Is it that black-and-white with "reasonable accommodations"? I mean, in this case you're probably right because I would expect the casino should be able to handle any Covid regulations while complying with the ADA, but in general I wouldn't be surprised if there are situations where Covid regulations have actually not allowed for reasonable accommodations yet the business is still able to open. But obviously, I'm not a lawyer nor am I American, so I may well be wrong about this.

A lot of the time, people are just ignorant of the issue. And I say this with no disrespect; I certainly have much to learn about it.

I agree that they shouldn't have to call ahead. But at the same time, a call might have made everything easier when they arrived, just because of Covid. Even the most well-meaning business may not have thought through every possibility in these strange times.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The ADA isn't about catering to a small group - it's saying that not providing access to all is discrimination and thus illegal. Of course, I believe there are restrictions as to how far that goes, which fall under "reasonable accommodations".

But don't those, normally reasonable, accommodations become unreasonable when you are already having to make other accommodations to fulfil Covid regulations?

You even try to think through your examples, assuming you are actually trying to make a rhetorical point ?

Answer:

I think a live 6 max tournament would be played at a table generally designed for 9 players, so you need another disabled person to make your point, assuming you have one.

I think the disabled person is already capable of sitting, and the "go" portion of sit n go refers to starting play, nothing else.

I have no idea what special case you think is present in a cash game.

I've played in live games in Las Vegas where one of the players was blind and needed a helper, another where a player was disabled and could not handle cards and chips himself. In each instance, a reasonable accommodation was made to provide an opportunity to play.


As for OP's disabled player incident, a reasonable accommodation might have been to remove one set of plexiglass opposite the dealer box, , so both the player and helper could be at the table without increased risk to anyone else, and then go 8 handed for play.

OTOH, I read someone post in another thread that the V allows players to get by with only those face shields in play, no mask required .... for everyone there is already at an increased risk over "mask-required" rooms.

Its a sad state of the world where one person has to make a phone call but your personal utopia says shut it down for everyone if one person can't be accommodated?

Wat worthy worldview mate

No. You really need to try and think through your points. What is so tough about this hypothetical or actual circumstance itt that you can't think of a reasonable way to accommodate this disabled person who is looking to play ?

If the operator makes NO accommodation, a disabled plaintiff who comes up with a reasonable accommodation, especially one that is suggested to the operator but refused, has a pretty good claim to make.

An operator can't just say "Covid" and throw up its hands. There is no Gaming Reg that says you can't play 7 handed rather than 8, so it doesn't take too much actual thought to reach a reasonable accommodation of a disabled person needing a helper, even in the age of CoVid.

Aren't they using the same tables they always use but the tables have been modified with plexiglass and, as a result, are only able to accommodate 6? I was under the impression there is no 9 handed poker in Vegas at present.

Like you, I have also played live tournaments with players who have required helpers, but I don’t see the relevance of that unless it was during the last few months.

I do not believe you understand that a reasonable accommodation must be offered, if one is available. If there is no reasonable accommodation available, then the game goes on without the disabled participant.

How is that difficult to understand as the standard required of the operator ?

As a practical matter, the proposed "phone call", whether placed or not doesn't affect anything. (I do not practice ADA law, but the concept that the operator must meet some standard under the law is pretty clear. "Just say ,no" is not an acceptable ADA policy.)

guess what, if they politely called ahead, they wouldn't be sitting in the middle of a poker room floor for hours and needing a catheter emptied. they would have been accomodated. but apparently the virtue signal is more important than a pleasant poker experience.

every lawyer nerd ITT has some blissful interpretation of how the world ought to be run and neglects how the world is actually operating. you may get to stand on legal merit, but when it comes to common sense insofar as guaranteeing the disabled a positive experience you all laughably fall short.

there are times for the logical to take up your fight, but during a pandemic where covid regulations are up the wazoo for every single poker room manager, cry me a river and take your law degree elsewhere where it matters. you'll win the court case but the majority of people will shake their head at you.

Your impression is erroneous as to how many players are accommodated, there are 8 handed games spread in many operating poker rooms.

Take out one divider in the middle and it can become 7 handed. (The 1 and 8 seat dividers would be difficult, because they are linked to the glass in front of the dealer for stability. The middle seat diviers could be spaced/removing 1, to accommodate a disabled person plus a helper. The operator ignores reasonable accommodation possibilities at its ADA peril.)

It's not my personal utopia, it's federal law in the United States and most first world countries.

Maybe in your libertarian utopia, you can tell members of LGBQT community that they don't have the right to buy a dishwasher from a fundamentalist Christian salesman, or that a black person doesn't have the right to eat a sandwich if the restaurant owner is a racist. Or maybe you dislike dogs and think you should be able to tell a blind person "our hotel doesn't allow dogs" -- but that's not how the law or society works in a first world country.

We, as a society, have decided that disabled people have a right to partake in society, and shouldn't be excluded on the basis of their disability.

