PUBLIC
SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
Heads-up before you plan that visit:
- Are you autistic? Or disabled? The Columbus Zoo is probably not for you.
- Are you considered low-income? The Columbus Zoo is probably not for you.
- Older or tech-averse? Have a tremor? The Columbus Zoo is probably not for you.
- Don’t trust their ability to keep your digital data safe? The Columbus Zoo is probably not for you.
That’s not a joke. It’s the pattern.
*UPDATE*
On behalf of the Columbus Zoo, the law firm Porter Wright has demanded that this site be deleted (in our view, in violation of our free speech rights) and has alleged unspecified “falsehoods” in what is published during our attempts here, on social media like LinkedIn, and X to document our experience at the Zoo. The same demand letter characterizes all of our complaints and grievances regarding the treatment of our autistic son as “Baseless”, and state they “[serve] no legitimate purpose”. We have explicitly offered to correct any factual inaccuracies and have requested a complete list of everything the Zoo or its counsel claims is inaccurate; as of now, no such list has been provided. Instead of answering “specific and thoughtful” public records requests about the abuses referenced on this site, the Zoo chose to send the cease-and-desist described above.
Download our full chronological case memo (PDF)
Additional AZA accreditation context: According to the AZA Accreditation Standards:
-
"The institution must provide accessibility and public amenities for all guests."
In practice, key areas of the Zoo are functionally inaccessible to our autistic son when ride attendants choose to enforce wristband rules rigidly or inconsistently. We have repeatedly told leadership that this “accommodation” does not work for him, but our neurodivergent feedback has been minimized or waved away as if the issue is already solved.
-
"The institution must present to the visiting public a positive, professional, clean, and aesthetically pleasing environment."
The experience presented to the Finisterre family has not been positive or professional: our son has been humiliated, our concerns ignored, and instead of meaningful dialogue we have been met with legal threats and references to possible lawsuit or jail.
-
"The institution should have a process for proactively seeking, acquiring and evaluating guest feedback regarding their experiences."
I was explicitly told by the Director of Guest Services that it was “not productive to talk to you any further on this matter,” even as I tried to explain how current policy discriminates against my son. Escalating all the way to the board still produced no meaningful engagement or change, which is the opposite of a proactive feedback process.
-
"We must understand the relationships we share with the public."
The Zoo’s response to our family shows that it does not truly understand or value its relationship with us as disabled members of the public. Our lived experience as a neurodiverse family has been treated as a nuisance to manage rather than a relationship to understand and honor.
Prayer for Relief (From an Autistic Kid's Perspective)
Wherefore, from the point of view of an autistic kid who just wants to enjoy the Zoo without
being singled out, I respectfully ask for the following:
-
Stop making rides depend on a wristband I can't tolerate.
Please stop making my ability to ride things depend on a Tyvek wristband that I can't
stand to wear or even see on my dad. Let there be a clear, simple, band-free way for autistic
and other disabled guests to show they are Gold members and get on rides, using our Gold cards
or digital IDs instead.
-
Stop making us re-explain my disability at every kiosk.
Please stop making me (or my dad) explain my disability over and over again at each ride or
kiosk. Train staff to offer accommodations up front, and put up clear signs, so I don't
have to keep proving I'm disabled or feel like I'm doing something wrong just because
my brain and body work differently.
-
Make your "EVERY guest" promise real for disabled kids.
Please make sure that when you say, "EVERY guest deserves an exceptional experience
regardless of age and ability," that includes me and other disabled kids. Don't let
parts of the Zoo feel off-limits, scary, or humiliating depending on how a ride attendant
decides to handle wristbands that day.
-
Listen instead of calling the conversation "not productive."
Please stop treating our attempts to talk to you as "not productive." Build a real
way for disabled guests and their families to give feedback, have it taken seriously, and see
changes actually happen—without being labeled as a problem or a threat for speaking up.
-
Remember that not everyone can use your app easily.
Please understand that my grandma with a tremor, and other people who struggle with phones or
can't afford them, still matter. Don't design everything around perfect smartphone
users and then pretend that is "accessible." Let people who can't use the app
easily still take us to the Zoo and use our memberships without extra stress.
