is that the system tends to screen and discriminate even if unintentionally.

Places that normally provide services adhoc without prep are in a far worse situation... or accommodations that really don't require any burden on the business. Because they have a harder time justifying that the registration or screening is necessary to provide the accommodation.

This is where a business like UNI would try to argue qualifying people is necessary to maintain the accommodation.. but have a harder time doing so when the system flows right along with something they already do, or doesn't put unnecessary burden on them.

The standard is high that the process is necessary because the default posture of the law is the disabled should not face any additional burden to achieve equal participation.

But it's a standard that must be argued in court - because even the DOJ's guidance is constantly refined as more and more concrete examples are flushed out over the years. Examples today include standardized testing, ticket sales, etc. Areas that the DOJ has now written into specific guidance, but even the 'requirements' are open to interpretation because they are more principals than they are absolute quantities. But the guiding rule is the disabled shouldn't face additional burdens. So for instance requesting testing accommodations should be evaluated in the same time frame needed to register for the tests.

The theme parks accomodate guests who walk up and buy tickets without any reservations. They should be able to do the same with someone who needs an accommodation.

 

[Chi84]

Right from the DOJ's Technical Assistance Manual - https://www.ada.gov/resources/title-iii-manual/


The only defense for these kinds of screening programs is the last line where they try to argue that it's necessary to provide the accommodation. And the argument against them is that the system tends to screen and discriminate even if unintentionally.

Places that normally provide services adhoc without prep are in a far worse situation... or accommodations that really don't require any burden on the business. Because they have a harder time justifying that the registration or screening is necessary to provide the accommodation.

This is where a business like UNI would try to argue qualifying people is necessary to maintain the accommodation.. but have a harder time doing so when the system flows right along with something they already do, or doesn't put unnecessary burden on them.

The standard is high that the process is necessary because the default posture of the law is the disabled should not face any additional burden to achieve equal participation.

But it's a standard that must be argued in court - because even the DOJ's guidance is constantly refined as more and more concrete examples are flushed out over the years. Examples today include standardized testing, ticket sales, etc. Areas that the DOJ has now written into specific guidance, but even the 'requirements' are open to interpretation because they are more principals than they are absolute quantities. But the guiding rule is the disabled shouldn't face additional burdens. So for instance requesting testing accommodations should be evaluated in the same time frame needed to register for the tests.

The theme parks accomodate guests who walk up and buy tickets without any reservations. They should be able to do the same with someone who needs an accommodation.

You're correct in saying that the ADA covers verification in the context of businesses. I should have said that it hasn't been challenged in this context.

My concern is that the element of prohibiting verification can actually be used by a business to argue that it leads to abuse or excessive use of a requested accommodation, which fundamentally alters the nature of the business to the point where the accommodation is not sustainable. If you haven't done so yet, please take the time to read A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc, 469 F.Supp.3d 1280. Also the cases cited within it.

Reading guidelines alone will not give you an understanding of how the terms and provisions have been interpreted and applied in actual court cases. It's a long case, but very worth the time in understanding what type of protection the ADA contemplates, the burdens of proof involved and what type of actions can be brought under it.

Right now Universal is charging a pretty good deal of money for its express pass. That along with giving it free only to people in the deluxe resorts acts as a limit on how many people are using the system and therefore ensures the type of front of the line access they are advertising. They could argue that this is their business model and abuse or overuse of the system (a question of fact) constitutes a fundamental alteration to their business.

This is an area of the ADA where caselaw is just now developing. You can look at the DOJ guidelines, which are entitled to deference, but court decisions are going to be the determining factor in how the ADA is applied.

 

[Tom Morrow]

It wasn't brief. The line at guest services took over half an hour.

I see. Well that is something that could be improved in this process then.

 

[sedati]

Can anyone park in a handicap spot if they deem it necessary?

 

[Autumn]

I see. Well that is something that could be improved in this process then.

Having an adult child with autism we use a wheelchair for him to keep him from bolting into a crowd. We like to include him on our family vacations and he really enjoys Disney and Universal. Waiting on a line is VERY challenging for us and I always need to keep an eye on him at all times. Universal is asking us to send a picture of him as well as a copy from his doctor that states his needs. Stating his needs is one thing but I am uncomfortable sending a picture of him as well. I know there are some mean spirited people out there that abuse the system. Those are the people that make it difficult for our family that really need accommodations to keep my son safe as well as other guests as well.

 

[BaconPancakes]

This is great news, I hope Disney promptly follows suit.

 

[mkt]

Can anyone park in a handicap spot if they deem it necessary?

No.

But there is a process to get a permit, which isn't that hard.

Don't ask me how I know.

 

[Touchdown]

Glad they are cracking down, in June the express employees seem befuddled and had to grab their scanner in surprise when I went through. It was clear a majority of people going through had disability just like DL back in the day.

