Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[flynnibus]

We can argue the point all day, but in this case a judge will not be ruling on it, because they are not suing because Disney is asking for proof, they are suing because they think its not a reasonable accommodation.

I'm not arguing.. I'm educating. If you refuse the info; not my loss. You can continue to scratch your head and ponder why almost 25 years later... no one uses this simple screening method to reduce the burden on their business.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I'm kind of skipping over 7 pages of this thread here, and while this is not directly related to the lawsuit, it is related to why the change was made in the first place. Remember that many (most?) attractions began to track GAC usage months before the switch over to the DAS, and many tracked the DAS use at least for the first few months after its implementation? I used to work at one such attraction, and I think the numbers are quite astounding.
These are the average wait times of Attraction X when GAC was used during Christmas 2012 vs when DAS was used during Christmas of 2013:

12/22/2012 35 12/22/2013 31
12/23/2012 43 12/23/2013 26
12/24/2012 45 12/24/2013 27
12/25/2012 41 12/25/2013 31
12/26/2012 24 12/26/2013 28
12/27/2012 62 12/27/2013 39
12/28/2012 67 12/28/2013 37
12/29/2012 41 12/29/2013 30
12/30/2012 80 12/30/2013 60
12/31/2012 53 12/31/2013 36
1/1/2013 51 1/1/2014 29

As you can see, every day except for one day saw (mostly) significantly decreased average wait times compared to the year before except for 12/26; however, in 2012, that day saw 1150 GAC users whereas in 2013, that day saw only 450, so obviously other variables were at play there (one being a significant increase in the number of "No Strings" received compared to the previous year). Also, the 27th saw over 2500 GAC users in 2012, and 550 DAS users in 2013!

Hopefully one argument Disney will make in this lawsuit is that the DAS passes have made wait times less for EVERYONE, including actual DAS users. Yes, the numbers here are standby wait times, but in order to have lower standby wait times, you also need lower fastpass wait times!

Disney can argue this many ways including stating that unrestricted access fundamentally changed the nature of the ride by unbalancing the wait times for guests using standby.

It's an interesting line of reasoning; I'm unsure which way to go with it.

Data posted earlier from @xyz123 suggests that even with thousands using (abusing?) GAC every day, wait times generally increased by noticeable but modest amounts even during peak Christmas periods. (Sorry but anyone going during Christmas week is asking for misery. ) With DAS fully enforced, wait times declined.

Certainly some wait by the non-disabled to accommodate the disabled is allowed by the law. After all, entire attractions are sometimes stopped to accommodate those with disabilities, affecting both those on the attraction and those in line.

At what point does that wait time "fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations"?

IMHO, there has to be a threshold. If we all had to wait 1 extra hour per attraction to accommodate those with disabilities, wouldn't that be a fundamental alteration of the "services, facilities, privileges, [or] advantages"? Yet if we all had to wait 1 extra minute per attraction to accommodate those with genuine disabilities, how could that possibly be considered a fundamental alteration?

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way but at what point does a longer wait become an unreasonable accommodation?

I dunno but wonder what others think.

 

[SoupBone]

The argument will come down to whether giving a return time is considered a reasonable accommodation or not, and whether the inability to wait requires them to have an additional accommodation.

And in the mind of any reasonable person, a return time for an attraction should fulfill the obligations set forth in the ADA. It's only in threads like this, where you'll see people arguing for the return of unlimited instant access to attractions.

This should go Disney's way, but I could see a judge granting some of the more reasonable requests like kiosk access.

What exactly is kiosk access?

 

[lazyboy97o]

What exactly is kiosk access?

Rigt now one must go to the attraction to receive the return time, like was the case with FastPass. Kiosk access means receiving the return time at dedicated kiosks located around the park, like how FastPass+ is handled for those without a smartphone. This is how the system operates at the Disneyland Resort and would help with the fixations and waiting issues that can be caused by going to an attraction and then leaving.

 

[Sassagoula-Rvr]

I didn't read the previous 10 pages...but...I think this is a pretty frivolous lawsuit...

I'm sorry...but I feel Disney does make reasonable accommodations. And that is all I am going to say.

