Universal Studios new disability pass

[Chi84]

So first, you’re not going to get the numbers. They’re never going to post this. This is one of those things where, I know it sucks and is anecdotal, but is widely known among operations and guest services Orlando park employees. The sheer number of people who obtain cards and also the number that obtain them over false pretenses is so well known among employees (that work with this) that the fact that you are combatting it makes me assume that you know nobody involved in the Orlando theme park employment scene.

Also as to who is faking it and who isn’t, requiring medical documentation is a good way to start, as those who legitimately have an issue will also have documentation while those who just knew the right thing to tell Guest Services may not. Yes you can still get your doctor to give you a note saying you have (issue), but that’s significantly more steps to scam the system beyond just saying the “right” thing at Guest Services to get the pass.


I can see why this is upsetting, but also Six Flags parks do not see the widespread use and abuse of the cards that the Orlando parks do. Their clientele being mostly teenagers and locals who aren’t putting any thought or planning into their day visit makes a big difference, compared to the Orlando parks where people are saving up for potentially a once in a lifetime visit and researching every possible way to maximize their time. Which inevitably leads to discovering “tips” online saying “tell guest services you can’t wait in long lines because you have anxiety and you get a pass that allows you to increase how much you can ride in a day.”

I’m not combating anything. I just asked questions. Nor am I disputing the documentation requirement.

It’s an unfortunate fact that some people will abuse systems designed to aid persons with disabilities. I’m just not sure how one can accurately assess the number of real versus fake claims.

I do understand that some people can be pretty transparent about gaming the system. It’s awful that people are so selfish. In the end, I think Disney may also change its system if DAS is being as heavily used as is being reported, even if the users meet certain requirements.

It’s been my experience that laws rarely protect or help people to the extent some believe.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Some more numbers to consider for context.

The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and the 2020 Florida Building Code - Accessibility define the minimum number of accessible parking spaces and hotel rooms with mobility access features. These are accommodations more specifically focused on persons with mobility issues, but not exclusively those utilizing a wheelchair, and who would ostensibly be able to utilize a queue designed to these same accessibility codes. In both cases there is not a set percentage but a graduated minimum where the overall percentage does decrease as the total increases.

Table 208.2 in both standards defines the minimum number of accessible parking spaces. At 500 - 1,000 parking space a straight 2% of the spaces must be accessible at 1,000+ space the formula switches to 2% of the first 1,000 spaces and 1% of the remaining spaces.

Table 224.2 in both standards defines the minimum number of hotel rooms. In this case, between the two categories of rooms (accessible shower-tub and roll-in shower) at 500 - 1,000 rooms you need 3% to have mobility features. The Florida Building Code - Accessibility also requires 5% of rooms to be what are known as Florida Special Rooms which are a sort of semi-accessible room that includes some mobility features.

In both cases the overall percentage of accessible spaces/rooms decreased as the overall number increases. If we split the different between the 2% and 3% required of spaces and rooms (2.5%), then we’re looking at only at most about 10% of those with disabilities having one related to mobility. So 10% of people with a disability have mobility impairments but 20% of people with a disability are not seeking an accommodation. I have not really interrogated the CDC’s data to see what other disabilities might not qualify for a queue accommodation, but we do know that pure mobility issues are the big category of disabilities that often do not qualify.

 

[thelookingglass]

The issue really isn't "which disabilities deserve the pass and which ones don't". It's that a staggering number of guests will go into Guest Relations/Guest Services, say they can't wait in line, and will just keep saying things and adding to their disabilities until they either say the right thing or the employee just gives up and gives them the disability pass so they leave.

Again, like said by other posters, you're never going to see the numbers on this, and unfortunately any individual employee to publicly state proof of these claims would lose their job. But, if you know, or know someone who has had to issue the cards... it's staggering. The majority of cards they hand out are people clearly just wanting to skip lines and not actually wanting or needing accommodation.