-
Be honest about digital systems and kids' data.
Please be honest about your digital systems and our data. If an app or barcode feature makes it
too easy to see kids' names and photos, say so, fix it, tell the parents what happened,
and show that you actually care more about kids' safety than about protecting your image.
-
Answer "specific and thoughtful" questions instead of ignoring them.
Please respond to specific and thoughtful questions instead of ignoring them or sending scary
legal letters. Answer things like:
- How much "Gold membership abuse" you really found,
- How much Tyvek you're using and what happens to it,
- How often disabled guests ask for accommodations and how often you say yes.
-
Stop calling our advocacy "baseless" or harassment.
Please stop calling our advocacy "baseless" or treating it like harassment. My dad
is trying to get you to listen because I am hurt, anxious, and humiliated. We are not the
enemy. We are the family you promised an "exceptional experience" to.
-
Train staff to see us as guests to help, not problems to manage.
Please train your staff so they stop warning new employees about "the Finisterre family"
and instead teach them how to treat us—and families like us—with respect, empathy, and
consistency. Let them see us as guests to help, not problems to manage.
-
Let me love the Zoo again.
Please remember that I used to love the Zoo, and I still want to. I want to ride the carousel
and the boat without having a meltdown, without arguing about wristbands, and without feeling
like I never want to come back.
And for all other changes that are fair, kind, and right to make the Columbus Zoo a place where
an autistic kid like me can actually have the "exceptional experience" you promise, I
ask that they be granted as well, as may be just and proper.
ADA Retaliation & Our Experience
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not just require reasonable accommodations - it also
forbids retaliation and interference against any individual who raises disability-related concerns.
This is spelled out in the federal law at
42 U.S.C. § 12203 (ADA Retaliation & Coercion)
, which makes it unlawful to discriminate against, coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with someone because they
opposed disability discrimination, requested an accommodation, or helped someone else exercise their ADA rights.
These protections do not only apply to employees. They also apply to guests, customers, parents,
and anyone else who raises concerns about accessibility or discrimination at a public accommodation like a zoo.
Courts have been clear that even if a person ultimately loses on the technical details of a disability claim, they
can still be protected from retaliation as long as they acted in good faith when they asked for an accommodation or
complained about discrimination.
For example, in
Heisler v. Metropolitan Council, 339 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2003)
, the court held that an individual who is ultimately not found to be a "qualified individual with a disability"
may still pursue an ADA retaliation claim if they had a good-faith belief that the requested accommodation
was appropriate. In other words: the law protects people from being punished for trying to assert
disability rights, even if the covered entity later insists it was technically compliant.
How That Connects To Our Situation
In our case, we have repeatedly and explicitly asked the Columbus Zoo to provide an effective accommodation for our
autistic son, whose disability is largely invisible but very real. We have explained, over and over, that the forced
Tyvek wristband and digital-only system causes him severe sensory distress, anxiety, and loss of autonomy - and that
staff training and inconsistent enforcement routinely turn visits into meltdowns and humiliation.
Our requests have always been simple and disability-focused, including:
- Asking the Zoo to honor the physical Gold Pass at the ride gate (as they did historically) instead of forcing a wristband;
- Asking for clear, consistent instructions and signage so frontline staff stop harassing our son about where a band "must" be worn;
- Reporting that the current "accommodation" (shoe/ankle/second band on a caregiver) does not work in practice and is often not honored;
- Raising concerns about how forced digital systems and cashless policies impact disabled and low-income guests, including grandparents with tremors and limited tech skills;
- Reporting a serious privacy / child-data exposure in the Zoo's app and asking for a proper incident response.
Those are classic examples of protected activity under the ADA: requesting accommodations, opposing
what we believe is disability discrimination, and communicating with others (including agencies, media, and the public)
about those concerns. Under laws like 42 U.S.C. § 12203, a public accommodation is not supposed to retaliate against or
try to silence someone for doing exactly that.
