News New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[TrainsOfDisney]

Who has said, “ban wheelchairs!”

Nobody. But they cause operational harm.

But I seem to be upsetting some posters which isn’t my intent. I was just honestly wondering if everyone thinks it’s ok to have operational harm for wheelchairs?

 

[ToTBellHop]

Nobody. But they cause operational harm.

But I seem to be upsetting some posters which isn’t my intent. I was just honestly wondering if everyone thinks it’s ok to have operational harm for wheelchairs?

Yes, because the alternative is no access. Disney is not withholding access from people who previously had DAS. Turning down the accommodation offered is analogous to a wheelchair-user saying, “thanks for the option but it’s just too hot in this queue right now. I’ll come back later.”

No problem there. Sometimes it be like that. I almost passed out in the Big Thunder queue last August!

 

[jennab55]

does everyone agree that Disney should accommodate wheelchairs even though it causes them “operational harm”

I’m assuming Operational harm = reducing the operational efficiency of an attraction.

I’m not sure how having lines be wheelchair accessible causes them operational harm. The wheelchair can go through the regular line just like everyone else. If anything it makes their operation smoother than needing a separate staffed entry point at all rides.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I’m not sure how having lines be wheelchair accessible causes them operational harm. The wheelchair can go through the regular line just like everyone else. If anything it makes their operation smoother than needing a separate staffed entry point at all rides.

I meant the operational harm of loading wheelchairs. Plus many attractions do not have wheelchairs waiting in the same line - depends on the attraction.

 

[DoubleSwitchback]

I’m not sure how having lines be wheelchair accessible causes them operational harm. The wheelchair can go through the regular line just like everyone else. If anything it makes their operation smoother than needing a separate staffed entry point at all rides.

I'm guessing they're referring to stopping/slowing conveyor belts to load. Yes, that has an operational impact, but the impact is the product of individual impact times magnitude. IOW, if 40% of riders were wheelchair users like they were DAS party, it seems obvious to me there'd be more changes than stopping the conveyor belt for every single car

 

[DoubleSwitchback]

I was just honestly wondering if everyone thinks it’s ok to have operational harm for wheelchairs?

I think it's going to come down to whether DAS is a necessary public accommodation, like wheelchair access, or an elevated level of custom service/charity like the access they grant to Make a Wish, to be granted entirely at Disney's discretion.

 

[Keladry84]

I think it's going to come down to whether DAS is a necessary public accommodation, like wheelchair access, or an elevated level of custom service/charity like the access they grant to Make a Wish, to be granted entirely at Disney's discretion.

I think it's also going to come down to what constitutes "access" Is it purely physical barriers that are recognized, or do non-physical but just as real barriers fall under it as well. And at what point is Disney liable for providing that access? Does it start and end at things that Disney can control - for example physical queue design as cause of barrier-, or does it stretch to things it can't that are a by-product of it's success: for example queue length and barriers due to the time spent waiting. I think there is a distinguishment between those latter two that Disney is making in it's criteria, and that I have a feeling is going to be central towards Disney's defense against any lawsuits. I highly suspect that the new guidelines were created around what Disney's lawyers are interpreting to the be extent that the company is liable for accommodations under the ADA, and no further.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Class action lawsuit filed by a firm that doesn't know it's HIPAA, not HIPPA:

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Disney Over Disability Pass DAS Changes at Disneyland and Disney World

Details on the Disney Disability Pass DAS lawsuit filed against Disneyland and Disney World outlining how the pass changed.

mickeyvisit.com

I don't see this going anywhere positive for the disability community. One thing Disney does know how to do is dot Is and cross Ts, so I don't expect that there will be much to find/argue legally.

 

[Chi84]

There's an interesting preliminary question involving whether this can be brought as a class action. People applying for DAS had to agree to what's called a naked class action waiver; they had to agree not to proceed by way of a collective action without an accompanying requirement that the parties arbitrate instead of going to court.

Besides calling the naked class action waiver unenforceable, coercive and deceptive, the plaintiffs are alleging that it violates California's version of the ADA by creating a discriminatory barrier to those trying to assert their right to disability accommodations.

The reason this is interesting is because Disney recently backed off of a ridiculous claim that a plaintiff injured on its property had agreed to mandatory arbitration by signing up for Disney+. But the type of class action waiver signed here has been upheld and there is no question the plaintiffs knew what they were agreeing to because it wasn't three steps away in a subscription to a completely different service.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

the plaintiffs are alleging that it violates California's version of the ADA by creating a discriminatory barrier to those trying to assert their right to disability accommodations.

I hadn’t thought about that angle. If guests don’t have to agree to those terms to enter the park, should they have to agree to those terms in order to use a disability accommodation? I do think they have a point there.

 

[Keladry84]

There's an interesting preliminary question involving whether this can be brought as a class action. People applying for DAS had to agree to what's called a naked class action waiver; they had to agree not to proceed by way of a collective action without an accompanying requirement that the parties arbitrate instead of going to court.

Besides calling the naked class action waiver unenforceable, coercive and deceptive, the plaintiffs are alleging that it violates California's version of the ADA by creating a discriminatory barrier to those trying to assert their right to disability accommodations.

