Legal Adivce in Podcast?

[HeyJPK]

Hi all! Big fans of the podcast!

I'm listening to the 4/16/08 e-mail podcast, and during the discussion of stroller price increases, one of the hosts, I couldn't tell who, said something to the tune of - under the Americans with Disabilities Act, no one has the right to ask you if you are really disabled and need a wheelchair or stroller, etc.

Based on my understanding of the ADA, that's likely not true, and certainly not true in all cases.

From my understanding of the law, nothing in Title I of the ADA, which applies to public accomodations like Disney World, says that as a matter of law, it is unlawful to ask somone to justify their wheelchair or stroller use.

It may be true that it could be legally problimatic in certain circumstances should Disney start asking some, but not all, guests in wheelchairs and strollers to justify their use of these devices without reason. However, should Disney have legitimate reason to suspect that someone isn't legitimately disabled and is misuing their wheelchairs or strollers, its my understanding of the law that Disney is within its legal rights to question these individuals.

Of course, the ADA doesn't prevent guests from questioning these individuals, but the ADA also doesn't require guests claiming to be disabled to answer such questions from other guests.

On a separate note, the same host later implied that Disney is seemingly only motivated by profit for increasing the stroller rental prices. That may be true to a certain extent, but in my opinion, I doubt Disney is expecting to make a killing on stroller rentals in the grand scheme of things. The price increase is likely to discourage folks who rent strollers and don't need them since the big disney strollers have started to clutter certain areas of the parks. It's a shame that some folks who legitiamtely need strollers and wheelchairs have to suffer because of abuse of the rentals.

Thank you for the great podcast!!!!!

 

[wilde_oscar]

I really don't want to jump in the fray here, but it would be title 3 not title 1. There are also sections of the civil rights act that would apply when it comes to equal use of accommodations. If someone asks to rent a stroller or wheelchair or ECV... there has to be equal opportunity for everyone to rent them, subject to availability of course.

And I would like to point out a fallacy in logic... if you want to decrease the amount of strollers due to over crowding, have less strollers available to rent. You are not dealing with a commodity where supply and demand will come into balance via price to change the number of strollers available for rental. This is a case where if you want less rental strollers in the parks, just reduce the number available. If you want to maintain your profit level, while at the same time decreasing the number available... then you increase price. In effect WDW has a monopoly on stroller rental in the parks in which they control supply and price. But to take that a step further, I understand that the stroller rental concession is outsourced? This is a situation where time is going to have to play out the situation, it could be a manager that wants to look good by increasing profits of his department by a significant margin, who is looking at the short term with out a care about the long term? Upper management is no doubt going to let it fly a while to see who salutes it. Or this could be a prelude to more "seasonal" pricing structures.

Just wanted to sound off on some things that folks might not be considering... This is going to be a hot button issue... I am going to abstain from opinion (though I do have one).

 

[fav's=mets&mickey]

If Disney is really concerned about the amount of Strollers that they rent out all they would need to do is limit the amount that is available on a daily basis. Not Raise the amount but such a high amount. I know they can charge whatever but like the Roundtable stated its the amount that has us flustered not the fact that they raised the prices.

 

[jcb]

I can't believe I'm willing to jump in where Pete's Stalker will not but I've got to side with Kevin on this one. I can understand how the OP reached his point but Kevin's statement is supported by the U.S. Justice Department (which enforces Title III of the ADA).

WDW is subject to Title III of the ADA (it is also subjec to Title I but that deal with employees, not customers). (In ADA speak, WDW is a place of "public accommodation.") With employees, employer may not (with limited exceptions) ask about disabilities. Title III does not include this explicit prohibition but the Justice Department takes the position that the ADA "prohibits attempts by a public accommodation to unnecessarily identify the existence of a disability." This is from the comments made for the final rule http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html If you want another reference, you can look at http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html#III-4.1300

By definition, some inquiries will be "necessary" (to accommodate public safety issues) but there are pretty tight limitations on that, as well.

Of course, Kevin was simply trying to point out that no one should feel that have to justify their use of a stroller or assistive device, especially to other guests. Why defend what need not be defended.