 

[Confidential]

Of course the employees have a better idea of how many passes are distributed, but that's irrelevant to what I said, which is that the employees are not "dealing with it," they are merely doing their jobs. The people actually impacted by scammers are their fellow guests who have to wait longer because of them.

I don't need the actual numbers, I am informed well enough of the system's abuse to form an opinion, as I see it with my own eyes. More so than "the average guest."

 

[Confidential]

Scammers and so on, however, to want a photo of a child and their iep. No! No. Universal makes money by paying for you to skip the line on their express pass as you wait online, they should stop that. If you just bring a medical document that should be fine not to ask for your child photo and medical info in a computer system that can be compromised. I say no!!! I don't care who is scamming for a park ride, minors with disabilities and families should not be subjected to that. It is funny how people think that you still can't be scammed this way as well. Some disabilities are not visual, so stop all the people scamming. Whatever, my child photo and iep won't make that list, peroid. We just got to get online and rely on staff to help. if their is a problem or someone faints or get sick while online, that federal disability act will kick right in, Universal is waiting for a soon to be lawsuit. Give a photo of your disable child, really!

 

[Confidential]

No.

But there is a process to get a permit, which isn't that hard.

Don't ask me how I know.

I see your point, but they are not asking for your child photo or iep in some bogus system. Last, all you have to show is your medical document and no photo to get a Handicap parking permit for a child that can't drive. Dmv or county looks at the document and returns it. Children should not have to have their photo in the system.

 

[mkt]

Children should not have to have their photo in the system.

They do if they have a passport or if they had a driver's license before the age of 18.

 

[fosse76]

Right from the DOJ's Technical Assistance Manual - https://www.ada.gov/resources/title-iii-manual/

Which also has this:

"ILLUSTRATION: ABC theater offers reduced rate tickets for individuals with disabilities and requires appropriate documentation for eligibility for the reduced rates. ABC cannot require an individual who qualifies for the reduced rate to present documentation or accept the reduced rate, if he or she chooses to pay the full price."

This is an example the linked manual uses to describe participation in regular programs offered by a business entity (a theater in this example). It implies that the theater can require documentation for reduced tickets, but cannot require documentation if buying a full price ticket.

This example implies any other business could equally require documentation in order to provide an accommodation. The ADA is about participation and access. Lengthy wait times is not considered denial of access, even if there is a condition for which one cannot wait beyond a certain length of time. If there is a way for someone to physically get to the ride, then that is compliant with the (current) law. There is no right to "not" have to wait in a line. Let's say someone in a wheelchair is unable to maneuver through the queue, and is directed to the exit instead. There is nothing that would prevent the park from requiring the wheelchair user from having to wait the same length of time as the posted wait time (in fact, Six Flags had a policy that if there were more members of the party than the pass allowed, then the excess party should work its way through the queue and then everyone board together). Of course, that's not really practical, but I digress. Another example, many places only have one or two "single-occupancy" restrooms. There is nothing that requires these businesses to make the non-disabled patrons wait if someone in a wheelchair (or other disability) shows up. Not to say the business won't ask the non-disabled people to wait, I'm just saying it's not required.

 

[flynnibus]

Which also has this:

"ILLUSTRATION: ABC theater offers reduced rate tickets for individuals with disabilities and requires appropriate documentation for eligibility for the reduced rates. ABC cannot require an individual who qualifies for the reduced rate to present documentation or accept the reduced rate, if he or she chooses to pay the full price."

This is an example the linked manual uses to describe participation in regular programs offered by a business entity (a theater in this example). It implies that the theater can require documentation for reduced tickets, but cannot require documentation if buying a full price ticket.

This example implies any other business could equally require documentation in order to provide an accommodation. The ADA is about participation and access. Lengthy wait times is not considered denial of access, even if there is a condition for which one cannot wait beyond a certain length of time. If there is a way for someone to physically get to the ride, then that is compliant with the (current) law. There is no right to "not" have to wait in a line. Let's say someone in a wheelchair is unable to maneuver through the queue, and is directed to the exit instead. There is nothing that would prevent the park from requiring the wheelchair user from having to wait the same length of time as the posted wait time (in fact, Six Flags had a policy that if there were more members of the party than the pass allowed, then the excess party should work its way through the queue and then everyone board together). Of course, that's not really practical, but I digress. Another example, many places only have one or two "single-occupancy" restrooms. There is nothing that requires these businesses to make the non-disabled patrons wait if someone in a wheelchair (or other disability) shows up. Not to say the business won't ask the non-disabled people to wait, I'm just saying it's not required.

You are mixing and matching and using things out of context.

The theatre example was to illustrate that you can’t force a disabled person to take an alt program… even under the guise of discounts. Not an elaboration on documentation.

Its from the section on right to participate and the lead-in is “Individuals with disabilities may not be required to accept special "benefits" if they choose not to do so.”

Restrooms are a finite scenario because the design standards have already explicitly defined what reasonable accommodation is and what the venue must do.

The discussion on waits is not relevant to the discussion quoted.