Six Flags changing their version of DAS is Disney next?

[bookwormde]

Sue,

The examples you give are all governmental services or authorizations, which where "approved" within very narrow guidelines and mostly involve waiver of fees. I have never seen any such exemptions under Title III.

The point is that if they are going to go outside the title III guidelines and practices for their fast past usage for ADA accommodation they must have accommodations that stay within title III in its place (that do not require documentation as a general practice).

Universal has had 2 levels of their version of the Guest Assistance Card for many years.
One level is more like DAS and does not require any documentation.
The other level is access thru their version of the Fastpass line (Express Pass). This is a service other guests would need to pay for and does require documentation of disability by a physician.
For many years, Sea World has had availability of a discount for guests with qualifying disabilities who provide documentation of disability from their physician.

Good to hear that they do have the "base" level of accommodations, anyone have any information on it?

 

[aaarcher86]

Good to hear that they do have the "base" level of accommodations, anyone have any information on it?

Lots of info available with a quick Google.

http://orlandoinformer.com/page/art...ets-packages-planning/guest-assistance-passes

 

[CoriM48]

We live right by a Six Flags and my son is obsessed with it. We go a couple times a month during its operating season (we're in Chicago, so it's only open April-November). Every time we go, we have to get a new GAC. Currently, the way it works is anyone can walk in and get a GAC (we there is always a huge line of people waiting to do just that). High school field trip days are shocking with the amount of kids that get them. Anyway, the way it currently works is that you get a pre-set stamped time on your pass (example: 45 minutes) depending on how busy the park is, and every 45 minutes you can pick whatever ride you want to enter and ride immediately. They are very strict on the 4 riders rule (they make us, a family of 5, do rider swap to get all our kids on).

So now it seems they are making people go to the rides and get the times, similar to Disney, and then return at the posted wait time. I'm pretty surprised about the doctor's note, but as someone who would have no problem getting one and has had to have my child melt down in a line 45 minutes long just to get a pass, the selfish part of me is glad, even though I can't see it standing up to a challenge.

Interesting, we were taken into a special room our first time getting a GAC, and we were given a special GAC that said "preauthorized." It does not require us to wait the allotted time between rides and can be used at any time. I assume we were given this (we didn't ask about it and had no idea it existed) because it was clear that my melting down son was....I don't even know....more legitimately in need? I'm still not sure, but each time we get a new one, we just have to hand it to them and they give us a new one with the same preauthorized stamp. It's a blessing to us, and we work hard not to abuse it, but I am curious if that will go away, too. If it does, we'll be okay. Other than the doctor's note, the rest sounds like Disney, and we can do that.

 

[infopurposesonly]

My daughter has received the Express Guest Assistance Pass at Universal, and we have never been asked for medical documentation.

 

[bookwormde]

Lots of info available with a quick Google.

http://orlandoinformer.com/page/art...ets-packages-planning/guest-assistance-passes

Thanks,

It does not appear to require formal documentation for either

Since the original discussion was around 6 Flags, does anyone know it they have an alternate once they start asking for documentation for their version that is better than equivalent?

 

[bookwormde]

Doesn't OCR deal with educational discrimination?

Yes and that is though an embedded OCR branch in the US department of education

General ADA enforcement comes out of the OCR (office civil rights) under the US department of Justice

 

[OurBigTrip]

Yes and that is though an embedded OCR branch in the US department of education

General ADA enforcement comes out of the OCR (office civil rights) under the US department of Justice

As you seem intimately familiar with the ADA, could you please cite where in the law it forbids businesses from asking for proof of disability?

TIA.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Thanks,

It does not appear to require formal documentation for either

Since the original discussion was around 6 Flags, does anyone know it they have an alternate once they start asking for documentation for their version that is better than equivalent?

The no-additional-charge Six Flags disability access card appears to be equivalent to its $45(+) Flash Pass.

 

[CoriM48]

However, that's $45 a person. The Six Flags disability card is for up to 4 people.

