News New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[DisneyHead123]

but what you are referring to is access to the businesss itself, right? There are actual rules as far as handicap parking and accessibility. Disney is accessible as far as access to their parks, it’s the queues which is in question in which I think is different and there aren’t really requirements.

I think you're thinking of access as mostly physical access? In regard to the ADA, it means something like the ability to participate in the activity, to the extent that a person can given reasonable accommodations. So things like braille materials or audio tours might count as "access", in that they enable participation.

 

[networkpro]

That is an interesting case, although to my mind this highlights how little-defined much of the ADA is in the real world. By the same logic used in that case, a company could sue not to have wheelchair ramps or handicapped parking because their snobby clientele find them ugly, don't like having to walk extra steps to go around them, and wouldn't return if they had them in place. Do I think a court actually would say that - no, but again, there aren't a lot of parameters laid out in that case other than "The customers didn't like it and it might have hurt sales". That's a really, really broad metric that would almost certainly need many additional layers of modification if it came up in regard to other real world situations, because if taken to its logical conclusion it would quickly become absurd.

No, the physical infrastructure covered in explicit detail and has nothing to do with esthetics. Go look at www.access-board.gov under guidelines and standards.

 

[DisneyHead123]

First, a business doesn't sue to not be accessible. They might be sued for not being accessible but the business would then be the defendant not the complainant.

Yeah I saw that after I typed it but I don't like the "edit" mark on my posts unless absolutely necessary. I think it's pretty easy to infer what I meant - "if involved in a lawsuit".

Second, these types of accommodations are already regulated by building code laws so it would be very hard to just say "nope, not at my business." Some properties may be grandfathered or may need to provide engineering reports showing that meeting accessible building codes is not feasible.

Can you clarify your argument here? Building codes may be a backup that exempt handicapped parking, ok - but do you think the logic of "If customers don't like it and it hurts sales, off it goes, ADA doesn't apply!!" is a reasonable one? I hope we can all agree that it is not.

My point is not that the courts were wrong in this situation - I'm a bit on the fence, but I can see their point. My point is that you can't really use that case as an easy precedent because there are clearly multiple, multiple, multiple layers of things that were not clarified or touched on in that particular case, because the courts must have thought it was black and white enough that they didn't need to be stated. Bring in a shade of grey type case, and there's much more that needs to be said.

 

[DisneyHead123]

No, the physical infrastructure covered in explicit detail and has nothing to do with esthetics. Go look at www.access-board.gov under guidelines and standards.

Please see my post to Tigger&Pooh above, it pretty much covers what my response here would be.

 

[jennab55]

I think you're thinking of access as mostly physical access? In regard to the ADA, it means something like the ability to participate in the activity, to the extent that a person can given reasonable accommodations. So things like braille materials or audio tours might count as "access", in that they enable participation.

I was just trying to think of how what PP stated about not having handicap accessible spots compares to queue access at a theme park and I think they are under different regulations., so not a very good comparison.

 

[Chi84]

That is an interesting case, although to my mind this highlights how little-defined much of the ADA is in the real world. By the same logic used in that case, a company could sue not to have wheelchair ramps or handicapped parking because their snobby clientele find them ugly, don't like having to walk extra steps to go around them, and wouldn't return if they had them in place. Do I think a court actually would say that - no, but again, there aren't a lot of parameters laid out in that case other than "The customers didn't like it and it might have hurt sales". That's a really, really broad metric that would almost certainly need many additional layers of modification if it came up in regard to other real world situations, because if taken to its logical conclusion it would quickly become absurd.

You raise a good point. The ADA sets out broad guidelines, but it's the Department of Justice that is charged with defining and implementing them. The DOJ has promulgated regulations stating what specific forms of accessibility are required and which businesses, municipalities, types of building, etc. must comply with those regulations.

So parking spaces, public transportation (certain forms), wheelchair spaces and such are specifically required by the DOJ and building codes and the like have to comply with those regulations. What a businesses' customers may or may not like does not figure into the issue of compliance.

There are no DOJ regulations covering line skipping as an accommodation. That is the real difference.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I was just trying to think of how what PP stated about not having handicap accessible spots compares to queue access at a theme park and I think they are under different regulations., so not a very good comparison.

They could both fall under "accommodations", even if parking spaces are cross-covered elsewhere.

 

[DisneyHead123]

There are no DOJ regulations covering line skipping as an accommodation. That is the real difference.

This is mostly because of a lack of precedent, correct?

 

[flynnibus]

Please review the legal conclusions in A. L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. I wont belabor the point. Legal precedent overrides opinion.

Really citing that case generically does no one any good. The conclusions of that case are more about defeating the idea that re-entry passes were required to meet the ADA for that autism customer on the defense that it would fundamentally alter Disney's business - not that it reenforced the validity of Disney's disability accommodations in some broad sense. The lower courts found that DAS+FP provided a like experience FOR THAT PERSON - largely based on their own admittance of visiting success.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

The lower courts found that DAS+FP provided a like experience FOR THAT PERSON - largely based on their own admittance of visiting success.

An important point being that FP was available at that time.

 

[Chi84]

This is mostly because of a lack of precedent, correct?

Not exactly. The DOJ hasn't promulgated new regulations in a long time and it's unlikely that they are going to do so just in order to cover not having to wait in line at theme parks.

As far as the general provisions of the ADA are concerned, there is some precedent on this issue in the GAC to DAS case mentioned by @networkpro. Waiting in lines anywhere these days is becoming more rare as technology offers alternatives. But theme parks still have very long lines that are difficult for even healthy people to deal with, let alone people who are disabled.