What We See As Retaliation & Interference
Instead of engaging in a meaningful, good-faith "interactive process" to fix what their own leadership calls an
"exceptional experience regardless of age and ability," the response has included:
- Senior staff declaring that it is "not productive to talk to you further on these matters," even while the problem remains;
- A formal cease-and-desist letter calling our detailed discrimination complaints "baseless" and of
"no legitimate purpose," and vaguely suggesting our advocacy is "threatening" and in violation of "Ohio law";
- Demands that we stop contacting Zoo leadership, the board, and partners about these issues, and that we delete or alter this website for speaking publicly about our experience;
- Continued refusal to provide records and data we have requested about "Gold membership abuse," accommodations, and their own audits, even while citing those same concepts to justify policy.
From our perspective, this pattern looks less like genuine problem-solving and more like an attempt to
coerce, intimidate, or interfere with our ongoing efforts to secure a workable accommodation for our
son and to hold a powerful institution accountable. The ADA's retaliation and interference provisions exist precisely
because families like ours are often met with this kind of pushback when we insist that accessibility and dignity
actually matter.
Asking for a better process for our autistic son, pointing out that their wristband/digital policies are
discriminating against him and other disabled or poor guests, and documenting the impact on our family is not
"harassment" and not "baseless." It is what federal disability law contemplates: people with disabilities and their
families speaking up, even loudly and persistently, when a system is hurting them.
We will continue to speak up, document our experiences, and share information with oversight bodies, advocacy
organizations, and the public. That includes preserving this website as a record of both the discrimination our son
has faced and the Zoo's attempts to silence rather than solve the problem.
$10 plastic card "upgrade" = ADA surcharge (and the Zoo removed prior wording)
The Zoo's membership page now says: digital cards are free, and you can "purchase a plastic membership card for $10 per card."
Prior versions of this page included a key carve-out: you could request one physical card per membership, and only
additional cards would cost $10. That "one card per membership" language has been removed.
Older wording (archived):
- You may call to request one card per membership after your purchase.
- Additional plastic cards will be $10 per card.
Current wording (now):
- Digital membership cards are FREE with your membership purchase.
- You may call to purchase a plastic membership card for $10 per card (materials and postage).
- The "one card per membership" language is omitted.
Our direct experience: Ian's grandma (my mother-in-law) has a tremor that makes using the digital ID app difficult or prohibitive.
She has three grandchildren on memberships. Even while the Zoo's own webpage indicated physical cards could be requested,
staff told us physical cards were "impossible" to print (including claims like "we threw the machines away").
When she was finally allowed to obtain physical cards anyway *months later*, the Zoo demanded $10 per card for each child - meaning
$30 in total to accommodate her tremor for three grandkids.
Ian also was charged $10 for a physical card even after we stated clearly that the card was being requested as an accommodation for
his autism-related sensory needs (because the wristband workflow triggers distress and repeated negative interactions). In other words, *we were charged
to obtain the accommodation itself.*
The Zoo also refuses to provide policy in a physical format on request and has told us in person while attempting to complain in the membership office that it is "YOUR responsibility"
to access policy online. while being directly told "no I will not show it to you" - which itself assumes the very digital access that disabled guests may not have.
Why this matters legally: The ADA generally does not allow charging disabled people extra money to cover the cost of measures required
to provide nondiscriminatory access (often called the ADA "no surcharge" rule).
-
Title III (public accommodations): 28 C.F.R. 36.301(c) - no surcharge to cover costs of required measures (including reasonable policy modifications).
Source
-
Title II (public entities): 28 C.F.R. 35.130(f) - no surcharge to cover costs of required measures (including program accessibility).
Source
Courts have addressed the same underlying principle in "fee for access" contexts (different facts, same concept), such as:
Brown v. N.C. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 166 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 1999)
and
Klingler v. Director, Dept. of Revenue, 433 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2006).
Links for posterity:
Current Zoo page
|
Archived page (Nov 19, 2024)
*UPDATE*
Why we’re saying this (the short version):
- Staff are not trained to meaningfully assist you—their own ADA guide says it (see quote below).