Then when you account for the disability card holders being a very significant portion of all riders, it negatively impacts everyone because everyone has to wait longer, including the people who actually need the passes. And, most importantly, it cuts into revenue from Express Pass and Genie+.

So, in my opinion, yes - please require some form of documentation.

 

[jaklgreen]

The issue really isn't "which disabilities deserve the pass and which ones don't". It's that a staggering number of guests will go into Guest Relations/Guest Services, say they can't wait in line, and will just keep saying things and adding to their disabilities until they either say the right thing or the employee just gives up and gives them the disability pass so they leave.

Again, like said by other posters, you're never going to see the numbers on this, and unfortunately any individual employee to publicly state proof of these claims would lose their job. But, if you know, or know someone who has had to issue the cards... it's staggering. The majority of cards they hand out are people clearly just wanting to skip lines and not actually wanting or needing accommodation.

Then when you account for the disability card holders being a very significant portion of all riders, it negatively impacts everyone because everyone has to wait longer, including the people who actually need the passes. And, most importantly, it cuts into revenue from Express Pass and Genie+.

So, in my opinion, yes - please require some form of documentation.

It is better to have those who don't need it get it, then to have those that do need it, not get it.

 

[Chi84]

It is better to have those who don't need it get it, then to have those that do need it, not get it.

Has anyone presented documentation and been denied? That’s an actual question for the people here who have used Universal’s system. I don’t mean it as a comment.

 

[jaklgreen]

Has anyone presented documentation and been denied? That’s an actual question for the people here who have used Universal’s system. I don’t mean it as a comment.

I have seen a couple people say that they were denied, mostly for bathroom issues. Clearly the employees don't understand that it is not as simple as just leave the line and come back.

 

[Chi84]

I have seen a couple people say that they were denied, mostly for bathroom issues. Clearly the employees don't understand that it is not as simple as just leave the line and come back.

Of course it’s not. But it’s unrealistic to leave it totally up to each individual as to who needs what type of accommodation. There would be no standard.

Currently, if someone is requesting accommodation in excess of what is explicitly required by the ADA, nothing in the law prevents a business or employer from asking for documentation of the medical need and what accommodation would be appropriate.

What may happen is that someone who gets documentation of a medical condition that prevents them from standing in line will be denied the accommodation by one of the parks and will challenge it under the ADA.

It’s not a perfect solution, but the law also considers whether a business can reasonably accommodate the request. The inquiry doesn’t end with whether a person needs the accommodation.

 

[JT3000]

"It's okay that thousands of people in each Orlando park daily are scamming the system as long as we don't ever so slightly inconvenience the ones who do need it."

Nah. If they need it, they can show proof that they need it.

I find it fascinating that you're so much more interested in punishing the scammers than making things easier for those whom the passes were designed for. Did they pee in your Cheerios or something? Because this seems personal.

 

[Chi84]

Please don't start going down the road of insults and personal attacks. There are valid arguments for both the position that documentation is necessary as well as the position that it imposes an additional burden on people dealing with a disability.

 

[mkt]

Has anyone presented documentation and been denied? That’s an actual question for the people here who have used Universal’s system. I don’t mean it as a comment.

I presented documentation, and the medical professionals who work with IBCCES viewed it as valid and stated I can't wait more than 10 minutes in a line and need frequent restroom access due to my disability.

When I presented my card and case number at Universal, they gave me a gold accessibility card. The annoying thing is that I have to do this every two weeks, vs every 60 days for Disney.

 

[JT3000]

Sorry, but this is a case where everyone who actually deals with it in the parks knows that the scamming is a massive problem (they literally would not be implementing a system like this if it wasn't!) and something had to be done

vs.

You guys, a bunch of armchair speculators trying to play white knight who are are just making assumptions that it can't be that bad because "I, a person who isn't involved in any way, don't see it."