 

[Mouse_Trap]

Here are some things I think DAS can improve upon. First off, DAS has become pretty restrictive and rigid. I'll give you that it does need some flexibility.

It does need to be link to the FP+/MyMagic+ system. And plans were that it will eventually anyways, but it needs to come sooner. All DAS cards come through a FP+ line anyways and those that don't can have mobile touchpoints like an iPod with a reader. The app, kiosk, or website would allow to get a return time without showing up to the attraction and would be based on the current wait which the app also displays and is drawn straight from the source. That alone would do wonder for guests. No having to go to the attraction. More convenience for where you are at, what you are doing, etc. No paper to keep up with, and on the cast members end, no need to have to write anything down, cross anything off, do math, or even worry if someone faked their wait time.

The other thing that I think might be beneficial is similar to what some guests are offered under certain circumstances. Basically, if a guest with a disability has a fixation on a specific ride or rides, I feel like it would be reasonable to allow them to visit that attraction up to 3 times without waiting or getting a return time. It can be in a row or spread out. The guest would have to specify which attraction and it would only be limited to that, but I feel like that is going above and beyond being accommodating and taking in to consideration an exception for a specific fixation. Sure, many will argue that people will simply pick the big name popular attractions or that who's to say that 3 is enough for them. This idea needs to be thought out a lot more, but something to consider. Maybe it just comes down to a guest getting up to 3 extra FP that don't need to be picked or reserved. All they need to do is walk up and scan for them to turn green.

I can also see the 10 mins or less part changing too. I think subtracting 10 mins off the wait time to accommodate for any wait experienced in the FP line is still good, but I think that it is honestly hard for people to find attractions that are 10mins or less in wait time to get "instant access" to where no return time is needed. On a busy day in the park, getting a return time for more than an hour later leaves you scrambling to either use FP+ to get on another attraction with no wait or find something to do in the mean time. Even on a busy day, you are going to find that some typically "low wait" attractions have waits. Sometimes Hall of Presidents, Peoplemover, Carousel of Progress, Tiki Room, Swiss Family Treehouse, & Stitch's Great Escape don't cut it. I do feel bad for people trying to make DAS work for them, but are finding it incredibly hard when it is so crowded at the park. DAS on a busy day really can be a nightmare. I understand that. So, how can things change to take into account park attendance for which attractions allow "instant access" to.

I think tieing it into the MB system would be a good idea, but you could only select the attractions in the land you are currently in. So select the attraction is another land, you would need to go to that land and use the kiosk there.

I think you maybe missing the point of the 10 minutes part. The 10 minute deduction caters for the wait time that using the Fastpass line will generally incur. This ensures that the DAS user doesn't experience a longer wait time that a rider in the regular line. The only way they may wait a little longer if if if they need to wait while a specific ride vehicle cycles.
The point is not to allow a DAS user to experience other attractions whilst waiting out the allotted wait time, although of course they can always choose to do so. Neither are they required to return exactly at the point the return time begins, they can return at any time after this. A regular user cannot experience another attraction whilst they are in the line for another, so why would they need to facilitate a DAS user to do so?

A DAS user is basically saying for whatever reason, "I can't wait in that line". The reasonable accommodation offered, is "sure, not a problem. Come back anytime after x minutes and we will put you through the Fastpass line which means you don't have to wait in-line.

Sure, it maybe limiting what you can do in the alternative wait time, but you know to the regular user, the line is pretty limiting too. The DAS is not intended to let people ride another attraction whilst the wait time on their chosen DAS ride runs down.

 

[BigTxEars]

13 pages on here already. I can only imagine the court case and the legal debate going on during that. It's why I could never be a lawyer. I am guessing there is never a really proper time for a lawyer to turn to his opponent and say

"Will you please for the love of all that is sane just STFU already!"

I am guessing I would not last long as a lawyer

 

[ParentsOf4]

13 pages on here already

The amazing part is we've managed to have a long discussion on the topic without the thread getting locked.

 

[BigTxEars]

The amazing part is we've managed to have a long discussion on the topic without the thread getting locked.

