No exemption to mask policy.

[EveDallas]

"A lot of people are saying it"

I think we should ask the Disney bus drivers. Everyone knows they're never wrong.

 

[SueM in MN]

I empathize with the family who indicated their child can’t wear a mask, but I can’t believe they didn’t understand Disney’s policy. You can’t go anywhere on the Disney website or MDE without a notice about masks showing up.

The ADA did publish a Disability Issue Brief that covers people who say they can’t wear a mask.
These are examples of reasonable modifications to a face mask policy from the brief:

• Allow a person to wear a scarf, loose face covering, or full face shield instead of a face mask;
• Allow customers to order online with curbside pick-up or no contact delivery in a timely manner;
• Allow customers to order by phone with curb-side pick-up or no contact delivery in a timely manner;
• Allow a person to wait in a car for an appointment and enter the building when called or texted; or
• Offer appointments by telephone or video calls.

The brief also indicates 3 situations where a reasonable accommodation may not be required.
1) Fundamental alteration (I‘m not a lawyer, but would think doesn’t apply)
2) Undue burden (I would think doesn’t apply)
3) Direct Threat (I think this would apply)
The brief also indicates that there are some situations where proof of disability may be required.

Disability Issues Brief: The ADA and Face Mask Policies

 

[Disney Frenhines]

At the end of the day this gentleman needs to get back to whoever provided the holiday to him and ask why they didn't inform him of the mask rules at Disney. Disney cannot be held responsible if a third party holiday provider didn't inform their customers of this. But, to be honest, I think it is all down to the gentleman for not checking when there was plenty of information available and I cannot believe he didn't see this.
I was shown a tweet by a friend some months back posted by a woman with a disabled child threatening to sue Disney if they refused her child entry without a mask using the ADA as just cause. I believe she was a local woman. So this isn't an original idea.
I am extremely shocked by his whole attitude towards the child he is supposed to love and protect.

 

[ToyStoryManiaMouse]

Let's change a word and see if you still agree: "There is no general discrimination against individuals with disabilities if everyone, regardless of whether they are disabled or not, is required to wear shoes." No shoes, no service, right? So the double amputee without feet can be denied entry because they can't wear shoes and wouldn't be discriminated against, because everyone has to for "safety". Right?

The courts may or may not decide in the end. Several are punting, delaying any decisions hoping that things will have changed making their decision moot. There are obvious accommodations that Disney could be making, that other parks do make, that Disney has chosen not to do. For example, Universal offers the accommodation of the use of a face shield in outdoor areas, while still requiring a mask for certain rides. Why doesn't Disney offer the same? By not even considering it on a case by case basis, as they legally should be doing, how can you not see that it is indeed discrimination? Whether you agree with the discrimination "for safety" or not, a blanket no exception policy is by definition discriminatory.

By your logic, someone who does not have LUNGS would not be able to be admitted without a mask.

The double amputee can't have their legs touching the ground on rides because it is DANGEROUS. There may be MOVING parts or things may be HOT like concrete. So shoes or a barrier between your body and the ground or ride floor are required.

Similarly, if you have LUNGS, right now, you can spread a VIRUS. Because we don't know who could be asymptomatic, everyone wears a mask. ADA does not require exemptions or force businesses to do things that place an undue financial burden on the business (this was actually cited in the recent DAS case), could cause injury (this is why Disney does not transfer people from wheelchair to ride vehicle, places cast members at risk as training is required to move people safely), or for public health (this is why they can ask a guide dog to leave a store if the dog defecates, or why they do not have to make a mask exemption). In all these cases, when possible, businesses have to try for a reasonable alternative. No mask or just a shield is not a reasonable alternative as these do not block the droplets leaving your mouth. Bringing groceries out to your car or delivery is a reasonable alternative. Telling the blind person somone can assist them with shopping if their guide dog is sick is a reasonable alternative. Allowing the dog to vomit or defecate in the store is not reasonable.

 

[WantToGoToWDW]

Honestly I thought the plastic shield was fine that she had on, even the Mayor when implementing the mask rule had said there was exceptions for medical issues. Bottom line it is up to the store to decide. I had no idea at the time now I do.

The CDC has stated that face shields are safe. Droplets fall down to surfaces that others will touch and they escape out the sides. They are fine To wear with a mask to protect your own eyes.

 

[Disney Frenhines]

Mask, ventilator or casket, what would you prefer?

I hope this works. Be aware that these cats will probably give birth live on the stream so not for the squeamish.

I think this link might work for one of the funniest of their videos. I was watching this live feed while I was having breakfast, I didn't think it would go as far as it did. Disney should make a movie of this

The kittens are on their way!!!!

