More families of autistic kids sue Disney parks

[Sassagoula-Rvr]

Well the last time this issue came up and I gave my opinion...I seem to remember getting slammed.

So this time around...I'll just say while I sympathize with the disabled and everything their families have to deal with...this is 100% frivolous and in my opinion the ADA insures "Equal" treatment...not preferential...so, no I don't see how the fact that they have a given time to return is not an equitable solution to this accommodation...other than it's not a pass to the front. I'm guessing the majority of people who have to deal with this do not share the opinion of the plaintiffs

 

[arko]

According their website the next steps are as follows



The case has already been brought to court. At this point the determination just serves as ammunition for the plaintiff.

I think you are 100% correct.

This is a civil suit designed to buy lawyers new suits (on both sides...)

That said, what got Disney into all this trouble in the first place WAS trying to make magic and accomodate.

Note the GAC card.

Unedited.

But, because people can't seem to know how to READ....

I highlighted the important bits.

View attachment 93634

View attachment 93633

The PROGRAM was NEVER designed for what it became. That was all Park Operations folks...kids on their DCP and the like, trying to do well and "make magic" for a Guest...a Guest who just won't say "thanks, that's awesome"...rather will say, "oh, you are busy today? SCREW THAT WHERE IS MY FRONT OF THE LINE PASS! DON'T YOU KNOW MY SON IS DISABLED YOU RACIST SON OF A DONKEY? I'M GOING TO SUE YOU AND YOUR COMPANY AND GET YOU FIRED....

The problemis disney has not denied what it had become. In fact it is the reason why they changed to the DAS and actually say so in legal interviews. So it doesn't really matter what the card says anymore.

 

[PhotoDave219]

According their website the next steps are as follows



The case has already been brought to court. At this point the determination just serves as ammunition for the plaintiff.

Edit the FAQ provides some further info

I meant the ADA cases. The federal court ones, not the Fla commission.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Well the last time this issue came up and I gave my opinion...I seem to remember getting slammed.

So this time around...I'll just say while I sympathize with the disabled and everything their families have to deal with...this is 100% frivolous and in my opinion the ADA insures "Equal" treatment...not preferential...so, no I don't see how the fact that they have a given time to return is not an equitable solution to this accommodation...other than it's not a pass to the front. I'm guessing the majority of people who have to deal with this do not share the opinion of the plaintiffs

This is a much more mature thread then the last time this came up.

 

[ParentsOf4]

No. The issue is that the Courts have been gradually moving from judging the OBJECTIVE argument, and instead increasingly allowing the substance of SUBJECTIVE argument.

If Disney loses, they will appeal and, at least in the United States, the higher Courts generally have been ruling objectively on ADA lawsuits.

If you examine prior ADA rulings in the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, you'll find that they tend to be lopsided. For example, in the Martin v. PGA case I referenced, the ruling was 7-2 with Scalia and Thomas dissenting not because the plaintiff failed to prove his case, but because they felt the plaintiff was not a PGA employee and; therefore, was not protected by ADA. The other members of the Court decided that such a judgment would leave a gaping hole in ADA that was not intended by Congress when it passed the law, and so voted for the plaintiff.

 

[englanddg]

The problemis disney has not denied what it had become. In fact it is the reason why they changed to the DAS and actually say so in legal interviews. So it doesn't really matter what the card says anymore.

No, the issue becomes SUBJECTIVE instead of OBJECTIVE.

And, you actually have to credit Disney for not throwing the CMs under the bus on this one.

The fact is, Disney did what Disney should...they let their CMs have the power to make magic. To let that kid with the GAC have one extra ride again without reboarding, or to rush them to the front of the line because conditions allowed.

And then ungrateful parents assumed THIS should be the norm, and always the case. After 2001, as many know, the park attendance was way down. This is no longer the case, and WDW is going back into book years (all the parks are)...or at least that is what it looks like from attendance figures...