 

[calypso*a*go-go]

The price increase is likely to discourage folks who rent strollers and don't need them since the big disney strollers have started to clutter certain areas of the parks. It's a shame that some folks who legitiamtely need strollers and wheelchairs have to suffer because of abuse of the rentals.

If this were true, couldn't Disney have kept the price the same but simply provided less strollers to rent?

(Oops didn't mean to double-post w/fav...but I guess great minds must think alike!)

 

[HeyJPK]

Dunno why I referenced Title I instead of Title III. I hate it when I make mistakes.

I looked at your cite and read the rest of the sentence, which reads "Section 36.301 also prohibits attempts by a public accommodation to unnecessarily identify the existence of a disability; for example, it would be a violation of this section for a retail store to require an individual to state on a credit application whether the applicant has epilepsy, mental illness, or any other disability, or to inquire unnecessarily whether an individual has HIV disease." I respectfully think that leaving out this example could be interpreted as misleading for purposes of this discussion.

I think my point still stands, that "should Disney have legitimate reason to suspect that someone isn't legitimately disabled and is misuing their wheelchairs or strollers, its my understanding of the law that Disney is within its legal rights to question these individuals." The example given in the Justice Department's position only refers to a public accomodation asking whole classes of people unnecessary questions about disability status.

Of course, asking two different lawyers the same question usually leads to three different opinions. My main concern, which admittedly wasn't articulated well, was that Kevin may have gone a bit too far in interpreting the ADA. Maybe he didn't, but I think there is another way of looking at the situation.

I love the podcast and discussion board and hope my sticking my two cents in is interpreted to advance discussion and not an attack.

I can't believe I'm willing to jump in where Pete's Stalker will not but I've got to side with Kevin on this one. I can understand how the OP reached his point but Kevin's statement is supported by the U.S. Justice Department (which enforces Title III of the ADA).

WDW is subject to Title III of the ADA (it is also subjec to Title I but that deal with employees, not customers). (In ADA speak, WDW is a place of "public accommodation.") With employees, employer may not (with limited exceptions) ask about disabilities. Title III does not include this explicit prohibition but the Justice Department takes the position that the ADA "prohibits attempts by a public accommodation to unnecessarily identify the existence of a disability." This is from the comments made for the final rule http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html If you want another reference, you can look at http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html#III-4.1300

By definition, some inquiries will be "necessary" (to accommodate public safety issues) but there are pretty tight limitations on that, as well.

Of course, Kevin was simply trying to point out that no one should feel that have to justify their use of a stroller or assistive device, especially to other guests. Why defend what need not be defended.

 

[wilde_oscar]

if you pump the question though west law, and find cases where precedent has been set... they overwhelmingly come down on the side of the individual and not the corporation on this one.

and to reiterate the point... if you want less strollers in the park, just have less strollers. But that would mean less profit, so charge more, to cover the amount lost by less strollers. Which if you cut the number of strollers in half, the math would work out to about a 75% increase to cover lost profit, and lower demand at a higher price.

Couple that with, all of a sudden there are umbrella strollers being sold in the Emporium? At $40? which is what, a 500% mark up? and the rental strollers are pretty much indestructible, so they would have a shelf life of what 4 years, and if they sell out every day... The fuzzy math here does not in any way point to a direct plan to reduce the number of strollers in the park, but to increase profit.

with the long life of the strollers, and the maint. and people cost semi fixed... this large of an increase would be out of alignment with inflation.

Again I am not making a moral judgement on weather it is right or wrong, just processing the logic, and the economics of the situation. Much like the seasonal increase in buffet prices, it would seem pricing will be more fluid in the future, and will stick only if there are people willing to pay.

