Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[GrumpyFan]

I didn't see this posted anywhere, but apparently Disney Parks has been sued by a group of families with autistic children over the new DAS policy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...isney-autism-lawsuit-20140408,0,4568062.story

Allegedly, this is the suit in reference:
http://www.dogalilaw.com/files/86572403.pdf

 

[sshindel]

I didn't see this posted anywhere, but apparently Disney Parks has been sued by a group of families with autistic children over the new DAS policy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...isney-autism-lawsuit-20140408,0,4568062.story

Allegedly, this is the suit in reference:
http://www.dogalilaw.com/files/86572403.pdf

I believe you don't see it because it's been posted and locked/deleted 3 or 4 times already this week because it gets out of hand quickly. Maybe this time it'll be discussed in a way it wont die a quick and painful death?

 

[cw1982]

I believe you don't see it because it's been posted and locked/deleted 3 or 4 times already this week because it gets out of hand quickly. Maybe this time it'll be discussed in a way it wont die a quick and painful death?

This.

And that's all I'm going to say.

 

[GrumpyFan]

I believe you don't see it because it's been posted and locked/deleted 3 or 4 times already this week because it gets out of hand quickly. Maybe this time it'll be discussed in a way it wont die a quick and painful death?

I wondered about that. Haven't been on much in the last few days.
I've seen how this topic goes though, and unfortunately it's very sensitive, but I understand why too.

 

[GrumpyFan]

I haven't read the entire suit yet, but part of it seems to hinge on the following:

6. 42 U.S.C. §12182(a) provides as follows:

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or
leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. ​

Now, as far as I understand it, Disney hasn't discriminated in any way. Could somebody show otherwise?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I haven't read the entire suit yet, but part of it seems to hinge on the following:

6. 42 U.S.C. §12182(a) provides as follows:

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or
leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. ​

Now, as far as I understand it, Disney hasn't discriminated in any way. Could somebody show otherwise?

The argument is that the children with more severe cases of autism are incapable of waiting just as a person in a wheelchair is incapable of using stairs.

 

[GrumpyFan]

The argument is that the children with more severe cases of autism are incapable of waiting just as a person in a wheelchair is incapable of using stairs.

I can accept that. However, they went on further to cite the following:

Title III further includes a “Specific prohibition” against discrimination.
42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) provides in pertinent part:

. . . discrimination includes—

(ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures, when such modifications are
necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations to individuals with
disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making
such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of
such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations.​

Couldn't Disney use this to their advantage as well, and say that the old system, while it was accommodating to the letter of the law, had been compromised and was being abused by non-disabled persons, which is the reason for the new policy? In which case, I would think they could also argue that continuing to operate the old policy was fundamentally altering the nature of their business, and negatively impacting guests, both disabled and not.
The new policy, while it does add a potential wait for some at busy times, still affords guests the special access needed in accordance with the law.

In the end, I just don't see where it's reasonable for Disney to offer access to the parks and attractions without any kind of wait. The parks are just too crowded, and to expect them to offer this would be tantamount to someone expecting them to provide park-wide AC or shade because they're allergic or can't tolerate the heat. It's just not feasible. I don't say that to be offensive or harsh, but it's just outside the realm of possibility for a good majority of the time. There are times of the year, like January, February, October, etc. where it might be possible, but outside of that, it's asking the impossible.

 

[amzgirl]

I have an autistic child. I miss the GAC, but the DAS is workable, especially combined with FP+. It was much more difficult before FP+, but I knew that things would get easier for us when FP+ comes online fully, so I just waited it out. I have an older and now more easygoing child though. Five years ago the change would have been a real problem.

However, I really do not think they have a leg to stand on, especially when I read this: "They said offering a return time is equivalent to a wait, and there is no guarantee of immediate access to attractions at the return time." I don't remember ever having immediate access to attractions even with the GAC. SSE and TT come to mind, as well as the Astro Orbiter and even TSMM, you could wait as long as 15 to 20 minutes for any of those. And there was not one ride that you flashed a GAC for and were immediately whisked onto the ride. It always depended on the fastpass line at the time. I do not believe that one can interpret the ADA to say that autistic children should never have to wait for anything. And this is from someone who used the heck out of our GAC.