And, when a ride needs to run full capacity, sorry Johnny, you don't get your unlimited rides on Great Movie Ride anymore...you need to reboard.

And THAT is what this lawsuit is all about.

THAT alone.

Disney, imho, to these people, was a proxy babysitter and a view of "what could have been". If you read their writings, if you watch their videos, you'll see it.

They call it a "way to connect to their children", but I call foul. Why are they not doing this to Uni or Seaworld, which both have immersive environments?

They'd respond, "Well, it's not Disney to him"

Again...subjective, not OBJECTIVE.

And, SUBJECTIVE...has no place in civil law.

 

[arko]

Well the last time this issue came up and I gave my opinion...I seem to remember getting slammed.

So this time around...I'll just say while I sympathize with the disabled and everything their families have to deal with...this is 100% frivolous and in my opinion the ADA insures "Equal" treatment...not preferential...so, no I don't see how the fact that they have a given time to return is not an equitable solution to this accommodation...other than it's not a pass to the front. I'm guessing the majority of people who have to deal with this do not share the opinion of the plaintiffs

The Florida Commission on human rights disagrees with you

Complainant alleged that her son was denied the full enjoyment of the public accommodation and the findings of this investigation support that allegation. While an accommodation was offered, it was a blanket accommodation that did not take into account the nuances between various disabilities or the fact that Complainant’s son’s disability required more assistance than other cognitive disabilities. The accommodations offered would not allow him to enjoy the park as it was intended to be enjoyed by all other patrons. In addition, there was no effort by Respondent to determine a suitable accommodation for her son which would allow him to fully enjoy the park.

Understand I have a teenager with autism and we have made the transition to the DAS without much issue. But over the years he has slowly learned to cope with lines and waiting so we were lucky with the timing. The GAC was a much better system for the disabled. But its flexibility made it an easy target for non disabled people to abuse it. So suddenly a whole bunch of families lost a tool that made their vacations a lot less stressful. So there is a part of me that sympathizes with them. So there is no denying the accommodation is less. Its simply a question of whether it meets the requirements of federal law.

 

[1023]

It's your opinion they have met the federal standard, the only opinion that matters is a judge. In fact theFlorida Commission on Human Relations has ruled in 5 cases so far that Disney has not met the federal standard.

Here are 2 of the rulings

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpres...ustic-kids-lawsuit-florida-state-agency-1.pdf
https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/disney-autistic-kids-lawsuit-florida-agency-2.pdf

the determination of findings from the investigator concluded the following



Now Florida has not actually pushed those findings as it is most likely awaiting the Federal outcome. But its shows that the case is not frivolous to everyone including state agencies.

I've seen them. It does not change my opinion. Is your opinion that Disney will be forced to grant FotL to anyone claiming disability or are you being a provocateur? As you said, and I alluded to in every post, we shall see. And hopefully very soon. If Disney loses and chooses not to appeal, I can't wait to see the FotL line next to the FP+ line and the standby line.

Possible character pictographic representation below:

FotL Line oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
FP+ Line ooooooooooooooooo <Attraction>
Standby oo



*1023*

ETA: Ahhhh...just read this... gives me perspective on where you are coming from.
QUOTE="arko, post: 6702948, member: 76267"]
Understand I have a teenager with autism and we have made the transition to the DAS without much issue. But over the years he has slowly learned to cope with lines and waiting so we were lucky with the timing. The GAC was a much better system for the disabled. But its flexibility made it an easy target for non disabled people to abuse it. So suddenly a whole bunch of families lost a tool that made their vacations a lot less stressful. So there is a part of me that sympathizes with them. So there is no denying the accommodation is less. Its simply a question of whether it meets the requirements of federal law.[/QUOTE]

 

[arko]

I've seen them. It does not change my opinion. Is your opinion that Disney will be forced to grant FotL to anyone claiming disability or are you being a provocateur? As you said, and I alluded to in every post, we shall see. And hopefully very soon. If Disney loses and chooses not to appeal, I can't wait to see the FotL line next to the FP+ line and the standby line.

