I was, I laughed.

How can you possibly think this is not a discrimination case? Genuinely curious. You agree that he was not allowed to play specifically because of his disability, right? You want nuanced conversation, so please, make the case that this is not discrimination.

Well, come on then, we’ve got a convoy of wheelchairs at the registration desk and we shuffle up and deal in 5.

Lol at calling OP the "facts". You aren't framing a case here guy, you can drop the act like you are representing the disabled person.

Its a covid issue with an ADA protected individual. I literally said tht in the post you quoted.

I'm not making a legal argument here, as I'm not a lawyer. I'm making a logical statement as a human bean

So your argument is that the Venetian does not have to reasonably accommodate a disabled person because of the covid situation?

I think they have to try, but if it’s not workable then it’s not the end of the world and they shouldn’t have to close the doors to everyone else or pay out compensation.

Maybe coordi thinks differently, but I doubt it.

They reasonably accommodated him. He was at the table playing! (4th or 5th time I've said this)

Yes, this is an oversimplification of my stance, but a decent oversimplification

Its funny that saying; "I don't think this is a world stopping issue here. Maybe some lessons to be learned on both sides but at the end of the day a guy didn't get to play in a poker tournament." is equated with being a terrible person, but its definitely a sign of the times for me.

...they removed him from the table because of his disability. how is that at all "reasonably accommodated"?

They removed him from the table because the caretaker was a covid risk

I think he's referring to the final resolution; they finally got him playing again.

He couldn’t play without the caretaker, so how was he “playing” if the caretaker wasn’t there?

Would you rather they cancel the tournament if they aren’t able to accommodate him bc of Covid restrictions?

Doesn't the ADA say that accomodations need to be reasonable? If having a person with you, in the pandemic environment we are in, is not exactly reasonable, isn't the Venetian in the clear? I mean, what if a big fat person, like 700 pounds, rolled, not walked, into the poker room and demanded a cash game play with fewer players because he literally takes up so much space you couldn't have a full table. Or, same person can't fit into the space provided between the dividers and demands the same? On airplanes they make such people purchase a second ticket. Is that discrimination?

how was the caretaker anymore a COVID risk than any other person at the table?

Every other person has plexiglass beside them?

The question was not directed at you, and in any case you didn’t even answer it.

You can move the plexiglass so that the glass it is still betwee the caretaker and every other player.

I’m just curious though.....would would you rather they cancel the tournament if they can’t meet the accommodation for some reason bc of Covid?

He was playing until she was told she couldn't sit next to him due to Corona.

This is the nuance I was talking about in the situation, and why I think its important to make the distinction that this is a CV issue with someone who is protected by ADA, and not directly ADA discrimination.

I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which this would be true.

If somehow it were, I'd guess the accommodation required would not be "reasonable", but it's hard to know for sure unless you know the facts.

Venetian lawyers decided most profitable play is to not let him play.
Downside: looks bad, possible lawsuit
Upside: don’t have to worry about exponentially bigger law suit and much worse publicity.

Some other factors but they probably made the right call, from business perspective.

Ethically, the debate is over whether it is reasonable to accommodate.
I don’t think it is clear cut either way. No one really knows anything about this virus still. Is it possible to let him play with caretaker with 0% added risk? Even if it is, what happens if he catches corona and dies anyways? People would look back at this and be outraged that Venetian broke covid guidelines to let him play.
Seems fine to be safe and not let him play.

It seems absolutely clear cut to me that letting him play does not present an increased risk of the virus.

I'm completely missing how letting him play with a caretaker puts him at any more risk of covid than letting anyone play in any tournament. The only person he is in closer contact with the caretaker, and they are almost certainly in similarly close contact whether he is playing the tournament or not.

Like I said even if one can be sure of no increased corona exposure risk, the liability risk is still there for Venitian.
I trust that from a business perspective, the lawyers made the right decision. Otherwise the Venetian is wasting ungodly amounts of money having them on retainer.

Is that ethically scummy to make a decsion based on that? I dont think so.
If anyone is at fault here it is whoever made LV Corona guidelines, IMO.
A situation like this was inevitable. Both parties were put in an incredibly **** spot because of vague guidelines that contradict existing laws.

The casino could make the table shorthanded and not violate the covid guidelines. The covid guidelines don't even require the plexiglass. That is an accommodation that gaming control allowed casinos to implement if they wanted to spread full games.

I think there is more to it than that.
Venetian has no reason to discriminate against people with disabilities. In fact they usually cater to them, going after their disability checks.
This was a business decision, and if they could just do what you said with zero liability I think they do it 100% of the time.