True enough

I am not well versed on this subject but it seems like many here are. I don't know the right answer to the question and I am sure many abuse the heck out of this system. But just how I feel, since by the grace of God my three kids have have no major medical / emotional or metal issues then I am not going to give any grief to families that have kids with those issues if they get ahead of me in line. If for no other reason (and there are other reasons IMO) it's just bad karma.

If some cheaters get by me so the non cheaters can be taken care of then so be it.

 

[GoofGoof]

True enough

I am not well versed on this subject but it seems like many here are. I don't know the right answer to the question and I am sure many abuse the heck out of this system. But just how I feel, since by the grace of God my three kids have have no major medical / emotional or metal issues then I am not going to give any grief to families that have kids with those issues if they get ahead of me in line. If for no other reason (and there are other reasons IMO) it's just bad karma.

If some cheaters get by me so the non cheaters can be taken care of then so be it.

I'm with you there. I'd gladly wait an extra minute if it helps someone with real problems. Even if it means some scumbags abuse the system and avoid the lines.

I do applaud Disney for at least trying to address the issue of abuse. If there was an easy way to address it they probably would have done it a long time ago. The lawsuit bothers me a little because there are parts of it that definitely seem frivolous. Maybe the result of the lawsuit will be that Disney can sit down with some of the people involved and try to work with them to improve the system. It doesn't have to be black and white (DAS or GAC). Hopefully they can find some common ground and solve many of the issues. Unfortunately you can't please everyone so I'm sure some people will be upset no matter what they do.

 

[BigTxEars]

I'm with you there. I'd gladly wait an extra minute if it helps someone with real problems. Even if it means some scumbags abuse the system and avoid the lines.

I do applaud Disney for at least trying to address the issue of abuse. If there was an easy way to address it they probably would have done it a long time ago. The lawsuit bothers me a little because there are parts of it that definitely seem frivolous. Maybe the result of the lawsuit will be that Disney can sit down with some of the people involved and try to work with them to improve the system. It doesn't have to be black and white (DAS or GAC). Hopefully they can find some common ground and solve many of the issues. Unfortunately you can't please everyone so I'm sure some people will be upset no matter what they do.

I agree, do what you can to weed out the cheaters (maybe the CMs at the rides can have stun guns, if they catch someone cheating them ZAP!) but build the system to favor the guest in the "grey areas" that always come up in these matters.

 

[rct247]

I think you maybe missing the point of the 10 minutes part. The 10 minute deduction caters for the wait time that using the Fastpass line will generally incur. This ensures that the DAS user doesn't experience a longer wait time that a rider in the regular line. The only way they may wait a little longer if if if they need to wait while a specific ride vehicle cycles.
The point is not to allow a DAS user to experience other attractions whilst waiting out the allotted wait time, although of course they can always choose to do so. Neither are they required to return exactly at the point the return time begins, they can return at any time after this. A regular user cannot experience another attraction whilst they are in the line for another, so why would they need to facilitate a DAS user to do so?

Sure, it maybe limiting what you can do in the alternative wait time, but you know to the regular user, the line is pretty limiting too. The DAS is not intended to let people ride another attraction whilst the wait time on their chosen DAS ride runs down.

Oh yes, I'm aware, but it's nice that you also point it out to others. So, DAS is still "better" than what the regular guest experiences. Everyone gets 3 Fastpass picks, but DAS can use 3 Fastpass picks, plus their DAS card to wait, but out of a traditional line, which does allow them to take in another attraction with a shorter or more tolerable wait. It doesn't begin to address issues with autism, fixation, and not being able to understanding waiting/time passing by, but is is preferential treatment, better than what the average guest is getting. So no one should be able to argue that it is worse.

 

[Gabe1]

The story that remains in my mind is the Disney California Cars Land attraction. All FPs were gone almost as soon as the park opened. On a given day 20% of guests in attendance were requesting GAC at Cars Land. Add to that 20% 1 to 6 guests boarding with the GAC guest. Disney reduced the amount of FPs available because of the high percentage of guests possessing GAC. Stand by waits were easily a couple hours. It was hardly the kind thought of waiting a minute or two to help a family in need. It became about general guests not being able to get any FPs for the most part and waiting hours because of the high level of GAC requests.