 

[Hiitsme]

I don't believe for one minute that this father was clueless enough to not know the "no exemption" rules for masks at WDW but then savvy enough record his conversation with the CM and share it with The Blaze. He was out to challenge the rules and he used his 7-year old daughter to do it. Now, that's a disgrace.

People that use their children in this manner are abusive. Children are not props to be dragged out for photo/video ops. This man knows his child's abilities and before they left PA should have been aware of Disney's requirements. If for any reason he was unclear on Disney's requirements, he could have contacted guest's services for answers. What he put his child through just to make some BS point is shameful, neglectful, straight up evil and abusive.

 

[choirfarm]

Wrong. The reason the person cannot wear a mask, or shoes, doesn't matter. If they can't, they can't. Asking them to explain, or acting like they "aren't disabled enough" just compounds the problem. And I know a lot of people in the "it's not that hard, just wear it" camp do not understand all the legitimate reasons why some people can't. Some reasons have to do with oxygen restriction, but some have to do with other types of disabilities. A dear friend of mine was raped as a young woman. Her assailant covered her mouth to keep her from screaming for help. She CANNOT wear a mask or have anything over her mouth because of PTSD, even tho the attack happened over 30 years ago. Someone asked "what if they got really sick and had to have oxygen". My friend would have to be sedated. While the current state mandate allows her exception, the stores that are the most anal about it force her to remember the incident each time she walks in because she has to tell them she has a medical exception. She is now fighting depression because of the "it's not that hard" and "just don't go, stay home" crowd.

But for the record, Disney's current policy requires a disabled person that breaths via a tracheostomy tube in their throat to still wear a mask over their mouth and nose. If the breathing without a mask is the "direct threat", then that disabled person should be required to wear a mask over their tube, correct? But they aren't required to. They are only required to have one over the nose and mouth they aren't using. THAT is Disney's policy because they make zero exceptions and aren't even willing to have a discussion about it. Think about it. Before you say that person shouldn't be going because they might get sick, that is the person's choice to go knowing the risks. Sure the tracheostomy tube is a rare example, but it illustrates the point that the law requires a conversation to see if a reasonable accommodation can be made. Disney is refusing to have the conversation.



That is the crux of the matter. Can it be proven that a disabled person who cannot wear a mask is a threat when the presumed active cases (those that have tested positive and those who may be asymptomatic) are around 1% of the general population? Generalizations don't cut it and are also discriminatory. Something repeated a gazillion times online is not proof, and even then, it is said that masks "may" help reduce community spread. If you believe there is a direct threat, are there any other means that could mitigate that threat? Shouldn't there at least be the opportunity to discuss?

No. There should not. Your friend might be reasonable but there is no way to make sure people keep them. Most won't.

Also, the tracheostomy tube...give me a break. They should not be going FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH. If someone in that condition got Covid, they would die.

My friend is a family practice docs. There clinic is not giving out any exemption notes period. If they have a health condition where they cannot wear a mask, their position is then it is to risky for you to be exposed to the general public ( for THEIR) safety.

 

[crazy_for_the_dis]

Face shields are not recommended by the CDC. Where I work, they are not allowed in place of masks, however not a public place either. Studies show that wearing a face shield actually increases the possibility of the shield wearer breathing in droplets if they are present in the air. So it does not provide adequate protection for the wearer, and actually make it worse. At least, that is what we were told. I looked it up, and the sites I could find supported that info. If the CDC changed their stance, my workplace likely would too, just right not now not an option. Disney may be in the same situation, trying to comply with CDC guidelines, which we all know change all the time!

 

[Mrsjvb]

People also need to understand that the CM Union made it a condition of their returning to work that masks were absolutely required and they would not be okay with any exemptions for their requirement.

 

[marikujawa]

People also need to understand that the CM Union made it a condition of their returning to work that masks were absolutely required and they would not be okay with any exemptions for their requirement.

If that’s the case, Disney could argue that mask exemptions would be an undue burden under the ADA.

 

[Mnemorath]

I doubt you will come back to this thread and reply but I wanted to add a few more reports for you to consider regarding children and them not being "significant vectors for the disease"

Universities scramble to respond to outbreak

As schools open, coronavirus outbreaks follow

More than 97,000 children in the US test positive for Covid-19 in the last two weeks of July

In England, schools see dozens of coronavirus outbreaks as they open

925 students, staff quarantined after coronavirus outbreak in Georgia

But yeah, there is obviously out of control hysteria over this virus and children are not a significant vector for this virus.

I never said that kids could not be a vector for disease. Anyone who says so does not have kids. My question has always been “How can you prove that a disabled person who is presenting no symptoms has a particular illness?”

