Tuesday, November 4, 2003 4:13 AM
The ADA besides protecting people who are disabled (well sort of- the actual definition is so convoluted that it makes the ADA one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever come out of Washington) also protects people who are “regarded as” being disabled. Thus, if someone thought you were disabled but you actually are not, you may have protection under the ADA. What Dollywood is worried about here is having its employees making the determination that someone is actually disabled when they obviously don’t have the medical qualifications to do so and then being sued about it because they made the wrong choice.
Dippin Dots- ice cream of the future since 1989
Wednesday, November 5, 2003 5:06 AM
Looking at the wording of the law provided ucdaap42. It prohibits discrimination against. It doesn't prohibit discrimination for. The whole suit sounds pretty bogus to me. I'm only guessing that the woman who sued was denied free admission based on what she considered to be her handicap and got upset. Of course there is always a possiblity that this is really a reaction by Dollywood to the ADA suit that was filed against them earlier this year. I hope not, as I've found the operations of SDC to generally be a class act.
Intamin Fan: I'm sorry to hear that some of the deaf patrons are SFA are taking what seems to be unfair advantage. My deaf daughter alwasy waits in line except for the shows at some parks that require special set ups fot the deaf.