Bairstow
Well-Known Member
28 U.S. Code § 1367
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
More families of autistic kids sue Disney parks
- Thread starter PhotoDave219
- Start date
28 U.S. Code § 1367
Well we seem to be doing a decent job of self policing these days.
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Good answer, I had to look that one up but it would only apply if in the initial case filing it was specified that diversity jurisdiction was in play. Its a double edged sword since any of the plaintiffs share citizenship in the same state that Disney is incorporated in (its Delaware) it doesnt apply. The more salient fact would be the level of damages per person that are being sought. If its above $75,000 for a plaintiff then its a federal case under Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a).
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Ah, you're right.
It's more like pendent jurisdiction than 1367 supplementary jurisdiction.
At any rate, there's no problem adding on a claim based on state law if there's already proper federal question jurisdiction on the same facts.
Lucky
Well-Known Member
Disney did copy it. No one is suing Uni because it didn't change its program.
Goofnut1980
Well-Known Member
Go to the most any other attraction or amusement park - they are not as forgiving as Disney is. How does Universal do it? And you can't say Express Pass or single rider, because we waited longer in that line in May over the standard lines.
Gomer
Well-Known Member
There won't be as much demand on non-Disney parks. In general (and this a very large generalization) thrill rides tend to be too much sensory overload for kids with autism. There are some who seek that level of input yes, but the majority are more likely to stick to tamer moving experiences (dark rides, spinners, omnimovers etc...)
So, I don't think that it isn't a problem at Universal or 6 flags or wherever. I think its just not as big a story because it is negatively impacting fewer people and because there was never a significant loss of privilege that upset a large number of people who had been using the card in a manner that led to too much abuse. Disney built the GAC program around the demand for their niche (An inventory of rides uniquely suited to those with autism). When they took it away, the outcry was understandably loud (note not justifiably, just understandability) and then faded over time. Some have just yet to move past or accept it.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Just add... they took nothing away, just made it more reasonable and protective of their needs. Getting on a ride up front is not a big deal, repeated rides are! Non-worthy people using the system to get an undeserved perk, need to be controlled.
Unfortunately, the ADA laws, although well intentioned were not thought out as to how those ideas might ultimately harm even those that it was created to help. They were written way to broadly, without enough specifics being spelled out. It is a big problem and needs complete adjustment.
It needs to understand that it isn't shameful to have a handicap, it is a condition. Clarifying that condition to insure enjoyment is not a source of embarrassment to a person with a disability, they know they have one, however, being thought of as a fake surely is embarrassing. It just needs a more solid way to ID so that all that doubt disappears, then the skepticism by others would decline considerably. The need to ID is not because anyone thinks that those that are disabled aren't telling the truth, it is to determine those that are attempting to exploit it. That way it makes it easier to help those that need the assistance and not the ones that just want it for convenience reasons.
Then the problem would be sorting out the ethical Doctors from the unethical ones. That is a recent happening. When a Doctor will basically write anything out for a person that is insistent that they do. That control will be more difficult, but, a much smaller problem then what currently exists.
They setup is very similar to Disney's. You go to the CM outside their Express Pass, hand them the card, get a time to come back.
Gomer
Well-Known Member
Well, they did take something away. You can make the argument that it should have never been there in the first place. That well meaning cast members pushed the boundaries of what was allowed by the GAC so far that it became ripe for abuse. But the off book practices became so common that they became expected. When DAS came in what had become common place was removed and people reacted. Some briefly, others still aren't happy but have accepted the change. And others still think they can bring back what they once had. Unfortunately I think that idea is short sighted will only end up doing more harm than good to the people who really need the special accommodations.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Yes, but the problem is that GAC never allowed FOL access. It was something that just evolved the same as come back whenever you feel like it FP's a few years ago. By not correcting that early on they did create that monster, but, it was never intended to begin with. So now they have a system that actually DOES allow FOL access, with just a minor requirement. When looked at it that way, they then gave a benefit that was only there by mistake to begin with and is now part of the established policy. It is now officially established and detailed as to how it should work and not left up to the discretion of a random CM.
Gomer
Well-Known Member
Not technically allowed, but it was allowed in practice. And in such frequency, that very few would know what the actual intent was unless they read the back of their card. (Which they should...but you know they don't)
I agree with your general sentiment. But Disney allowed GAC to grow into what it became. Not just for ride looping, but in general access to FP lines for anyone with a GAC card or an ECV. They let it get too far and then took it away. People will react negatively, whether Disney is in the right or not. Its just human nature.
The system as it stands under DAS is more streamlined and simplified and it will work fine for most everyone if they ever get it properly integrated with MDE. Once they do that, only the most severe cases and the most entitled will still have an issue. One is an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect of a change necessitated by abuse. The other, well they deserve what the get since they brought on the problem in the first place
THAT is an excellent question. Its essentially the same.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Because no one has to?
Here's the interesting thing with that. We all agree that the O.G. (operations guide) says that the GAC was not a FOTL pass.
Operationally? CMs treated it as such by just sending people up the fastpass line immediately, without making anyone wait.
As usual, Operations takes the path of least resistance rather than doing what the book said.
Mouse_Trap
Well-Known Member
As I read it from the DAS guide, concerned guests discuss their issues with Guest Relations......who typically decide that a DAS will be a reasonable accomodation for their needs.
Thus they can claim it's not a blanket solution and back it up with proof that GR staff are able to use their discretion, but realistically its what 99.9% of requests are going to receive.
Glad they have stopped doing so, like how the GAC evolved.....unfortunately this just sets a precedent and an expectation that people will always get this.
COrunner
Well-Known Member
Which brings up another question and pardon my ignorance, which rides does WDW offer which would be suited for those with autism?
I wouldn't think there would be a way to identify those rides and modify the DAS for those rides while keeping the current system in place for others. Plus this modification would most likely lead to confusion and abuse and we are back at the start again.
The whole point of that paragraph is to cover Disney if the DAS is not enough. However if all you ever do is give the blanket solution then you are not really meeting the statement. The Florida Human Rights Commission felt that was the case in 5 separate instances and that the accommodation of just a DAS was not reasonable. Your or my opinion really is irrelevant in this case as the decider will be a federal judge. These determinations just mean Disney is going to have to work a little harder to prove their case.
The GAC was not built around any niche of rides, but in the case of autism it was enforced as alternate entrance, which was stamped right on the card. In many cases the only effective alternate entrance was the fp line. However if there was an alternative entrance and the ride did not have a FP line you could actually wait longer. Good examples are Pirates of the Caribbean and Spaceship Earth. Both have a FP line today but that is new with the FP+ changes which basically coincided with the DAS changes.
If I look at a sampling of postings and personal experience. I would say mostly omnimover dark rides. My son could have ridden Buzz Lightyear over and over all day if we had let him. But we limited him to twice a day at most, and even then not one ride after the other, we would have to do other rides or other things in between.