- KultureCity “sensory-friendly” certification is basically a click-through module: venue listing
(link), public training portal
(link), and the “required” video you can technically close immediately
(video). Don’t expect anyone to proactively offer a sensory bag in a meltdown.
- Non-recyclable Tyvek wristbands are forced by default—sensory-hostile and environmentally dubious.
- Digital-only expectations require a charged smartphone all day (exclusionary and energy-wasteful).
- Smartphone/contract gatekeeping for kids: you can’t just send your kid with $20 to ride. They’ll be sent to the gate or a kiosk to enter a prepaid-card contract first
(cashless page), then told only an adult can be helped if anything goes wrong—because minors can’t legally contract.
- Cashiers removed, kiosks added: easier for kids to overspend and not get it back. Observed groups of non-middle-class, non-white, non-rich kids turned away to get prepaid cards—no parent in sight.
- Evolv “AI” security scanners split families at the gate (strollers, order of screening), have high false positives, and lawsuits elsewhere—while giving a false sense of safety.
- “Accommodations” create dependency: kids must be with the adult who wears the wristband or carries the phone; autonomy evaporates.
- Yes, the cashless page has a typo (“How will does affect my visit…”) and leans on greenwashing (“less paper currency”) while the park piles up non-recyclable Tyvek.
Tip line (auto-investigation): tipline@columbuszoo.org — include: “I’ve been discriminated against”, “I have a disability”, “You’ve made the zoo less accessible to me”.
Not affiliated: This page is not affiliated with the Columbus Zoo & Aquarium. It compiles first-hand experience and linked/archived materials.
1) Introduction
Purpose: document accessibility barriers, discriminatory impacts, and policy/practice gaps—especially for autistic and sensory-sensitive guests—and provide escalation contacts.
Intent: help families decide with eyes open before buying tickets or renewing memberships.
2) Background & Context
“The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium believes EVERY guest deserves an exceptional experience regardless of age and ability.”
Reality check: after the fraud scandal and leadership changes, the guest experience feels tuned for micro-transactions over inclusion.
Fraud context: indictments summary (PDF).
3) Policy vs. Practice (Accessibility)
Official “Accessibility” page: columbuszoo.org/accessibility. It says call 614-645-3400 for accommodations; in practice, they’re inconsistently honored or denied.
3.1 ADA Guide: “We Aren’t Trained to Help You” (their words)
From the current ADA guide
ADA Rides & Attractions Guide — “May 06” (2025):
ADA Guidelines & Access: The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium team members do not have the proper training to physically assist guests with disabilities.
Please attempt to enjoy our rides and attractions with someone who is aware of your needs and can physically assist you when needed. Accessibility varies from ride to ride due to the design and safety requirements of each individual attraction.
Translation in real life: “physically” becomes a shield for not helping at all—even basic human decency. A manager wouldn’t even look at or speak to my autistic son when he bravely asked for his voice to be heard. No “sorry.” No “we’ll do better.” Just unrelated gaslighting about refusing physical cards to a family member with a tremor—and trying to tack on $30 she refused to pay.
3.2 KultureCity Certification: what it actually is
3.3 Timeline & Codified Discrimination
- Older ADA guide had no wristband-only rule for Gold members:
June 2023 archive.
The accessibility page as of May 6, 2025 reflected the older framing:
archived accessibility page (May 06).
- May 12, 2025: Operations Director Sam King emailed:
“We will be adding all appropriate information to the Accessibility guide and I appreciate your feedback on that subject.”
- Shortly after, the new guide added:
“Gold members are required to wear a wristband to access all rides and attractions. Physical or digital cards cannot be shown at individual attractions for admittance.”
— i.e., our request for a real accommodation was turned into a park-wide restriction for everyone.
Training snapshot: an all-staff memo (Aug 13) reminded employees to allow bands affixed to clothing for rides—proof the enforcement is arbitrary. The old physical Gold card never had this problem.
4) Evolv Security Scanners: Separation & False Confidence
- Family split at entry: staff often pull parents through first, hold back strollers/kids, and “re-sequence” families—especially rough for autistic kids.