Possible character pictographic representation below:

FotL Line oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
FP+ Line ooooooooooooooooo <Attraction>
Standby oo



*1023*

Its not my opinion its a determination of the Florida Humans Rights Commission in 5 different cases that directly question whether the DAS meets the Federal requirement for these individuals.
Understand these determinations address a specific complaint not a general reading of the law for everyone.
I have no idea how much stock the judge will grant these determinations. But the simple point is its much more than an opinion, these determinations open the door for these families to sue Disney in civil court and go after them in Federal court for ADA violations, which is exactly what they are doing.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Now Florida has not actually pushed those findings as it is most likely awaiting the Federal outcome. But its shows that the case is not frivolous to everyone including state agencies.

If I correctly understand the powers of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, they can only help the plaintiffs seek financial settlements against Disney. Quoting from the original Orlando Sentinel article:

The commission’s determination doesn’t provide for any immediate penalty or impact to Disney. But the finding does allow Dogali to add another count to his federal lawsuits – alleging that Disney violated the Florida Civil Rights Act.

“It’s not necessarily a binding legal document, but it is a confirmation of our position,” Dogali said in a phone interview. “Folks have a certain predisposition about Disney, that they can’t do anything wrong. If Disney people didn’t take this seriously before, they have to now.”

If Dogali wanted to, he could now seek a settlement from Disney using a hearing process set up by the Florida commission. But Dogali said he believes the federal courts are a better place to pursue the allegations against Disney.​

The Commission's website notes:

The Commission has investigated and closed more than 74,000 cases and has negotiated close to $13 million in settlement amounts for more than 1,500 people through its mediation services.​

If the plaintiffs were simply seeking money, I suspect they'd simply use the Commission to accomplish this.

 

[1023]

Its not my opinion its a determination of the Florida Humans Rights Commission in 5 different cases that directly question whether the DAS meets the Federal requirement for these individuals.
Understand these determinations address a specific complaint not a general reading of the law for everyone.
I have no idea how much stock the judge will grant these determinations. But the simple point is its much more than an opinion, these determinations open the door for these families to sue Disney in civil court and go after them in Federal court for ADA violations, which is exactly what they are doing.

So you have no opinion? You are just telling me that this commission made a determination. I've seen it. I asked specifically about your opinion. The door was already open for these people to litigate. I can litigate with Disney tomorrow if I choose to. Why did this not go through the DoJ? That is where it belongs. Perhaps it will now with the findings of this commission, which is not a court of law.
It will be decided and one side will win, while the other loses. I just don't see how a win will help anyone it's supposed to, if we will just see more abuse then ever. And while that last sentence is opinion, I've seen enough evidence of it before.

*1023*

Query: I have no interest in doing the Google Scholar thing again tonight, has UO or similar entities been hit these circumstances before? If so, were the plaintiffs successful?

 

[1023]

If I correctly understand the powers of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, they can only help the plaintiffs seek financial settlements against Disney. Quoting from the original Orlando Sentinel article:

The commission’s determination doesn’t provide for any immediate penalty or impact to Disney. But the finding does allow Dogali to add another count to his federal lawsuits – alleging that Disney violated the Florida Civil Rights Act.

“It’s not necessarily a binding legal document, but it is a confirmation of our position,” Dogali said in a phone interview. “Folks have a certain predisposition about Disney, that they can’t do anything wrong. If Disney people didn’t take this seriously before, they have to now.”

If Dogali wanted to, he could now seek a settlement from Disney using a hearing process set up by the Florida commission. But Dogali said he believes the federal courts are a better place to pursue the allegations against Disney.​

The Commission's website notes:

The Commission has investigated and closed more than 74,000 cases and has negotiated close to $13 million in settlement amounts for more than 1,500 people through its mediation services.​

I'd think that if the plaintiffs were simply seeking money, they'd use the Commission to accomplish this.

