News New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[TrainsOfDisney]

Maybe the person was trying to buy season tickets? There’s a lot not covered by the DOJ guidelines.

That’s covered too-

“For series of events tickets, purchasers may be asked to attest in writing that they have a disability that requires or they are purchasing tickets for someone who has a disability that requires, the features of an accessible seat.”

 

[Chi84]

That’s covered too-

“For series of events tickets, purchasers may be asked to attest in writing that they have a disability that requires or they are purchasing tickets for someone who has a disability that requires, the features of an accessible seat.”

I’m curious as to what steps the venue can take to prevent the fraudulent sale and use of accessible seating.

 

[Drdcm]

I’m curious as to what steps the venue can take to prevent the fraudulent sale and use of accessible seating.

In my case, a letter that attests to needing an accessible seat was all they needed. I didn’t have to state what the disability is or provide a diagnosis. In fact the instructions specifically stated I shouldn’t.

Same thing applies to emotional support animals.

I suspect that’s the “work around” they get away with.

Again, could be wrong because I was just doing what the patient asked and don’t put a ton of thought into the legality. FWIW, this was for seasons tickets.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In my case, a letter that attests to needing an accessible seat was all they needed. I didn’t have to state what the disability is or provide a diagnosis. In fact the instructions specifically stated I shouldn’t.

Same thing applies to emotional support animals.

I suspect that’s the “work around” they get away with.

Again, could be wrong because I was just doing what the patient asked and don’t put a ton of thought into the legality. FWIW, this was for seasons tickets.

The patient was asked to do something the Department of Justice specifically says the venue is not allowed to do as a condition of the ticket sale. It wasn’t a work around, just something they get away with because enforcement is largely handled by private citizens who just go ask for the documentation instead of filing a complaint and/or suing.

 

[Drdcm]

The patient was asked to do something the Department of Justice specifically says the venue is not allowed to do as a condition of the ticket sale. It wasn’t a work around, just something they get away with because enforcement is largely handled by private citizens who just go ask for the documentation instead of filing a complaint and/or suing.

Ok thanks for the clarification

 

[Comped]

In my case, a letter that attests to needing an accessible seat was all they needed. I didn’t have to state what the disability is or provide a diagnosis. In fact the instructions specifically stated I shouldn’t.

Same thing applies to emotional support animals.

I suspect that’s the “work around” they get away with.

Again, could be wrong because I was just doing what the patient asked and don’t put a ton of thought into the legality. FWIW, this was for seasons tickets.

As a disabled person, I'm lucky enough that most times all I have to do to get a good seat is simply pay a bit more to get closer up or a better view (which I'm willing to do, 100%). Some venues (especially in Vegas) have been nice enough to give me a better seat/the accessible seat without asking for documentation, which is nice. Never had an arena or theatre ask for it (totally OK with that even if the DoJ isn't), or even ask why I need it. Would probably just pull my handicapped placard out or something.

 

[Drdcm]

The patient was asked to do something the Department of Justice specifically says the venue is not allowed to do as a condition of the ticket sale. It wasn’t a work around, just something they get away with because enforcement is largely handled by private citizens who just go ask for the documentation instead of filing a complaint and/or suing.

For what it’s worth, this is a major public univeristy.

I’m not going to disclose who because there are people who can probably figure out who I am based on this info - which is a huge no no in psychiatry.

This school is so well known, I think they would have been sued over this already because accessible seating has been an issue for a few people I know. Despite the incredulity of many posters on this forum, I am in fact being honest about what has been required to get those seasons tickets and somehow this very public facing institution has been able to operate this way for at least the last 20 years.

It is entirely possible nobody has pursued it though, so you might be correct.

 

[lazyboy97o]

For what it’s worth, this is a major public univeristy.

I’m not going to disclose who because there are people who can probably figure out who I am based on this info - which is a huge no no in psychiatry.

This school is so well known, I think they would have been sued over this already because accessible seating has been an issue for a few people I know. Despite the incredulity of many posters on this forum, I am in fact being honest about what has been required to get those seasons tickets and somehow this very public facing institution has been able to operate this way for at least the last 20 years.