I am hoping that we can start using our MBs to reserve DAS times in the near future. That would be about as good as it can be for us.

Hmmm, now I am wondering, since the Be Our Guest restaurant has a fast pass, can I use my DAS for it? Or what about Illuminations? I wonder?

 

[wdw71fan]

suing just for the sake of suing.. not even TRYING to work with the new system.. That's all this is....

 

[lazyboy97o]

I can accept that. However, they went on further to cite the following:

Title III further includes a “Specific prohibition” against discrimination.
42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) provides in pertinent part:

. . . discrimination includes—

(ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures, when such modifications are
necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations to individuals with
disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making
such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of
such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations.​

Couldn't Disney use this to their advantage as well, and say that the old system, while it was accommodating to the letter of the law, had been compromised and was being abused by non-disabled persons, which is the reason for the new policy? In which case, I would think they could also argue that continuing to operate the old policy was fundamentally altering the nature of their business, and negatively impacting guests, both disabled and not.
The new policy, while it does add a potential wait for some at busy times, still affords guests the special access needed in accordance with the law.

I think @amzgirl covered the hurdle. There is simply no way Disney can truly eliminate waiting. What happens when the wait is caused by other autistic children? It comes down to whether or not the process of acquiring return times is an unreasonable burden on the disabled customers. While Disney's new system is more in line with industry practices, Disney also for some time had alternate practices and has more resources than others in the industry.

 

[Lucky]

I believe you don't see it because it's been posted and locked/deleted 3 or 4 times already this week because it gets out of hand quickly. Maybe this time it'll be discussed in a way it wont die a quick and painful death?

Hope so. This discussion has been perfectly reasonable so far, but the crazies will come out sooner or later.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Hope so. This discussion has been perfectly reasonable so far, but the crazies will come out sooner or later.

I think it's been reasonable, because it hasn't been alive for very long.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Although, I wouldn't go so far as to call them "crazies", they're just passionate about the issue.

 

[Gomer]

I’m really curious to know what the “unspecified damages” are that they are looking for. Are we talking returned ticket costs for what they see as a wasted day, or are they looking for a significant sum due to some sort of mental trauma argument?

I’m not in favor of the suit either way. The DAS system and FP+ combination works fine for my son. But, what they are seeking if they win the suit might really affect my opinion on those doing the suing.

Outside of that, I don't think they have a shot of getting Disney to alter the policy. That ship has sailed. They are better off working with Disney to see what compromises can be made to meet needs on both ends than trying to fight this battle.

 

[Lucky]

I think it's been reasonable, because it hasn't been alive for very long.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Although, I wouldn't go so far as to call them "crazies", they're just passionate about the issue.

No, passion and extremism aren't the same thing. I was referring to extreme views, not strongly held views.

 

[The Mom]

The thread is still visible - locking just means that no more comments can be added.

 

[bethymouse]

@Gomer I am with you. I want to know what those "unspecified" damages are. Are they asking for a refund of park tickets? I still think that if the disability is clearly stated to the CMs , they would be able to accommodate the child in some way. I guess it depends on the severity of the autism. There are so many levels of autism. I can see a child on the more severe end of the autism spectrum needing a DAS.