 

[Mnemorath]

THANK YOU for being a good debater! I love a good debate as well, and so often, things devolve into name calling instead.

I don't honestly know which rides the face shields don't work for. When I first read it, my thoughts were things with over the shoulder restraints, because the face shield could easily be cracked or broken, posing a greater risk to the wearer. If it's across the board "indoor requires masks", regardless of your thoughts on mask efficacy, the reasoning behind "outdoor = less risk" makes sense. If the shield is allowed in theaters, or slow boat rides, that too, makes sense, but not on rides with more jostling, that makes sense too. But more importantly, they have actively considered different situations to see what reasonable accommodations could be made. Disney has not. There are pics all over the internet of how empty Epcot is. When we were there, it certainly seemed that the CMs out numbered the guests. There were several areas of the park, at several times throughout the day, where no one was within 30 yards of us. How can a face shield accommodation not even be considered given how empty the outdoor space is? They could make the accommodation only at Epcot or AK, while claiming that MK and HS are too dense, but they aren't even doing that.

Looking at your grocery store:



It has more to do with offering, or at least discussing, possible accommodations. If store A did not even discuss accommodations, then yes, they are discriminating. There are a handful of lawsuits against one grocery store chain in the NE as they wouldn't allow a shield, that on the surface sound like the store is clearly in the wrong. Eventually a judge, or appeals court, will decide. Some stores have offered online shopping and curbside pickup as an accommodation. Whether that suffices, is up to a judge. I personally like to pick my own stuff out. For Store B, do they offer a shopper that can get the produce for the disabled person, or are they denying the disabled person the ability to buy the produce?

There is case law here in WA in regards to a disabled person being refused service. It may have to deal with a service dog so the details are not identical. And lawyers get paid a lot of money to argue the details. But it can be used as case law in a discrimination case.

Basically, a major grocery and department store refused to allow a disabled woman to do her own shopping because she had a service dog. They lost big under WA accommodation law. While ADA may give Disney an out, FL public accommodation law does not.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591473cbadd7b049343960b1

 

[UberClaire]

I never said that kids could not be a vector for disease. Anyone who says so does not have kids. My question has always been “How can you prove that a disabled person who is presenting no symptoms has a particular illness?”

You're arguing for the opposition here. Asymptomatic people (disabled or otherwise) spread the virus, and that's why EVERYONE needs to wear a mask, without exceptions.

 

[DCLPrincess]

I wouldn't feel safe going to WDW right now if I was unable to handle wearing a mask for that length of time without a break. I have asthma so I'm at greater risk if I don't wear a mask.

Same, I have asthma and I wear a mask. I don't feel comfortable not wearing a mask and when others aren't either. I do believe it protects me. Saying a mask doesn't protect the wearer is like saying air flows in an open window but not out the window.

Also multiple doctors have said if you're not healthy enough to wear a mask maybe you shouldn't be out.

 

[maxiesmom]

I never said that kids could not be a vector for disease. Anyone who says so does not have kids. My question has always been “How can you prove that a disabled person who is presenting no symptoms has a particular illness?”

How do you prove they don't? If we are talking about the parks, how do you prove any person is 100% clear of covid at the exact moment they want to enter the park? Until there is immediate test results, you just can't. And allowing someone in without a mask is currently putting others at risk.

 

[OurBigTrip]

There is case law here in WA in regards to a disabled person being refused service. It may have to deal with a service dog so the details are not identical. And lawyers get paid a lot of money to argue the details. But it can be used as case law in a discrimination case.

Basically, a major grocery and department store refused to allow a disabled woman to do her own shopping because she had a service dog. They lost big under WA accommodation law. While ADA may give Disney an out, FL public accommodation law does not.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591473cbadd7b049343960b1

What you seem to be willfully ignoring is that the Florida Public Accommodation law just states that there can’t be discrimination - it’s boiler plate civil rights language. It doesn’t go into the specifics of what constitutes discrimination.

The same law limits religious discrimination, but no one would argue that this means Disney has to allow people to practice tenets of their religion inside the parks if it poses a danger to others or disrupts park operations.

 

[lanejudy]

Folks - please keep the discussion to accommodations/exceptions and ADA.

If you wish to debate the science behind the CDC's recommendation of face masks, please head to another forum.

 

[JOLT]

Rick Ross might have a case. Just saw a boy with no mask and the cast member ask the parents to put a mask on the child and they told them he has a disability and they said ok and let the family go on their way.

 

[Disneyfan754321]

I know how deadly this virus is, I also know my childrens limitations. This pandemic sucks for everyone. If I knew my child could or would not wear a mask. We would not be going to Disney or even the grocery store.