Actually the process as set forth for a public accommodations filing is:

1. Filing a complaint within 365 days.
2. Mediation - The only money step in the process.
3 Investigation
4 Determination
5 Notification

*1023*

 

[arko]

Actually the process as set forth for a public accommodations filing is:

1. Filing a complaint within 365 days.
2. Mediation - The only money step in the process.
3 Investigation
4 Determination
5 Notification

*1023*

and they are at step 5 as Disney has been notified. As Parentsof4 has indicated all this does is set forward the ability of the plaintiffs to sue in civil court. But it also I am sure been submitted as evidence in the federal cases as the attorney is the same one in every case.

 

[arko]

So you have no opinion? You are just telling me that this commission made a determination. I've seen it. I asked specifically about your opinion. The door was already open for these people to litigate. I can litigate with Disney tomorrow if I choose to. Why did this not go through the DoJ? That is where it belongs. Perhaps it will now with the findings of this commission, which is not a court of law.
It will be decided and one side will win, while the other loses. I just don't see how a win will help anyone it's supposed to, if we will just see more abuse then ever. And while that last sentence is opinion, I've seen enough evidence of it before.

*1023*

Query: I have no interest in doing the Google Scholar thing again tonight, has UO or similar entities been hit these circumstances before? If so, were the plaintiffs successful?

I have stated in previous posts I think the only weak point to Disney's case is their statement they will provide extra assistance based on need, and they are not doing that. If you have read the cases you would see that the Florida decisions see a similar issue with what they called a blanket one sized fits all solution.

Personally as someone who has used both systems, the GAc was obviously superior in what it provided and helped more people. But the facts are simple those who had no right to use it (the non disabled) basically killed it for those who needed it. So Disney was forced to create a system that in their minds meets the letter of the law but is not as prone to abuse because it offers less.
That being said even the DAS has seen its fair share o f abuse especially at DLR where groups would get one per person and then just switch off for every ride. this is the reason why DLR switched to an electronic version over 6 months ago.
If I could make the law I would like to see the GAC return but require proof of disability to get one, and then the DAS for those who don't have proof. But I seriously doubt a judge would rule that way given how the ADA is written.

 

[networkpro]

Here's the portion that doesnt make any sense from the Sentinel article :

The commission’s determination doesn’t provide for any immediate penalty or impact to Disney. But the finding does allow Dogali to add another count to his federal lawsuits – alleging that Disney violated the Florida Civil Rights Act.

How does a state statute become a count in Federal court case ?

 

[arko]

I meant the ADA cases. The federal court ones, not the Fla commission.

I think the DAS meets the requirements of the law

 

[arko]

Here's the portion that doesnt make any sense from the Sentinel article :

The commission’s determination doesn’t provide for any immediate penalty or impact to Disney. But the finding does allow Dogali to add another count to his federal lawsuits – alleging that Disney violated the Florida Civil Rights Act.

How does a state statute become a count in Federal court case ?

its more evidence than a new count as I am guessing these families are already in the original federal complaints.

 

[ToInfinityAndBeyond]

I think the DAS meets the requirements of the law

On that point, I think most of us agree.

I have stated in previous posts I think the only weak point to Disney's case is their statement they will provide extra assistance based on need, and they are not doing that. If you have read the cases you would see that the Florida decisions see a similar issue with what they called a blanket one sized fits all solution.

I did notice that was part of DAS when I was reading about it yesterday. I wonder if anyone has had an experience under DAS where exceptions have been made?

 

[arko]

On that point, I think most of us agree.



I did notice that was part of DAS when I was reading about it yesterday. I wonder if anyone has had an experience under DAS where exceptions have been made?

early on people were reporting that Guest services were giving them 2 or 3 FP slips for any ride when they indicated their child was a repeat rider. This stopped after about a month.

 

[wm49rs]

Trolling to you is passion to me.

Something else I'm sure we can all agree on....