 

[amzgirl]

I just read the lawsuit, the parts that were interesting anyway, once you get past the citing of the various laws and the definitions of terms. And I have to say, they make some very good points, here are a few of the ones that stuck out for me (my summary of their wording):
1. Changing the GAC in response to the "rent a disabled person" kerfluffle was unnecessary, since no one would want to rent an autistic person to avoid lines (LOL) and since they simply could eliminate wheelchair users from getting a GAC by mainstreaming all the lines (which they have.)
2. Changing the nice generic name of the Guest Assistance Card to Disabled Access Service is demeaning (I agree but it never really bothered me, my son is disabled, no avoiding of the word will change that.)
3. Requiring that a photo be taken is not required for non-disabled guests.
4. The photo is directly under the word "disability". LOL, I never noticed that.
5. Asking a person with severe cognitive disabilities to go up to a ride and then leave again without riding is preposterous (I agree completely here.) They compared it with giving a hungry person with cognitive disabilities a plate of food and then telling them they must wait to eat. Yes yes yes, THIS is the biggest issue I have with this system. I just count my blessings that my son has calmed down enough over the past year that this is no longer a problem. THIS would have been the major problem two or three years ago, and would have stopped us from attending the parks, period.
6. The wording of the card states that it is "designed for guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits due to disability." The very next sentence on the card says "This service allows guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction". The second sentence contradicts the first.
7. The card states "when utilizing this service, it is possible to experience waits greater than the posted wait time." Hello??
8. Waiting up to an hour or more for a card that will decrease your waiting is not a reasonable accommodation.
9. But the biggest theme running through the suit is the following - Disney came up with this attempt at a "one size fits all" accommodation, with NO accommodation to those kids who do not fit in with this approach. The two types of kids that this approach does not fit are the "repeat riders", who like to ride one ride over and over (remember the Snow White kid) and the "set pattern" kids, who MUST follow an EXACT pattern when going through a park (I know kids like this, it is VERY difficult to deal with.) Here is where I must make an apology, my son, though severe, was NEVER like either of these two examples. If my previous post seemed insensitive to parents of kids who are, with my "the das is workable in combo with FP+" statement, then I truly apologize. I have been very fortunate that my son's autism never necessitated this type of approach to the parks, and it was insensitive of me to imply that the DAS + FP should work for everyone. It will NOT work for the two types of kids above.

OK, that's my summary, I really do believe after reading it that they make some valid points. Gotta go to dinner now.

 

[wdisney9000]

I believe you don't see it because it's been posted and locked/deleted 3 or 4 times already this week because it gets out of hand quickly. Maybe this time it'll be discussed in a way it wont die a quick and painful death?

Thats half the excitement of a good discussion. People are going to get emotional on topics such as this. Worrying about it getting out of hand serves no purpose. We are on an internet forum. Nobody can throw a punch or harm another person. Whats the worst that could happen, someone slams their mac book shut out of frustration?

I understand if the mods decide to lock it, thats their call, and we have to accept it, but until that happens people should freely voice their opinions without fear of other members labeling them "crazy". Its annoying when people ask the mods to lock it up because they dont like the way the discussion is going. Just leave the discussion if thats how you feel.

i personally feel that if the parents of the autistic children who are suing Disney really had their childs best interest in mind, they would find a way to make the system work and not waste time and energy on legal action that will more than likely go nowhere. If waiting in any of kind of line causes problems then Disney World is not the best place for their children. Even if it is teraputic. They cant just sue a grocery store because they had to wait in line and their child got frustrated. Disney is under fire because they made an effort to accommodate autistic children and handicapped, etc (GAC) and felt that it was being abused so they tweaked it. At least they made an effort to begin with, not many other places do that, or even care at all about your autistic child. But now theyre the bad guy because DAS doesnt suit their individual needs 100%? Im not defending Disney. Am I saying the sytem is perfect? No, but at least theyre trying.

 

[Figment2005]

If Disney implemented a way for DAS guests to pre-schedule their access to attractions, then I feel a lot of these problems would be solved. That would mean that parents would not have to walk up to the attraction with their child and then have to walk away. Even the ability to go through the process of scheduling a return time at, let's say, guest relations would diminish that problem.

 

[maxairmike]

If I remember right, the person on the card doesn't have to be the one to collect the return time, correct? I thought they just checked at the return to make sure the group wasn't using it as a way to defeat the standby line for something they want to do, but the person who the card is for didn't want to do (which was common under the GAC, as long as someone in your party was the same gender as the name on the card, you could usually skate by using it). If so, there goes probably one of their biggest points in the argument.