When Technology Becomes a Medical Device: The ADA Challenge Behind Disney’s Smart Glasses Case

A longtime Disney World security host, Angeliz E. Bruno Cedeno, says she just wanted to see clearly and do her job. What began as a simple medical accommodation, wearing her doctor-prescribed Meta smart glasses to alleviate light sensitivity and astigmatism, has evolved into a federal disability-discrimination lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.

A Request for Help Becomes a Dispute

Bruno Cedeno started at Disney in 2022, earning $22 an hour. After developing postpartum eye conditions, her physician prescribed Meta smart glasses to help reduce glare and improve focus. For months, she wore them at work without issue.

That changed on June 5, 2025, when managers summoned her to a closed-door meeting and questioned her about the prescription lenses, asking for private medical details. According to her complaint, the discussion continued in front of co-workers, leaving her humiliated.

In the weeks that followed, she repeatedly asked for written confirmation of any policy prohibiting her from wearing glasses. None was provided. Instead, she says, management escalated the matter through several tense meetings, where supervisors invoked their “law enforcement experience” and pressured her to admit to noncompliance.

When she formally requested an accommodation, Disney’s employee relations representative offered only two choices: take medical leave or transfer to another position — neither of which, she argued, addressed her disability. Hoping to resolve the issue, she contacted senior leadership.

Within an hour, a vice president confirmed by email that no policy prohibited the use of the medical device. Yet, days later, a different manager announced an “executive decision” to ban all smart glasses immediately. No policy document was shown, and no explanation was given for the reversal.

From Accommodation to Alleged Retaliation

After filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Florida Commission on Human Relations, Bruno Cedeno says the retaliation began. Supervisors pulled her aside without notice, called her “rude,” and arranged disciplinary meetings allegedly designed to justify punishment.

One union representative allegedly warned her against pursuing legal action, even suggesting she “buy dummy glasses on Amazon” or “start a GoFundMe.” Meanwhile, other Disney employees reportedly continued to wear electronic devices, such as smartwatches, without restriction.

On October 23, 2025, Bruno Cedeno filed her Complaint in Federal court in Florida. See Bruno Cedeno v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc., No. 6:25-cv-02046 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2025).

The Legal Issue

At the center of the dispute is whether Meta smart glasses — which blend augmented-reality features with corrective lenses — can qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with disabilities unless doing so would cause undue hardship or create a legitimate safety or privacy concern. Emerging assistive technologies complicate that analysis. Devices like smart glasses can collect data or record surroundings, raising privacy concerns for guests or coworkers. However, when prescribed as a medical necessity, blanket bans may not hold up if less restrictive alternatives exist.

Courts have generally required case-by-case assessments rather than categorical bans. Employers must engage in an interactive process with the employee, document the discussion, and explore feasible adjustments before denying or restricting an accommodation.

Employer Takeaways

• Review and update workplace technology policies to reflect emerging assistive devices, rather than using generic “electronics” language.

• Engage in the ADA interactive process early, documenting all steps and reasons for any restriction.

• Coordinate with privacy and safety teams before banning devices that could also serve legitimate medical needs.

• Train managers to route medical accommodation issues through HR rather than making ad hoc “executive decisions.”