 

[HeyJPK]

I'm not so sure that the overwhelming majority of cases come down on the side of the individual and not the corporation. I'm not even sure how many times, if any, the specific issue at hand has been litigated - that being, under what circumstances is it lawful for a public accommodation inquire about the disability status of its guests. Never? Sometimes? When it has reasonable cause to believe the guest isn't disabled?

if you pump the question though west law, and find cases where precedent has been set... they overwhelmingly come down on the side of the individual and not the corporation on this one.

and to reiterate the point... if you want less strollers in the park, just have less strollers. But that would mean less profit, so charge more, to cover the amount lost by less strollers. Which if you cut the number of strollers in half, the math would work out to about a 75% increase to cover lost profit, and lower demand at a higher price.

Couple that with, all of a sudden there are umbrella strollers being sold in the Emporium? At $40? which is what, a 500% mark up? and the rental strollers are pretty much indestructible, so they would have a shelf life of what 4 years, and if they sell out every day... The fuzzy math here does not in any way point to a direct plan to reduce the number of strollers in the park, but to increase profit.

with the long life of the strollers, and the maint. and people cost semi fixed... this large of an increase would be out of alignment with inflation.

Again I am not making a moral judgement on weather it is right or wrong, just processing the logic, and the economics of the situation. Much like the seasonal increase in buffet prices, it would seem pricing will be more fluid in the future, and will stick only if there are people willing to pay.

 

[WaltD4Me]

I think my point still stands, that "should Disney have legitimate reason to suspect that someone isn't legitimately disabled and is misuing their wheelchairs or strollers, its my understanding of the law that Disney is within its legal rights to question these individuals." The example given in the Justice Department's position only refers to a public accomodation asking whole classes of people unnecessary questions about disability status.

Considering that I am not aware of Disney stating anywhere that you in fact need to have a "legitimate disability" or reason to rent a wheelchair or stroller, I can't imagine why they would ever dare to ask, even if they could. I've rented ECV's and strollers. There are no signs or disclaimers stating there are any conditions to the rental. No conditions on size, reason, disability, nothing.

And who would rent a wheelchair who doesn't need one? Wheelchairs aren't all that easy to push or use if you aren't used to them. I'm going to go out on a limb and say if you rent a wheelchair you need it and it's nobody's business why except your own.

 

[DisneyKevin]

Please understand that I am not a lawyer and was by no means giving legal advice.

Disney is one of the most accessible places on earth.

John and I often travel with someone in a wheelchair and we are fully aware of the lengths Disney goes to in order to allow everyone the opportunity to enjoy themselves.

My rant was actually at the folks who question other guests as to why they are using wheelchairs, ECVs and strollers when there is no apparent reason and I stand by my original thought. It's none of their business and no one needs to explain it to anyone. Not all disabilities are visibly evident and no one should be made to explain.

I was also pointing out that the ADA allows that anyone needing a mode of transport be allowed to use one and that Disney has made it clear which modes are acceptable. I was not suggesting that Disney is required by law to make such transport available for rental. That is a service that is provided and not a requirement.

Again...please dont miscontrue this as legal advice It was strictly a rant on the way people judge others and to encourage those in need of these modes of transport to stop explaining themselves to those being judgemental.

Again...it's none of their business.

 

[WaltD4Me]

I have a question about this whole thing that I have never understood.

Where exactly did it come from that people feel someone needs to have a "real disability" to use an ECV or wheelchair? I don't understand what put the idea in someone's head that you have to have a "disability paperwork" to use either of these things. I've seen it mentioned many times on the boards that Disney should require a doctors note to rent an ECV or wheelchair. Where does the notion that only someone that has to deal with a disability everyday of their lives be the only ones who should be allowed to use a device that allows them to get around and enjoy a VERY large area that they would not normally encounter in daily lives? Because it is most certainly possible for someone who can get around fine at home, running errands, grocery shopping or a trip to the mall, to discover they are not able to comfortably manage at 47 square mile theme park complex in Florida heat on a 7 day vacation. Why is this so incredibly hard for people to grasp?

 

[jcb]

Oh, great, now we've started it. Perhaps Pete is going to have to start a "lawyers only" (is "DL" taken?) section of the disboards and restrict anyone other than lawyers from postings (for their safety, not ours). Now why anyone in their right mind would want to hear a bunch of lawyers opine on minutely fine distinctions and whether a law applies in one or another factual scenario at WDW beats me.