Considering the only people who "actually deal with it in the parks" are fellow guests (the team members are just doing their jobs they get paid to do), particularly the ones using passes for valid reasons, it's very bold of you to assume that none of us have been "involved" or directly impacted by scammers. Just because I don't think it's worth it to inconvenience the very people that the system was designed to help in the first place just to stick it to the scammers doesn't mean I'm an "armchair speculator" unaware of the problem. If anyone is going to be affected, it's myself. I just have my priorities straight. You do not.

 

[Chi84]

Considering the only people who "actually deal with it in the parks" are fellow guests (the team members are just doing their jobs they get paid to do), particularly the ones using passes for valid reasons, it's very bold of you to assume that none of us have been "involved" or directly impacted by scammers. Just because I don't think it's worth it to inconvenience the very people that the system was designed to help in the first place just to stick it to the scammers doesn't mean I'm an "armchair speculator" unaware of the problem. If anyone is going to be affected, it's myself. I just have my priorities straight. You do not.

I agree that persons with disabilities should not be unduly burdened in order to stop scammers, but at some level the abuse has to be acknowledged and dealt with. It can't just be ignored.

Take a look at one case challenging Disney's change from GAC to DAS. It's A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 469 F. Supp. 3d 1280 at pp. 1292 to 1297. It details the evidence of abuse that led Disney to make this change to the current system, which no longer provides front of the line access. The ADA balances the need for disability accommodations with the reasonableness of the requested accommodation; the law therefore considers possible abuse and its impact on the business.

The problem is that if abuse is allowed to run rampant to the extent that it happened with the GAC, the system will change and the change may not be in favor of accommodation. It is in everyone's interest to support reasonable efforts to curb abuse. There will always be disagreement on the issue of what is or is not reasonable under the circumstances.

 

[jaklgreen]

If it's that bad then surely it must be impacting many aspects of your life besides theme park lines? But I guess all those other things aren't important enough to try and get accommodations for, only fun things.

Like, you have to draw the line somewhere. If someone gets a panic attack in large crowds but then attends an arena concert, we don't expect the concert venue to make accommodations for them. We don't sue the theme parks because wheelchair bound guests who can't transfer can't ride the roller coasters. Instead, we understand that the roller coasters are not meant for literally everyone.

And they're still providing accommodations anyway. They're only asking you to upload some PDF document, once a year. People are supposed to be seeing their PCP at least once a year, after all.

But no, clearly this is oppression and illegal and you guys figured out legal issues that NBCUniversal's legal team somehow missed.

Are you joking? Of course it impacts my whole life but there is NOTHING that can be done about it. I only work part time now at a job where I can have access to a restroom quickly. I can no longer do road trips and I have to make sure that the places that I do go have free public access toilets. It very much affects my day to day life. Why are you so rude?

 

[Autumn]

It seems sad that some people are insensitive to people that have daily challenges. Needing to have frequent restroom breaks is a challenge that will impact a person's life.

 

[Autumn]

I would also think that if an adult finds that a ride or attraction is not appropriate for them then they can make an adult decision not to go on it. Universal does have signs outside each ride and attraction posting warnings for anyone with any challenge. There are still many rides and attractions at Universal and having to wait on a long line for those rides and attractions can make it very difficult for many people.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Considering the only people who "actually deal with it in the parks" are fellow guests (the team members are just doing their jobs they get paid to do), particularly the ones using passes for valid reasons, it's very bold of you to assume that none of us have been "involved" or directly impacted by scammers. Just because I don't think it's worth it to inconvenience the very people that the system was designed to help in the first place just to stick it to the scammers doesn't mean I'm an "armchair speculator" unaware of the problem. If anyone is going to be affected, it's myself. I just have my priorities straight. You do not.

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 find it fascinating that you're so much more interested in punishing the scammers than making things easier for those whom the passes were designed for. Did they pee in your Cheerios or something? Because this seems personal.

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.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I presented documentation, and the medical professionals who work with IBCCES viewed it as valid and stated I can't wait more than 10 minutes in a line and need frequent restroom access due to my disability.