The reason this is interesting is because Disney recently backed off of a ridiculous claim that a plaintiff injured on its property had agreed to mandatory arbitration by signing up for Disney+. But the type of class action waiver signed here has been upheld and there is no question the plaintiffs knew what they were agreeing to because it wasn't three steps away in a subscription to a completely different service.

That part is probably the first of the complaints in this case that will be ruled upon as it will determine whether it can actually proceed to court or will force the main plaintiff into individual arbitration.

The document written really feels like the plaintiffs/lawyers are just trying to outline any and all possible reasons just to hope that one of the arguments will stick. If it does get past the first hurdle (the no class action signed in DAS terms and conditions), it will be interesting to see what the outcome of each point will be. I have a feeling disneys lawyers have already anticipated each of the arguments and have tight-clad data to refute each of the assertions. Even without access to Disneys data and without a background in law, I can see some pretty large fallacies in some of the arguments.

 

[Chi84]

That part is probably the first of the complaints in this case that will be ruled upon as it will determine whether it can actually proceed to court or will force the main plaintiff into individual arbitration.

The document written really feels like the plaintiffs/lawyers are just trying to outline any and all possible reasons just to hope that one of the arguments will stick. If it does get past the first hurdle (the no class action signed in DAS terms and conditions), it will be interesting to see what the outcome of each point will be. I have a feeling disneys lawyers have already anticipated each of the arguments and have tight-clad data to refute each of the assertions. Even without access to Disneys data and without a background in law, I can see some pretty large fallacies in some of the arguments.

Well there is no arbitration clause, which is part of the issue raised by the plaintiff. Proceeding in court on an individual basis is costly, time-consuming and inefficient. But people can waive the right to participate in a class action.

 

[Chi84]

I hadn’t thought about that angle. If guests don’t have to agree to those terms to enter the park, should they have to agree to those terms in order to use a disability accommodation? I do think they have a point there.

You are agreeing to binding arbitration and also to waive your right to a class action suit when you buy your ticket.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

You are agreeing to binding arbitration and also to waive your right to a class action suit when you buy your ticket.

Oh so everyone agrees to the same thing? Then why the issue with Disney+? Cause raglan was outside the parks?

 

[Chi84]

Oh so everyone agrees to the same thing? Then why the issue with Disney+? Cause raglan was outside the parks?

It’s not really the same. The plaintiffs allege that without a clause that provides for arbitration between the parties, the only option is to sue in court on an individual basis which is difficult and costly.

My only reason for bringing it up is that Disney caved on another waiver issue but in that case Disney’s position was much, much weaker.

I’m not a fan of these contracts of adhesion that require consumers to give up procedural rights in order to participate in basic life activities like buying Disney+ or going to a theme park.

But businesses love them and I have a feeling businesses will be getting whatever they want now.

 

[DoubleSwitchback]

I think it's also going to come down to what constitutes "access" Is it purely physical barriers that are recognized, or do non-physical but just as real barriers fall under it as well. And at what point is Disney liable for providing that access? Does it start and end at things that Disney can control - for example physical queue design as cause of barrier-, or does it stretch to things it can't that are a by-product of it's success: for example queue length and barriers due to the time spent waiting.

Another interesting wrinkle is that Premier Pass now puts a market value on this accommodation. (I know DAS and PP aren't identical, as DAS is better in some ways and worse in others, but the two are much closer than DAS is to MP.) IANAL, but it feels harder to me to argue that someone is entitled to an accommodation when it has a market value of >$1,000 per day for a family of 4 (and Disney has other accommodations that it feels would suffice).

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

It’s not really the same. The plaintiffs allege that without a clause that provides for arbitration between the parties, the only option is to sue in court on an individual basis which is difficult and costly.

My only reason for bringing it up is that Disney caved on another waiver issue but in that case Disney’s position was much, much weaker.

I’m not a fan of these contracts of adhesion that require consumers to give up procedural rights in order to participate in basic life activities like buying Disney+ or going to a theme park.

But businesses love them and I have a feeling businesses will be getting whatever they want now.

It'll be interesting to see how the arbitration bit plays out.

But I fully expect they'll be required to sever the parties from the class action. Actually I'm not sure if that means drop the class action suit and refile as individual suits. Yes it's costly to the individuals but the previous DAS/GAC case was required to sever. Individual accommodations are individual. Disney is likely very solid on this stance.

 

[Philsfan77]

Class action lawsuit filed by a firm that doesn't know it's HIPAA, not HIPPA:

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Disney Over Disability Pass DAS Changes at Disneyland and Disney World

Details on the Disney Disability Pass DAS lawsuit filed against Disneyland and Disney World outlining how the pass changed.

mickeyvisit.com

This was literally the first thing I noticed to...thought maybe it was a 1 time glitch, but it's throughout the whole document

 

[Philsfan77]

The Irony of this suit focusing on Physical disabilities today, when Disney more or less pushed them aside when switching to DAS is not lost on me. Where was this firm since 2013 and why didn't they have issues with the DAS system originally from GAC and how it's been handling physical disabilities all along?

 

[jennab55]

The Irony of this suit focusing on Physical disabilities today, when Disney more or less pushed them aside when switched to DAS is not lost on me. Where was firm since 2013 and why didn't they have issues with the DAS system originally from GAC and how it's been handling physical disabilities all along?

Yes, I wondered about that too. Haven’t physician disabilities been excluded for awhile now, even before the DAS change last year?