Talk about killing the magic. . . .

 

[irisbud]

I have a question about this whole thing that I have never understood.

Where exactly did it come from that people feel someone needs to have a "real disability" to use an ECV or wheelchair? I don't understand what put the idea in someone's head that you have to have a "disability paperwork" to use either of these things. I've seen it mentioned many times on the boards that Disney should require a doctors note to rent an ECV or wheelchair. Where does the notion that only someone that has to deal with a disability everyday of their lives be the only ones who should be allowed to use a device that allows them to get around and enjoy a VERY large area that they would not normally encounter in daily lives? Because it is most certainly possible for someone who can get around fine at home, running errands, grocery shopping or a trip to the mall, to discover they are not able to comfortably manage at 47 square mile theme park complex in Florida heat on a 7 day vacation. Why is this so incredibly hard for people to grasp?

I don't see where that is a difficult concept to grasp. The environment of WDW is very different than what the average person will encounter in their daily lives, as you said. Some people are more prepared for thsi that others. I think there are probably many people out there who have never been to WDW before and as such have completely underestimated the size, heat, and toll it can take. Also, even those who know may simply push too hard or try to do too much. I don't see where these people should be deprived of enjoying their vacation as well.

Please understand that I am not a lawyer and was by no means giving legal advice.

Disney is one of the most accessible places on earth.

John and I often travel with someone in a wheelchair and we are fully aware of the lengths Disney goes to in order to allow everyone the opportunity to enjoy themselves.

My rant was actually at the folks who question other guests as to why they are using wheelchairs, ECVs and strollers when there is no apparent reason and I stand by my original thought. It's none of their business and no one needs to explain it to anyone. Not all disabilities are visibly evident and no one should be made to explain.

I was also pointing out that the ADA allows that anyone needing a mode of transport be allowed to use one and that Disney has made it clear which modes are acceptable. I was not suggesting that Disney is required by law to make such transport available for rental. That is a service that is provided and not a requirement.

Again...please dont miscontrue this as legal advice It was strictly a rant on the way people judge others and to encourage those in need of these modes of transport to stop explaining themselves to those being judgemental.

Again...it's none of their business.

Agreed. I don't understand why people think that they should make such things their business. People see many things each day and wonder to themselves how someone could justify it (choice of dress, hairstyle, etc.) but generally they don't ask. I don't see where some rude people think that it is acceptable to inquire about things such as disabilities, seen or unseen. It isn't their business so I don't see why the need to overstep the boundries of privacy and decency. Some people are just

 

[irisbud]

Dunno why I referenced Title I instead of Title III. I hate it when I make mistakes.

I looked at your cite and read the rest of the sentence, which reads "Section 36.301 also prohibits attempts by a public accommodation to unnecessarily identify the existence of a disability; for example, it would be a violation of this section for a retail store to require an individual to state on a credit application whether the applicant has epilepsy, mental illness, or any other disability, or to inquire unnecessarily whether an individual has HIV disease." I respectfully think that leaving out this example could be interpreted as misleading for purposes of this discussion.

I think my point still stands, that "should Disney have legitimate reason to suspect that someone isn't legitimately disabled and is misuing their wheelchairs or strollers, its my understanding of the law that Disney is within its legal rights to question these individuals." The example given in the Justice Department's position only refers to a public accomodation asking whole classes of people unnecessary questions about disability status.

Of course, asking two different lawyers the same question usually leads to three different opinions. My main concern, which admittedly wasn't articulated well, was that Kevin may have gone a bit too far in interpreting the ADA. Maybe he didn't, but I think there is another way of looking at the situation.

I love the podcast and discussion board and hope my sticking my two cents in is interpreted to advance discussion and not an attack.