When I presented my card and case number at Universal, they gave me a gold accessibility card. The annoying thing is that I have to do this every two weeks, vs every 60 days for Disney.

This sounds pretty painless. The gold pass literally gets you escorted onto attractions. Having to make a brief stop at Guest Services isn't asking much considering the level of accommodation they are providing you.

 

[flynnibus]

Of course it’s not. But it’s unrealistic to leave it totally up to each individual as to who needs what type of accommodation. There would be no standard.

Currently, if someone is requesting accommodation in excess of what is explicitly required by the ADA, nothing in the law prevents a business or employer from asking for documentation of the medical need and what accommodation would be appropriate.

This is a loaded statement. In the vast majority of cases 'in excess of what is explicitly required by the ADA' is a non-sensical statement. The ADA Act does not get into what accommodations are required/acceptable and only marginally defines the burden that would exclude things. For accommodations accessible design standards have really been codified through their inclusion. And that is about standards for physical spaces - it doesn't define what is the maximum, etc.. it defines what is the minimum accessibility standards.

The interpretation of "reasonable accommodation" is more about case law and DOJ guidance. This is why it's so difficult for businesses to really take a defendable stand in any of this. You have a law INTENTIONALLY written and expanded to be more inclusive, and a measuring bar intentionally left missing.

The law doesn't leave it to individuals to define their accommodation -- which is why the acceptable form of interaction is to ask about the limitation the person faces and offer your own version of accommodation.

And you say 'nothing in the law prevents a business or employer from asking for documentation...'. 1) Don't mix business and employer, different Acts with different rules. 2) For a business, the law doesn't forbid it verbatim but people don't do it because it only sets you up for a bigger fall. Because if you deny a person with a legitimate need, you are liable regardless. The patron has no burden of proof and no obligation to provide evidence of the need. So if you enforce a policy that requires documentation, and in turn deny accommodations because of your policy, a person who was legitimately denied would have a case against you. And if you have an accommodation you offer, but deny the individual, you really have no argument that the accommodation is not reasonable if you already offer it to others. This is why interrogation is not the prevailing procedure -- It sets you up for failure.

 

[mkt]

This sounds pretty painless. The gold pass literally gets you escorted onto attractions. Having to make a brief stop at Guest Services isn't asking much considering the level of accommodation they are providing you.

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

 

[Chi84]

This is a loaded statement. In the vast majority of cases 'in excess of what is explicitly required by the ADA' is a non-sensical statement. The ADA Act does not get into what accommodations are required/acceptable and only marginally defines the burden that would exclude things. For accommodations accessible design standards have really been codified through their inclusion. And that is about standards for physical spaces - it doesn't define what is the maximum, etc.. it defines what is the minimum accessibility standards.

The interpretation of "reasonable accommodation" is more about case law and DOJ guidance. This is why it's so difficult for businesses to really take a defendable stand in any of this. You have a law INTENTIONALLY written and expanded to be more inclusive, and a measuring bar intentionally left missing.

The law doesn't leave it to individuals to define their accommodation -- which is why the acceptable form of interaction is to ask about the limitation the person faces and offer your own version of accommodation.

And you say 'nothing in the law prevents a business or employer from asking for documentation...'. 1) Don't mix business and employer, different Acts with different rules. 2) For a business, the law doesn't forbid it verbatim but people don't do it because it only sets you up for a bigger fall. Because if you deny a person with a legitimate need, you are liable regardless. The patron has no burden of proof and no obligation to provide evidence of the need. So if you enforce a policy that requires documentation, and in turn deny accommodations because of your policy, a person who was legitimately denied would have a case against you. And if you have an accommodation you offer, but deny the individual, you really have no argument that the accommodation is not reasonable if you already offer it to others. This is why interrogation is not the prevailing procedure -- It sets you up for failure.

The ADA doesn't cover both employers and businesses?

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 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. Take 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.