 

[bookwormde]

As you seem intimately familiar with the ADA, could you please cite where in the law it forbids businesses from asking for proof of disability?

TIA.

Self declaration was one of the earliest judicial precedents set after the adoption of ADA back in the 90's. If I remember correctly the rational was that requiring proof at each application of ADA would create an undue burden on the individual with a disability and would create an unmanageable situation of determining if an individual met a specific criteria at the point of accommodation.

The decision left the right to the organization supplying the accommodation to deny that the individual had a disability at the point of accommodation, but if in a complaint hearing there was not clear compelling reasons for this denial and the individual did qualify under ADA the sanctions are typically much more substantial. This is why this is so rarely done

As to why it has not been more fully embedded into regulation, my understanding is that there was a desire to maintain some judicial discretion for unique circumstances.

For example if an organization were to hear an individual state that they did not have a disability and intended to misuse this right and there was adaquate evidence such a multiple individual hearing this and willing to come forward or on tape, then is would be reasonable to ask for proof in that unique situation. If there were are regulatory prohibition then even though the individuation was clearly trying to abuse the right the organization would still be in violation of ADA.

The concept as I understand it now is that if it is an equal accommodation then there cannot be a standard practice to ask for proof.

There is one place where the concept is formally in regulation

§ 35.138 Ticketing

(h) Prevention of fraud in purchase of tickets for accessible seating. A public entity may not require proof of disability, including, for example, a doctor's note, before selling tickets for accessible seating.

Hope this helps in understanding the issue

 

[Allison]

So I think the key phrase you used is equal accomodation which is not what Sue was discussing earlier.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Thanks,

It does not appear to require formal documentation for either

Since the original discussion was around 6 Flags, does anyone know it they have an alternate once they start asking for documentation for their version that is better than equivalent?

There is no equivalent to waiting in line. Unless WDW and/or Six Flags prohibits disability pass holders from riding other rides (excluding FP+, which is available to everyone) while they wait for their return time, which is impossible, having a disability pass is always going to provide the potential for a better experience than that for guests without a disability pass. From that perspective, WDW could most likely require documentation in order to provide a DAS. I doubt they will, but I see no reason why they couldn't.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Self declaration was one of the earliest judicial precedents set after the adoption of ADA back in the 90's. If I remember correctly the rational was that requiring proof at each application of ADA would create an undue burden on the individual with a disability and would create an unmanageable situation of determining if an individual met a specific criteria at the point of accommodation.

The decision left the right to the organization supplying the accommodation to deny that the individual had a disability at the point of accommodation, but if in a complaint hearing there was not clear compelling reasons for this denial and the individual did qualify under ADA the sanctions are typically much more substantial. This is why this is so rarely done

As to why it has not been more fully embedded into regulation, my understanding is that there was a desire to maintain some judicial discretion for unique circumstances.

For example if an organization were to hear an individual state that they did not have a disability and intended to misuse this right and there was adaquate evidence such a multiple individual hearing this and willing to come forward or on tape, then is would be reasonable to ask for proof in that unique situation. If there were are regulatory prohibition then even though the individuation was clearly trying to abuse the right the organization would still be in violation of ADA.

The concept as I understand it now is that if it is an equal accommodation then there cannot be a standard practice to ask for proof.

There is one place where the concept is formally in regulation

§ 35.138 Ticketing

(h) Prevention of fraud in purchase of tickets for accessible seating. A public entity may not require proof of disability, including, for example, a doctor's note, before selling tickets for accessible seating.

Hope this helps in understanding the issue

So in other words, you really don't have citation available that backs up your claim that the ADA prohibits asking for proof of disability, with the exception of selling tickets for accessible seating.

 

[bookwormde]

So in other words, you really don't have citation available that backs up your claim that the ADA prohibits asking for proof of disability, with the exception of selling tickets for accessible seating.

I do not have access to most of the law libraries at this time, so pulling the decisions is challenging. When I have time I will try to dig some out.