I am NOT a lawyer or in any way associated with lawyers, but part of my job, everyday, it to read things that are generated by myself or others in my office and try to find loophoples in them that could cause us problems. I agree, the example somewhat clarifies the intent in the cited statuate. HOWEVER, the fact still remains that the stauate states "Section 36.301 also prohibits attempts by a public accommodation to unnecessarily identify the existence of a disability" I see where Disney dosen't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. If it went to court it could possibly be thrown out, but Disney does not want to go to court. They don't want the hassle and they don't want the publicity. Disney does not want to look as though they are bullying or hasseling the disabled, and they could very well come across in such a light were they to suddenly decide that proof is required in order to utilized ECVs, wheelchairs, etc.

JMTC

 

[calypso*a*go-go]

I have a question about this whole thing that I have never understood.

Where exactly did it come from that people feel someone needs to have a "real disability" to use an ECV or wheelchair? I don't understand what put the idea in someone's head that you have to have a "disability paperwork" to use either of these things. I've seen it mentioned many times on the boards that Disney should require a doctors note to rent an ECV or wheelchair. Where does the notion that only someone that has to deal with a disability everyday of their lives be the only ones who should be allowed to use a device that allows them to get around and enjoy a VERY large area that they would not normally encounter in daily lives? Because it is most certainly possible for someone who can get around fine at home, running errands, grocery shopping or a trip to the mall, to discover they are not able to comfortably manage at 47 square mile theme park complex in Florida heat on a 7 day vacation. Why is this so incredibly hard for people to grasp?

When it's hot and crowded...people get pi$$y. Why, do you ask, does that matter? Well, we see a lot more posts along these lines during busy times at the world because:

a) People are standing in lines all day and get mad when someone in an ECV/Wheelchair traveling with a large party goes straight to the front of the line.

b) Everyone is pretty tired when they are heading back to their resorts and get upset when they've been waiting in the bus line and what happens -- an ECV/Wheelchair (along with their entire party) gets loaded first and takes up several of those coveted seats.

c) Are you starting to see a pattern yet?

d) I really think most of the animosity is directed more towards the able-bodied people traveling with the person that has the mobility issues than the person themselves.

e) There are also issues regarding near-misses involving children and ECVs. Things like this tend to make parents even more upset (even the ones that have run into someone with their stroller).

f) Do I think any of these things are fair or right? No -- just giving my interpretation of the situation.

 

[fakereadhed]

As someone pointed out elsewhere(can't remember who or where)the price analogy doesn't work. If Disney raised prices to have people buy fewer strollers, did they raise ticket prices to encourage people to buy fewer tickets?

At this point, I am just as annoyed about people who keep bringing overuse into the conversation as I am with the outrageous price increases.

I know why people do it(because they are jealous because their feet hurt and they are tired of standing in line)but they are seriously mistaken about ECVs, WCs, and strollers being a "perk" that someone would want if they didn't really need it. Not being able to get around on your own or having a child that can't walk long distances is a major pain in the behind and nothing desirable. They slow you down, make it harder to navigate crowds, and do not get you a front of the line pass. And some of the shows have the worst views in the handicap section. Trust me, they don't rent any of these things for fun even if it appears that way. I would be extremely annoyed if anyone questioned me about it and even if it was legal it would be bad form.

 

[lugnut33]

So, does this mean Disney will question me when I pull up in my rental car and flash them my handmade handicapped plackard? I'll be sure to use permanent markers!

 

[daneenm]

Just an aside...this topic is discussed extensively and repeatedly on the disABILITIES forum. There seems to be lots of info on the legalities, how Disney handles distribution of the Guest Assistance Card, the way people are treated by others in the parks (which I believe is what Kevin was referring to) and the fact that, despite what 'others' believe, having a wheelchair/ECV is not a front of line pass and in fact they often wait longer than the regular line to be accommodated. For those who might be interested.

--Daneen

 

[wilde_oscar]

So, does this mean Disney will question me when I pull up in my rental car and flash them my handmade handicapped plackard? I'll be sure to use permanent markers!

how did you get markers? i am only allowed crayons... do you have any idea how hard it is to type with a pencil in your mouth to mash buttons because you are wearing a straight jacket?

 

[calypso*a*go-go]

Okay way...way...way O/T:

WO -- what the heck does your self-imposed tag mean? And why should anyone be afraid?