D&D and the rising pandemic

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm guessing the facts of the matter are probably fairly clear-cut. They probably are immune suppressed, and they probably weren't allowed into the store.

The questions are in what that means in terms of interpretting whether the practice is discriminatory. I'm going to guess that it won't be found to be discrimination. Both Walmart and the state have a clear interest in keeping more people safe. Just taking people's word for it defeats the purpose of the policy, but having highly qualified personnel do it would be too high a practical burden. Sorry, but in the overall health crisis, quick and dirty may be acceptable.

The plaintiff claims to have diabetes and some form of cancer, so probably IS immunocompromised.

In all likelihood, the security guards have been advised that such people are to be considered admissible during C19 shopping hours- both afflictions are explicitly mentioned in all the similar policies I’ve seen here in Texas.

If those diseases were part of the policy- and the guards weren’t briefed- that’s an administrative failure and the retailer will probably lose.

If those diseases weren’t part of the policy, that’s something that could go either way, depending on how the court views the store’s standard vs state and federal guidelines.

If those diseases were part of the policy and the guards were briefed, but the plaintiff provided no form of proof if asked, that’s probably a loss for the plaintiff. The guards would qualify under the law as personnel with a “need to know” a person’s health info in order to implement the policy.

 

[Hussar]

There's several hundred yachets wanting to sail here to dodge storm season in the pacific.

French polynesia wasn't doing to good with Covid.

Let one in and yeah.

Was only half serious. How long does it take to sail from French Polynesia to NZ? I mean, if it's more than 2 weeks, then they've already done their isolation before they arrived.

 

[Zardnaar]

Was only half serious. How long does it take to sail from French Polynesia to NZ? I mean, if it's more than 2 weeks, then they've already done their isolation before they arrived.

No idea.

They did ask, got told no came anyway.

The main thing is there's several hundred of them (300 iirc) and the dint want to deal with all of them I suppose. They've been wanting to come here for weeks to basically dodge storm season. It's not like they're stuck at sea just various islands. The qurantine facilities were near capacity.

Americans with kiwi partners can now get in. They relaxed the rules a few weeks ago.

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

Played D&D tonight now it's back to level 1. First time since August 5th. Shop had 25 turn up, 5 groups of five.

Ordered Rime of Frostmaiden.

 

[Umbran]

If those diseases were part of the policy and the guards were briefed, but the plaintiff provided no form of proof if asked, that’s probably a loss for the plaintiff. The guards would qualify under the law as personnel with a “need to know” a person’s health info in order to implement the policy.

And that's where I expect it will be. Who carries around a "proof I have cancer" card?

 

[Deset Gled]

If those diseases weren’t part of the policy, that’s something that could go either way, depending on how the court views the store’s standard vs state and federal guidelines.

I'd also throw "How they treated other people" into the mix of questions. If they let a bunch of people in without questioning them, or accepted the explanations of others without requiring proof, but singled this person out without a good reason, it could be a problem for the store. Of course, an arguement about what a good reason would be for singling her out would then follow.

Trying to make it a class action suit does smell odd to me, though. Without more info it's hard to tell if that's a legit thing, or just trying to raise the stakes of the lawsuit (possibly hunting for a better lawyer or for a better settlement).

 

[Umbran]

Trying to make it a class action suit does smell odd to me, though. Without more info it's hard to tell if that's a legit thing, or just trying to raise the stakes of the lawsuit (possibly hunting for a better lawyer or for a better settlement).

Yeah. There's a legal difference between "I have an issue, and they did not properly follow their policy" and "their policy is discriminatory in general".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And that's where I expect it will be. Who carries around a "proof I have cancer" card?

There are ways.

Depends on what treatment (if any) they’re on, but they’re probably going to have some kind of meds for appetite enhancement or the like. Some carry a miniature pharmacy.

Maybe an appointment card with an oncologist. Or have them CALL your oncologist.

Chemo can cause hair loss, and a lot of people suffering that will wear head coverings...which doesn’t conceal the missing brows or lashes that may also occur.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd also throw "How they treated other people" into the mix of questions. If they let a bunch of people in without questioning them, or accepted the explanations of others without requiring proof, but singled this person out without a good reason, it could be a problem for the store. Of course, an arguement about what a good reason would be for singling her out would then follow.

Trying to make it a class action suit does smell odd to me, though. Without more info it's hard to tell if that's a legit thing, or just trying to raise the stakes of the lawsuit (possibly hunting for a better lawyer or for a better settlement).

The Devil is ALWAYS in the details.

If the plaintiff acted in such a way or said something that seemed suspect to the security guards, that might have led to the “singling out”.

Coincidence could play a factor: “Doesn’t X over there look like that anti-masker who was on the local news last night?”

Hell...what if the plaintiff IS an anti-mask activist who ALSO happens to have cancer & “the sugars”?

 

[Umbran]

There are ways.

Yes. But, I am guessing that none of them were used in this case - plaintiff probably just told them, and gave no supporting evidence, and was refused.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes. But, I am guessing that none of them were used in this case - plaintiff probably just told them, and gave no supporting evidence, and was refused.

Agreed...which makes me suspicious.

Most cancer patients I know- and I unfortunately have known quite a few- have the office number of their oncologist or at least their primary MD stored on their phone or on their pill vial. A quick call would solve the issue.

But if you are unwilling or unable to expend that minimal effort to prove your eligibility? Well, we’re back to “reasonable accommodations“, which, as noted, isn’t neccisarily the accommodation you want.