Security host alleges retaliation after seeking accommodation for vision condition
A Disney World security worker claims the company banned her doctor-prescribed smart glasses, then retaliated when she complained, raising questions about how employers handle emerging assistive technology.
Angeliz E. Bruno Cedeno filed suit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts on October 23, 2025, in federal court in Florida, alleging the company discriminated against her disability and punished her for pushing back.
Bruno Cedeno, 29, has worked as a security host at Disney World in Orlando since July 29, 2022, earning $22 an hour. She says postpartum eye conditions left her with light sensitivity and astigmatism that substantially limits her ability to see. Her doctor prescribed Meta smart glasses as a medical device to assist with her vision-related accommodation needs.
For a time, she wore the glasses at work without incident or complaint from management. Then everything changed on June 5, 2025.
That day, her manager Tim Isaacs pulled her into a closed-door meeting without allowing her union representative present, which she says violated her Weingarten rights. Isaacs and another manager, Joel Torres, pressed her for private medical details about her prescription and lens specifications. The meeting continued publicly in the screening area in front of her coworkers, she says, leaving her embarrassed and humiliated.
Over the next several days, Bruno Cedeno reached out to her union representatives by email asking for clarification on any policy that prohibited her glasses. Management provided no written policy and could not cite any specific rule or regulation her glasses violated, she says.
Still, the pressure mounted. On June 26, Isaacs called her into another meeting alongside manager Scott Boothroyd and union representative James Pirson. Isaacs mentioned his law enforcement background in what she describes as an intimidating manner, pushing her to admit noncompliance even though she says she had followed written Disney policy. Her union rep helped her write a statement confirming her compliance, but management continued treating her in what she calls a discriminatory manner.
The next day, Bruno Cedeno formally requested a medical accommodation and policy clarification through Disney's employee relations department. On June 30, Doctor Thai completed the required forms confirming the glasses were medically necessary for her disability.
But instead of working with her, employee relations representative Emma Bramer offered only two options: transfer to a different position or take medical leave. Neither would address her disability, Bruno Cedeno says, and both would cause her financial harm and loss of seniority.
She tried compromising. On July 15, she emailed Bramer offering to wear non-prescription glasses temporarily while awaiting policy guidance from the company. The next day, frustrated by what she calls mistreatment and unequal enforcement, she escalated to Vice President Linda Reid.
Reid's response came within an hour. Copying HR personnel, the vice president confirmed no existing policy prohibited the medical device—contradicting the treatment Bruno Cedeno says she had received from lower-level management.
On July 18, Bruno Cedeno instructed Bramer to hold off on accommodations until HR reviewed the policy with Reid, which she says demonstrated Disney was aware no policy existed.
Yet on July 22, Bramer issued a permanent medical restriction without Bruno Cedeno's consent, which she says violated her doctor's instructions and exceeded the scope of her accommodation request. Bruno Cedeno immediately objected by email to HR, saying she had not consented to permanent restrictions and that this action violated her doctor's recommendations.
The next day, Bramer called with what Bruno Cedeno describes as a noticeably changed tone, shifting from acting as an advocate to identifying herself as a leader and arranging a meeting with senior management without explaining why she had not helped with policy clarification.
That meeting came on July 24. Manager Eileen Underwood, joined by Torres and union representative Pirson, delivered what they called an executive decision: smart glasses were banned effective immediately. No formal written policy was shown. Underwood refused to identify who made the executive decision, which Bruno Cedeno says demonstrated the arbitrary nature of the discrimination.
The announcement contradicted Vice President Reid's email and prior HR guidance, showing what she calls inconsistent and discriminatory treatment. Bruno Cedeno left the meeting in tears and remained in the Woody's parking lot for an hour. Due to her emotional state, she was relieved of her duties early, as confirmed by union representative Pirson and Tim Isaacs, who approved the relief of service.
She had already filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Florida Commission on Human Relations on June 23, 2025. The EEOC issued her a right-to-sue notice on September 8, 2025.
After that filing, she says, the retaliatory conduct continued. On August 2, Boothroyd pulled her aside from her assigned work location at Contemporary Screening without prior notice and pressured her about the July 24 meeting. When she refused to answer questions, he called her rude, which she describes as continued retaliatory behavior, while union representative Chris Kobelt was present but failed to intervene.
Six days later, Boothroyd and manager Tiffany Francis arranged for a union rep to clock in early specifically to facilitate disciplinary action against her, she says. When asked directly, Boothroyd confirmed no formal policy existed prohibiting her medical device, yet the disciplinary action proceeded. She refused to sign due to what she calls the retaliatory nature and lack of any supporting policy, with union representative Kobelt noting declined to sign.
On August 10, union representative Kris Tomich took a different approach during a meeting with HR representative Simrat Sodhi at the Contemporary Resort. Tomich threatened her with termination if she pursued legal action, citing at-will employment, then suggested she ask social media followers for money, start a GoFundMe campaign, or buy dummy glasses on Amazon, she says. Tomich physically grabbed her glasses and personal notebook without permission and denied her right to pursue a grievance through proper channels. During this meeting, Tomich produced her employment record without her consent in what she describes as an apparent attempt to discredit her.
A text message from a coworker confirmed managers were working on updating the policy to exclude Meta or smart glasses, which she says proved no policy existed when she was disciplined.
The pattern continued. On September 30, fellow cast member Ron Andries was disciplined for wearing smart glasses based on what managers claimed was a guest complaint about recording, but they conducted no investigation, she says, showing a pattern of discriminatory enforcement.
On October 14, during a guest suicide investigation at the Contemporary Resort, security leaders openly discussed her Meta glasses situation during the active crime scene, using what she calls the tragic event as an opportunity to gossip and influence others against ADA-approved devices. This behavior during such a sensitive situation was extremely inappropriate and caused her additional distress, demonstrating management's continued focus on discriminating against her, she says.
Five days later, Security Coordinator Imeray D. Padron confirmed to her that other cast members wear Meta glasses without punishment and advised her to consider legal action. The revelation left her visibly upset. She accidentally reported to the wrong post location due to emotional overwhelm, with leader Tiffany noticing her continued visible distress.
Throughout, she says, Disney employees routinely wear smartwatches and other electronic devices for both medical and non-medical purposes without restriction, demonstrating her treatment was based on discrimination and retaliation.
The stress took a physical toll. Bruno Cedeno says the conduct has caused significant anxiety, emotional distress, headaches, and fatigue, and has impacted her ability to breastfeed, forcing early cessation when her body stopped producing milk due to stress. She also reports loss of trust, career damage, and financial impact from legal consultation expenses and diminished job performance.
She is seeking back pay with interest, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, pension and related benefits, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief.