It really was never about general guests not being compassionate to those traveling with real issues or fake. The vast majority of guests are not that cold. GAC was throwing off the overall operation of major attractions. Disney lost control of operations because of GAC. And yes at times stand by guests had their fill of being nice seeing the same families unload and reload, repeat onto the same attraction while the stand by queue moved little if at all, a major complaint at Toy and Cars.

Disney had to do something operationally and did. I just came back from a longish trip and I've got to say it appears Disney for the most part has seemed to work out the issues with the new assistance program. I saw guests requesting their FP+s and some guests returning to the queues. Very discrete, very short waits. In Space Mountain the FP+ queue was longer. Disney bumped the family forward by taking them out into the queue behind the wall and to the final seating queue. In the Carpet Ride the young man and his family was placed into the next landing when it appeared the FP+ queue would be a 2 flight wait. It might not be a perfect system for all but it is a system that is working, guests are using and it does seem to have restored order to the general operation of attractions.

 

[SJFPKT]

Actually there are many instances where someone can ask for proof.

I agree, I don't get this whole argument that Disney can't require proof of disability. Have you ever tried to get a handicap placard? It takes an act of congress and you can bet your bottom dollar that you aren't getting one without a letter from the doctor. If Disney wanted to require it, they could.

 

[Andrew C]

I agree, I don't get this whole argument that Disney can't require proof of disability. Have you ever tried to get a handicap placard? It takes an act of congress and you can bet your bottom dollar that you aren't getting one without a letter from the doctor. If Disney wanted to require it, they could.

I am pretty sure requiring proof of disability is illegal.

EDIT: and the reason I say this is due to a similar example. When someone brings in a service dog to a hotel, the hotel is not allowed to ask for proof that this is a licensed service dog. The hotel must take the person's word and accept that he/she needs the service animal due to a disability.

 

[Andrew C]

Ok, when you go get your tag renewed, ask to get a handicap placard and let me know how that works out.

Read my edit. And I am not saying I am 100% sure. I am just looking at my experience with a similar situation.

 

[SJFPKT]

Read my edit. And I am not saying I am 100% sure. I am just looking at my experience with a similar situation.

I got you. I know they can ask for a handicap placard or state issued notice of disability for a mobility device. You may be right, I may be wrong. I know with a service dog, you can ask what it is trained to do.

I know the federal government requires the following for jobs:

The following is a list of some examples of documents agencies may accept as proof of an intellectual disability, severe physical disability or psychiatric disability. Ultimately, it is the agency's choice what type(s) of documentation will be acceptable:

• Statements or letters on a physician's/medical professional's letterhead stationary.
• Statements, records or letters from a Federal Government agency that issues or provides disability benefits.
• Statements, records or letters from a State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency counselor.
• Certification from a private Vocational Rehabilitation or other Counselor that issues or provides disability benefits

 

[Gabe1]

I think we could be confusing what the private sector can ask and require for basic assistance, people in this country are not required to pony up proof of disabilities and assistance 24/7 to prove to businesses they are telling the truth. Hipaa laws protect peoples privacy. We have all experienced Hipaa in our work environment and even when we go to doctor offices. Hipaa protects those with disabilities too, even when they go to Disney Parks.

Governmental bodies have more latitude with ADA laws for permanent assistance and licencing. So if a child is in need of an IEP in school, an aide to assist or special ed, tests are conducted and doctor information is provided. If a child needs speech therapy for instance a parent must sign for that to happen. Yet if I need a sign language interpreter to be at a parent teacher conference or at a town or school board meeting because I am hearing impaired they cannot ask for proof or access to my doctor or a doctors note as it is not a permanent governmental compliance. Now going to the DMV and requesting a special plate or placket, the government wrote into the law proof. They did not write into the law that private businesses can do the same, not even Disney. Businesses and governmental bodies have an ADA compliance officer, often within their Human Resource Dept that are very well versed in what can and cannot be asked. They provide a script, if you will and you don't deviate from those boundaries unless you wish to be sued.

