Hello
I have read your blog which is very well written and the order so I know whats the judge's saying , but let's assume we could ask for proof for this sake of argument, then what:?
If the appea is dismissed what are the next steps for this families?
Well, I think it pointless to speculate about this. I'll admit I'm rather skeptical about whether title III of the ADA (which governs this issue) actually prohibits asking for proof. The Department of Justice seems to say it does and Disney hasn't challenged it.
But let's think about this. The ADA permits employers (under stringent conditions) to demand "proof" when an employee requests an accommodation or may pose a direct threat. This isn't simply a doctor's note. Those are generally worthless. Employer's can send employees to be evaluated and in many courts, it is settled that an employer does not violate the ADA by following a reasonable medical evaluation even if it doesn't say what the wants. The clearest example of this was a Northwestern University case where it told a basketball play his heart condition made him in eligible for competitive play. He sued and presented evidence that he could have safely played even with his heart condition. The court of appeals, however, (
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1379984.html) held this missed the point:
We disagree with the district court's legal determination that such decisions are to be made by the courts and believe instead that medical determinations of this sort are best left to team doctors and universities as long as they are made with reason and rationality and with full regard to possible and reasonable accommodations. In cases such as ours, where Northwestern has examined both Knapp and his medical records, has considered his medical history and the relation between his prior sudden cardiac death and the possibility of future occurrences, has considered the severity of the potential injury, and has rationally and reasonably reviewed consensus medical opinions or recommendations in the pertinent field-regardless whether conflicting medical opinions exist-the university has the right to determine that an individual is not otherwise medically qualified to play without violating the Rehabilitation Act. The place of the court in such cases is to make sure that the decision-maker has reasonably considered and relied upon sufficient evidence specific to the individual and the potential injury, not to determine on its own which evidence it believes is more persuasive.
Newspapers in Chicago still keep track of the guy's progress:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2010-01-24-1001240011-story.html and medical journals count him as a statistic:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7237076/
The point being, the "proof" you are asking about is very complicated. Guests Services CMs are very well trained, no doubt, but if Northwestern University had to get the court of appeals to resolve a "proof" issue, I expect it will give CM's fits.
Disney has every reason not to want CM's to be making those decisions. Even with training, it is in Disney's interest to be as uniform as possible in making modifications. Let's suppose Disney gave CM's blanket authority to ask for proof and authority to issue the equivalent of a GAC. What would then happen is that the Internet would then tell anyone who wants immediate attraction access to go to guest services and ask for that same CM, or say that the CM gave them immediate access last week and the guest wants that again. That means you and I have to wait in the FP+ line longer and guests in standby lines must wait even longer.
As for the families next steps, I hope they given
DAS an honest try when time and the pandemic permits. I think they made up their minds it wouldn't work too soon but I'm not expert and I wasn't there. It's just that from a legal standpoint, refusing to even try what is offered is, like refusing food at your in-laws' dinner table, rather bad manners.