It is entirely possible nobody has pursued it though, so you might be correct.

The Department of Justice does maintain an archive of cases it has settled with businesses and one thing you’ll notice is that a lot of venues do go years without being challenged. Whenever there are media stories about people who sue for violations this also often comes up as its usually about some small business being required to make expansive changes years after they first built out their business. And this typically relates to the design standards where there is a set of freely available, published requirements and resources available that have existed for decades now. (It’s amazing how many non-complaint restrooms are out there!)

Operational violations are able to go on for even longer because those regulations are not as clearly defined and decisions aren’t going through third parties like an architect or building department that are supposed to be reviewing for compliance (and building departments don’t always check!). As your patient and several posters here have demonstrated there are plenty of people willing to just provide documentation. It’s something they are okay with so it’s not challenged. Anyone looking to challenge an operational policy is looking at a minimum of months if not years before there is a resolution through the Department of Justice, a state agency or lawsuit. For something like event tickets the event is going to be long over by the time there is any enforcement. People deal with it and just move on, which is in a lot of ways still the societal expectation.

The lawsuit against Six Flags has only occurred in the last few months despite the system existing for years at over a dozen parks across the country. And even that suit seems to have been triggered more by multiple rouge attraction employees than it was the system alone. Even with a large venue, mobility accommodations are roughly pegged at about 2% so a lot of enforcement really is a bit of a needle in a haystack.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Another issue with noncompliance is that a lot of people unconsciously conflate existence with compliance. Then that noncompliance is imitated by others who just assume it allowed.

 

[Drdcm]

The Department of Justice does maintain an archive of cases it has settled with businesses and one thing you’ll notice is that a lot of venues do go years without being challenged. Whenever there are media stories about people who sue for violations this also often comes up as its usually about some small business being required to make expansive changes years after they first built out their business. And this typically relates to the design standards where there is a set of freely available, published requirements and resources available that have existed for decades now. (It’s amazing how many non-complaint restrooms are out there!)

Operational violations are able to go on for even longer because those regulations are not as clearly defined and decisions aren’t going through third parties like an architect or building department that are supposed to be reviewing for compliance (and building departments don’t always check!). As your patient and several posters here have demonstrated there are plenty of people willing to just provide documentation. It’s something they are okay with so it’s not challenged. Anyone looking to challenge an operational policy is looking at a minimum of months if not years before there is a resolution through the Department of Justice, a state agency or lawsuit. For something like event tickets the event is going to be long over by the time there is any enforcement. People deal with it and just move on, which is in a lot of ways still the societal expectation.

The lawsuit against Six Flags has only occurred in the last few months despite the system existing for years at over a dozen parks across the country. And even that suit seems to have been triggered more by multiple rouge attraction employees than it was the system alone. Even with a large venue, mobility accommodations are roughly pegged at about 2% so a lot of enforcement really is a bit of a needle in a haystack.

It turns out they were sued over it at the end of last year and lost. It is no longer a requirement. I found a DOJ case record and later found it in an internal email I got as adjunct faculty.

 

[mikejs78]

Remember: Disney must only make reasonable accommodations.

Nothing about the current iteration is reasonable, and nothing about the move to a third-party verification service is unreasonable.

Well, except that it very well may be a violation of ADA. And the current accommodation is absolutely reasonable. It's the abuse of the accomodations that's not reasonable.

Can I ask where you saw this argument presented? Was it in an actual lawsuit or comments in a news report?

I was speculating as the organization that does the certification touts it as a "benefit" because you can pre register and theoretically avoid the hassle of having to do it for each trip. But now I'm not so sure that would pass scrutiny. Universal advertised that a card is *required*. Six flags as well. That very well may be a violation of ADA. (See https://www.universalorlando.com/web/en/us/faqs/park-information)

I think the outside verification will let you mark up certain accounts to get what amounts to a modified Genie+ and day-of verification will be a more limited and cumbersome service in comparison.

They can't do that legally.

I dunno…I can’t see anyone with legitimate needs disputing verification?

It’s not like there’s a reason to hide it. So why dispute it?