- False confidence: Evolv has high false positives and lawsuits elsewhere—yet sells the theater of “AI screening.”
5) Digital ID, Tracking & “Sustainability” Spin
- Shifting from a physical Gold card (autonomy) to a phone+beacons model favors marketing/behavior tracking.
- Phones must stay charged—so much for “sustainability.”
- Past data-exposure concerns and vendor “don’t talk about it” directives erode trust.
6) Tyvek Wristbands
- Sensory nightmare for many autistic/sensory-sensitive guests; humiliation during enforcement is common.
- “Conservation” mismatch: non-recyclable, and no guest education about the waste.
- Security theater: easily copied; doesn’t stop “Gold card abuse.”
- Dependency magnified: because the kid must be with the phone (digital tickets) or the adult wearing the bands, Forced digital IDs kill independence.
7) Cashless Policy & Economic Exclusion
- Smartphone & contract gatekeeping: kids can’t just use cash. They’re steered to kiosks/the gate to get a prepaid card—entering a contract—before they can ride
(cashless page).
- Minors & liability sleight of hand: “no minimum age,” but only adults can get help; liability shifts to the adult funder—while kids are still nudged to sign up.
- Cashiers removed: some stores are kiosk-only; overspending is easy and refunds are not straightforward.
- Observed exclusion: groups of non-middle-class, non-white, non-rich kids turned away for not having cards—no parent present.
- Cost creep & backlash: penny-pressing jumped from $0.51 to $1.00; community outrage:
thread 1,
thread 2. State pushback on cashless:
Columbus Dispatch.
- Greenwashing & typos: claims about “reducing paper currency” to help the planet while stockpiling Tyvek; and the page literally says “How will does affect my visit…”.
8) Staff Training & Inconsistent Enforcement
- “I technically can’t let you on like that” in one line, total pass for the next group in the same line. Kids notice.
- Refusal to print policies; guests are told to look it up themselves mid-visit.
- Digital friction = longer lines, lost park time, higher stress—especially in heat/crowds for disabled guests.
- Aug 13 memo: staff reminded to allow bands attached to clothing—training clearly lags behind new rules.
9) Day-Ticket Loopholes, “Gold Card Abuse” & COPPA
- Day-ticket (non-Gold) abuse risk: ride operators often don’t verify barcodes; paper tickets get collected and trashed—easy to counterfeit.
- Misplaced enforcement: instead of fixing the broad day-ticket loophole, pressure lands on Gold Pass holders—a much smaller population with far fewer entries. “High abuse” claims don’t track with that denominator.
- Autonomy removed: bands/phones replace the card; kids must stay tethered to the adult wearing/carrying them.
- Children’s data (COPPA) concerns: questions remain unaddressed; attempts at discussion go nowhere.
10) Public Dialogue & Accountability
- YouTube comments off; X/Twitter account private—feedback loop closed.
- Director-level engagement on ADA issues is rare; board materials in the last year have not acknowledged these problems.
11) Contacts for Escalation
12) Recommendations
- Restore physical cards as an equal option to bands/phones; give disabled kids their autonomy back.
- Fix day-ticket verification at rides (scan/validate) instead of over-policing Gold holders.
- Real accommodations: honor belt-loop/clip use without harassment; stock and proactively offer sensory bags; train for meltdown scenarios.
- Phase out Tyvek (or actually recycle it) and stop greenwashing.
- Accept cash and allow instant cash-out of prepaid balances; stop nudging minors into pseudo-contracts.
- Transparency: publish accommodation request/fulfillment stats; disclose app tracking; adopt privacy-first defaults.
- Entry-flow reform: keep families together through Evolv; stop separating kids from caregivers.
13) Closing
The promise of “EVERY guest” collapses under Evolv-driven separation, band/phone dependency, cashless exclusion, Tyvek waste, day-ticket loopholes (while targeting Gold holders), and inconsistent training. If you’re disabled, low-income, older, tech-averse, or simply expect working accommodations, know what you’re walking into—and don’t be surprised when the “modern” systems feel like barriers, not bridges.