Given an aging population and an increase in the number of recognized disabilities, I do not believe any determination of "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA is going to turn on how many need to skip waiting in a physical line or who actually needs to do so and how much. I think as in the A.L. case, it's going to turn on whether this particular accommodation is not one a business can reasonably provide without fundamentally altering its business model, which now includes selling LLs to both disabled and non-disabled guests.

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

Can you clarify your argument here? Building codes may be a backup that exempt handicapped parking, ok - but do you think the logic of "If customers don't like it and it hurts sales, off it goes, ADA doesn't apply!!" is a reasonable one? I hope we can all agree that it is not.

You mentioned items such as wheelchair ramps and handicapped parking spots. My argument is that a building (or business that owns a building) must meet minimum accessibility standards that are part of building code. Customer opinion or even business owner preference doesn't really matter. If it is an older building that has been grandfathered, they still must do whatever possible to make the space physically accessible (ramps, elevators, etc.) OR make their business (the client-facing aspects) accessible in another manner. They can't simply not be accessible.

This is mostly because of a lack of precedent, correct?

Maybe. Or it may be vague intentionally because how 1 business can accommodate may be different than how another business can accommodate. Disney provided reams of data showing impact to their park operations before that ruling was made. And as PP mentions, that lawsuit was asking for re-entry passes for those with disabilities. Disney proved that would be disruptive to their operations. It may or may not be "precedent" depending on how another business operates and the level of impact.

 

[Chi84]

Really citing that case generically does no one any good. The conclusions of that case are more about defeating the idea that re-entry passes were required to meet the ADA for that autism customer on the defense that it would fundamentally alter Disney's business - not that it reenforced the validity of Disney's disability accommodations in some broad sense. The lower courts found that DAS+FP provided a like experience FOR THAT PERSON - largely based on their own admittance of visiting success.

And that is exactly why the courts are an inefficient way to provide any general answers under the ADA. Court precedent is specific to the facts of the case.

 

[flynnibus]

I am saying if someone took Disney to court... Disney probably could argue that having long lines at high demand attractions and selling a skip the line option is part of their business model. Thus they would not be required to provide free line skipping services as it would be an hardship to lost profits. I don't know if they would win this, but I think there is a chance.

Such a line of defense has already been broken in many different cases. Where Disney prevailed was arguing that the --scale-- of access and it's consequence on it's business was the part that fundamentally broke their model. The important thing is, they didn't simply argue 'they can't give away something paid' and lose profits for it, but that the request being asked for basically became unsustainable. It's not a question of free vs paid.. it was a question of 'this model breaks down and is no longer sustainable'. And in the prior case, the significant factor was the person insisted on having MANY re-entry passes.. which basically helped sink their own case.

 

[NotTheOne]

An important point being that FP was available at that time.

Yes, but it was free for everyone, just as LL is paid for everyone.
FP+ was not considered an accommodation in and of itself.

 

[flynnibus]

Thats why I referenced the settled court case. In the examples it does list that fundamental alteration that GAC and the first iteration of DAS imposed on Disney's business.

eh?

No - it cited that GAC+FP had become unsustainable and used the data from that argument to say why the NEW ask of 10 re-entry passes WOULD fundamentally alter Disney's business due to the impact on operations and other guests.

It didn't rule on DAS resulting in a fundamental alteration - it concluded that the plantiff's ASK would.

 

[jennab55]

They could both fall under "accommodations", even if parking spaces are cross-covered elsewhere.

I find them very different. One is access to a business/government/school, etc and one is access to a theme park ride.

 

[flynnibus]

That is an interesting case, although to my mind this highlights how little-defined much of the ADA is in the real world. By the same logic used in that case, a company could sue not to have wheelchair ramps or handicapped parking because their snobby clientele find them ugly, don't like having to walk extra steps to go around them, and wouldn't return if they had them in place. Do I think a court actually would say that - no, but again, there aren't a lot of parameters laid out in that case other than "The customers didn't like it and it might have hurt sales". That's a really, really broad metric that would almost certainly need many additional layers of modification if it came up in regard to other real world situations, because if taken to its logical conclusion it would quickly become absurd.

This is a horrible take on the case.

Yes the ADA is 'little defined' - because by it's own design, it's intended to encourage inclusion - not just define a set of standards alone.

"a company could sue not to have wheelchair ramps or handicapped parking because their snobby clientele find them ugly"

No idea how you got that from the case, but no. Besides, handicap parking and accessible routes are part of the design standards which are explictly defined, not part of 'reasonable accommodation' interpretations.

 

[flynnibus]

Can you clarify your argument here? Building codes may be a backup that exempt handicapped parking, ok - but do you think the logic of "If customers don't like it and it hurts sales, off it goes, ADA doesn't apply!!" is a reasonable one? I hope we can all agree that it is not.

You're hopping around without paying attention to context. Where has anyone ever successfully argued "customers didn't like it" as some counter point to accessibility requirements?

Arguing your effective queuing model breaks down due to large portions of capacity being consumed by a population is not an argument of "customer preference" - it's an argument of operations and consequences.

Disney never said "customers don't like waits, so we shouldn't have to do XYZ"

 

[flynnibus]

And that is exactly why the courts are an inefficient way to provide any general answers under the ADA. Court precedent is specific to the facts of the case.

Correct - generally one would expect if new ground is established in a broad sense, that the DOJ would provide clarity and codify standards that capture those baselines.

But really that case was more about defeating a specific accomodation request, vs defining what theme park accomodations should be. That is very different, from say, the Segway case, which established acceptable restrictions/boundaries on the use of personal mobility devices. And that case in turn did lead to new publications AFAIK.