It's the idea of personal health information being protected. There is no information if the organization in question even is HIPAA compliant.

 

[Chi84]

Well, except that it very well may be a violation of ADA. And the current accommodation is absolutely reasonable. It's the abuse of the accomodations that's not reasonable.



I was speculating as the organization that does the certification touts it as a "benefit" because you can pre register and theoretically avoid the hassle of having to do it for each trip. But now I'm not so sure that would pass scrutiny. Universal advertised that a card is *required*. Six flags as well. That very well may be a violation of ADA. (See https://www.universalorlando.com/web/en/us/faqs/park-information)

Thanks. I’m looking forward to reading the defendants’ answer in the Six Flags case. Do you know if Universal has been sued on this same basis?

GAC was reasonable too until it became unworkable because of abuse. Now there is a lower level of accommodation in DAS. I’m not aware of any court rulings specifically on attraction line-skipping accommodations and whether or to what extent they’re required.

The ADA provision not allowing businesses to request documentation is well-intentioned but if it invites too much abuse it may actually result in even lesser accommodation to people with disabilities.

 

[mikejs78]

Do you know if Universal has been sued on this same basis?

I haven't been able to find anything, although I've seen a nunber of people online claim that they were going to file ADA complaints with the DOJ.

 

[DryerLintFan]

hmm, idk then. I’ll ask him about it next time I see him. It was just a letter stating he needed an accessible seat. This place finds creative ways to do unethical things, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

I asked for a doctors note the first time we were going to Disney after my stroke. I simply didn’t know it wasn’t necessary. I brought with me scan’s and reports and labs and that note, and i carried them around with me all day because GS didn’t want them. So maybe he asked for it not knowing he wouldn’t need it.

 

[Brian]

I haven't been able to find anything, although I've seen a nunber of people online claim that they were going to file ADA complaints with the DOJ.

Without getting political, I highly suspect that if there were triable issues related to the ADA at Universal, the DOJ would be all too eager to pursue them.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's the idea of personal health information being protected. There is no information if the organization in question even is HIPAA compliant.

Is it “personal”
Health information if it’s used for accommodations in a public space?

Like we don’t hide the wheelchair ramps…so why in the line for space mountain do we have to preserve privacy?

Besides…we live in an open information era. It’s cute if we think there is protected info…but that’s as real as fantasyland itself

 

[Tha Realest]

Thanks. I’m looking forward to reading the defendants’ answer in the Six Flags case. Do you know if Universal has been sued on this same basis?

GAC was reasonable too until it became unworkable because of abuse. Now there is a lower level of accommodation in DAS. I’m not aware of any court rulings specifically on attraction line-skipping accommodations and whether or to what extent they’re required.

The ADA provision not allowing businesses to request documentation is well-intentioned but if it invites too much abuse it may actually result in even lesser accommodation to people with disabilities.

Reading the lawsuit, it seems the plaintiffs suggest the requirement of documentation goes against the laws and regs. But the laws and regs they partially quote is on a subsection dealing with service animals…?

 

[Chi84]

Reading the lawsuit, it seems the plaintiffs suggest the requirement of documentation goes against the laws and regs. But the laws and regs they partially quote is on a subsection dealing with service animals…?

It didn’t strike me as the best-written pleading. It’s aggravating when they keep saying that - with 2 exceptions - a business cannot inquire into the nature of a disability, then never state the exceptions. Makes things difficult for the reader and isn’t fooling the judge or the other party.

I don’t recall the specific statement you’re referencing but it’s not necessarily unusual to use citations in a general sense.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Without getting political, I highly suspect that if there were triable issues related to the ADA at Universal, the DOJ would be all too eager to pursue them.

No, because that’s not how the process actually works.

 

[lazyboy97o]

GAC was reasonable too until it became unworkable because of abuse. Now there is a lower level of accommodation in DAS. I’m not aware of any court rulings specifically on attraction line-skipping accommodations and whether or to what extent they’re required.

The GAC case was about line skipping. DAS is not a line skipping accommodation. It is a virtual queue. Given how often posted wait times are actually higher it is one that actually has a known and measured disadvantage.