Where I am betting over the next few years to change is service animals. My gut is this is becoming an overwhelming issue for businesses and soon there will be an annual licence much like rabies tags that owners of service dogs will have to document the dog and or disability and what the dog does to service its person. But this too would be a governmental licence vs a business interrogating a service dog owner and requiring proof beyond a license. All a business could do with a patron attending with a service animal if this law does pass is to see the license. Hipaa would protect the patrons from further questioning.

Me being hearing impaired, I find it just easier on me to volunteer what I need and why. Makes it simpler for everyone. If I know I'm going to a meeting, I always try to give the ADA compliance officer a heads up.

 

[GoofGoof]

If there is one thing I've learned on this thread it's that ADA is complex. Title 1 covers employment, title 2 covers government facilities, title 3 covers public accommodations. Title 3 is the area in question here. http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html
As was pointed out to me earlier the employment rules and the rules relating to government facilities or agencies are different than public accommodations for privately held facilities that are open to the public. The point in question:

III-4.1300 Unnecessary inquiries. The ADA prohibits unnecessary inquiries into the existence of a disability.

There isn't a clear definition of what is an unnecessary inquiry.

A separate section covers service animals.

III-4.2300 Service animals. A public accommodation must modify its policies to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability, unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration or jeopardize the safe operation of the public accommodation.

Service animals include any animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Tasks typically performed by service animals include guiding people with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to the presence of intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or retrieving dropped items.

The care or supervision of a service animal is the responsibility of his or her owner, not the public accommodation. A public accommodation may not require an individual with a disability to post a deposit as a condition to permitting a service animal to accompany its owner in a place of public accommodation, even if such deposits are required for pets.

ILLUSTRATION: An individual who is blind wishes to be accompanied in a restaurant by her guide dog. The restaurant must permit the guide dog to accompany its owner in all areas of the restaurant open to other patrons and may not insist that the dog be separated from her.

A number of States have programs to certify service animals. A private entity, however, may not insist on proof of State certification before permitting the entry of a service animal to a place of public accommodation.

 

[Gabe1]

If there is one thing I've learned on this thread it's that ADA is complex. Title 1 covers employment, title 2 covers government facilities, title 3 covers public accommodations. Title 3 is the area in question here. http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html
As was pointed out to me earlier the employment rules and the rules relating to government facilities or agencies are different than public accommodations for privately held facilities that are open to the public. The point in question:

III-4.1300 Unnecessary inquiries. The ADA prohibits unnecessary inquiries into the existence of a disability.

There isn't a clear definition of what is an unnecessary inquiry.

A separate section covers service animals.

III-4.2300 Service animals. A public accommodation must modify its policies to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability, unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration or jeopardize the safe operation of the public accommodation.

Service animals include any animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Tasks typically performed by service animals include guiding people with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to the presence of intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or retrieving dropped items.

The care or supervision of a service animal is the responsibility of his or her owner, not the public accommodation. A public accommodation may not require an individual with a disability to post a deposit as a condition to permitting a service animal to accompany its owner in a place of public accommodation, even if such deposits are required for pets.

ILLUSTRATION: An individual who is blind wishes to be accompanied in a restaurant by her guide dog. The restaurant must permit the guide dog to accompany its owner in all areas of the restaurant open to other patrons and may not insist that the dog be separated from her.

A number of States have programs to certify service animals. A private entity, however, may not insist on proof of State certification before permitting the entry of a service animal to a place of public accommodation.

Indeed. ADA is very complex. It gets in the way of services at times and Hipaa makes it difficult to prevent fraud. I've sat on our local school board for years. We are constantly changing our policies to stay compliant with the newest ADA laws that are ever changing. Even when we do construction to our buildings we decide if we should or should not not based just on need but what we will then be required to bring up to code for ADA.

And these laws are written, private entities best be cautious cause we governmental entities are. Ask the wrong question to a patron and you might be hauled into court. We have a team of lawyers writing the script for our schools. The service dog that we have in our school with an autistic student trumps the allergy another student had to dogs. Who would have thunk?