 

[bookwormde]

There is no equivalent to waiting in line. Unless WDW and/or Six Flags prohibits disability pass holders from riding other rides (excluding FP+, which is available to everyone) while they wait for their return time, which is impossible, having a disability pass is always going to provide the potential for a better experience than that for guests without a disability pass. From that perspective, WDW could most likely require documentation in order to provide a DAS. I doubt they will, but I see no reason why they couldn't.

Yes they could but then they would have to have other "equivalent" accommodations which did not require "proof".

 

[OurBigTrip]

Yes they could but then they would have to have other "equivalent" accommodations which did not require "proof".

As I stated previously, there is no equivalent to waiting in line, unless they are prohibited from riding other rides or doing anything else while they wait.

 

[SueM in MN]

Actually finding and quoting the language from the ADA (the different versions and the supporting documents) is difficult. In the past it was somewhat possible, when Google allowed you to do a search send then keep narrowing down the search results by adding words to search within the results. You could have initially several hundred thousand results and finally get down to several hundred results by adding words to search within results.
Most of the searches now just point toward a huge document and good luck finding the words in it you are looking for. I don't have time to do that, but have looked in the past and did find the things I am going to mention.

There is language in various places in the ADA and that prohibits requiring documentation of disability for public accommodations (this includes WDW and other amusement parks) - a sentence here and a sentence there.
Some of the places include accessible seating, using a wheelchair, needing an accessible room. There are other places, like the Service Dog parts, which say prof can't be required, but specify questions that can be asked.

Documentation can be required for work related (for example, if your job requires lifting and you need a limit lower than what is required). Really, for work, any accommodation that requires the workplace to spend money, change job requirements/responsibilities or work process. .
And, for either work related or public accommodation (which is where WDW falls), there are clauses that say the person with a disability doesn't have to share the nature of their disability, but does need to be able to share what their needs related to their disability are. I can't quote the specific language, but it amounts to 'if you won't tell us what your needs are, we don't have an obligation to accommodate them'.

There is some language about being able to require documentation or (I believe the words used are 'other credible assurance') of disability if what is provided would be something others would pay for or would be considered of value. That is where the handicapped parking permits, disability transportation, discounts or things like providing free access to Universal or 6 Flags 'Fastpass-like' service.

There is also language that talks about 'full and equal enjoyment' , which some take to mean "whatever I feel would give me full and equal enjoyment is required to be provided."
It has never been as absolute as that - those words butt up against the parts of the ADA that talk about "reasonable accommodation" and detail that the public accommodation is not required to change the nature of the experience or make large changes in their regular operation/procedures. The simplest to see is wheelchair accessibility - my daughter's 'full and equal enjoyment' would require every attraction to accommodate a wheelchair without transfer, but that is not required (or even expected).

The 'full and equal enjoyment' is the part that the people suing Disney about DAS appear to be primarily basing their claim - i.e. That they require unlimited access to whatever attraction they want without waiting in order to get 'full and equal enjoyment'.
That was part of the tactics a few years ago that people using Segways as mobility devices used; they were not successful because Disney was able to prove in court that Segways would constitute a danger in a crowded theme park and there were other means they could use instead.
Full and equal enjoyment to someone with food allergies might mean they feel they need separately prepared meals, but the ADA information about that says the accommodation is doing simple things like omitting an ingredient, like a sauce, etc. It is also allowable to pass the cost along to the consumer if a product (like gluten free checking tenders) are more expensive. The restaurants can choose to do more ( and most do), but are not required to.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Great explanation Sue, thank you!

 

[lost*in*cyberspace]

I doubt they have dedicated disability attorneys on staff so I think you assumption may be a bit of a reach.....

This is a very large corporation and you can be assured that they employ a large number of in house attorneys, some of who are well versed in disability law.

 

[bookwormde]

This is a very large corporation and you can be assured that they employ a large number of in house attorneys, some of who are well versed in disability law.

I can assure you that this is likely not the case having dealt with corporations of this size in the past. They often have relatively competent in house staff for title II but not Title III