What classifies as "reasonable" is open to interpretation and will vary according to the circumstances. You're going to have to stretch things very very far to come up with a scenario where you couldn't reasonably accommodate someone trying to play a poker tournament in your casino.

Ok then. Well, replace my 6 handed question with 8 handed and lets say 5 disabled players with helpers want to play. Am I allowed to do that in the Gzesh court?

lmao at this garbage analogy.

and in the alternate universe where disabled dude gets the covid and there's a picture of him at a casino taking up an enclosed space with his caretaker, you'd be virtue signalling the horrible plague-minded billion dollar company not caring about the lives of the disabled.

you can't have it both ways.

Agreed. They shouldn't be excluded. Sometimes, unfortunately, circumstances dictate that they have to be.

The onus is not on the disabled person. The onus is on the Venetian. Would things have gone more smoothly if they called ahead? Yes, probably. Any suggestion that the disabled person MUST do this is ridiculously unfair. The whole point of the ADA is to allow disabled people to function in society with the least friction possible which means shifting the onus to the commercial establishment.

LVS/The Venetian is a multi billion dollar company. They can figure it out.

Are you somehow suggesting that the Venetian should take it upon themselves to enforce social distancing between a disabled person and his caregiver, but not enforce social distancing between two able bodied adults?

Really ? They would have been accommodated if only they had politely called ahead? If so, why weren't they accommodated while sitting there and waiting ? You really think that a room manager would have responded affirmatively to a phone call and made accommodations based on a phone imquiry, but was unwilling to do so in person, seriously ?

I've some familiarity with "how the world is actually operating", I've been general counsel to a small Strip casino, and can tell you your grinding some anti-poker axe rather that understanding how the world actually works.

In your view, someone wins a lawsuit, gets a judgment, and only them will poker room managers follow the law when the next disabled person shows up ? What is the point of that course, other than to deny the first disabled person the right to be reasonably accommodated, make some lawyer rich, and only THEREAFTER reasonably reconcile what you think are competing ADA and Covid policies.

Go shake your head all day, but why make some lawyer richer because you can't proactively accept a reasonable accommodation up front when a disabled person shows up to play ?

Attitudes like yours are what make plaintiffs' lawyers richer than they need be.

The disabled person will win the court case, the lawyer just gets paid because a court case was made necessary by folks who wouldn't reasonably accommodate disabled persons as required under the law.

Here in England, we have a 'rule of 6' at the moment. The max number of people allowed at a table in a bar or restaurant, inside or outside, is 6 and you cannot mingle with other tables. If 4 disabled friends (with their helpers want to go together, can they sit at the same table? 'X is a multi billion dollar company. They can figure it out.' is not an acceptable answer, btw.

I've already stated that I believe ADA accommodations were met. He was at the table playing! This is a matter of navigating covid regulations with an ADA protected individual and people like you are frothing at the mouth for an ADA lawsuit

We thoroughly disagree on the levels of discrimination at play here. IE: You think Venetian is fundamentally discriminatory against disabled people, and I don't think this is a discrimination case at all. Pretty wide gap there

I'm reminded of the inability for anyone to have a nuanced conversation in these times.

Actually, no, not with any success.

You can make the argument, but the Gzesh court will rule against your underlying point.

There is no reason to discriminate against the first disabled person, just because 4 more might show up to play at the same table later ....

i could babble in here more and waste my time with these non-reality-participant lawyers, but the crux is that you guys want it to be one way but the world operates another way. if you were both tasked with running a poker room during covid with the goal of covid compliance, regulatory compliance, and ADA compliance, you'd all fail miserably. some equally-disturbed lawyer would find a way to con you vis-a-vis some other loophole that could only happen during a pandemic.

yes, if the caretaker called ahead, the venetian would have figured out a way to accommodate. i even hate the venetian, but their manager would have had hours or days to run it by legal and find a solution.

and no, a poker room that's dealing with pandemic regulations with subsequent ADA concerns is not the same as a homophobic dishwasher salesman. you all make me laugh.

but if they arrive together?

lol, why did I know that was going to be your next post ?

Wish I had realized earlier that you were "here in England". Well, here in Las Vegas, I think we do things differently than y'all do in England. I was speaking to the circumstances at play here, not there.

Because it was the obvious reply? You must be prepared for it.

Go back and read the facts from the OP again. Yes, he was seated and playing BUT they told him he had to stop playing ...

"After playing multiple hands, The Venetian management is currently telling him he can no longer play because of his disability and not being able to hold his cards himself"

Does that change your analysis at all ?

"the pandemic" is not an excuse to violate federal law and any argument you're trying to make that uses that as the crux is weak. the venetian CHOSE to re-open during a pandemic, they knew they would have to comply with the ADA.

btw, disability is a protected class, so discriminating on the basis of disability IS the same as discriminating on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. somehow every post you make implies that the venetian SHOULD be able to discriminate based on disability status.