Anti- Autism Suit Against Disney Update

[englanddg]

You are looking too deep into the language here. For all intents and purposes, this card provided an unlimited Fastpass. At attractions without FP (Pirates at Disneyland, for example) there is an alternate, disabled entrance. However, neither of these allow for immediate boarding. With Fastpass you still have to go through the queue, which can often have a 10-15 minute wait. With the "alternate entrance" you queue behind others with the same pass, which can also take some time. This language was intended to clarify they are not skipping ahead of these people and there will be some wait. Without it, people may demand to be boarded instantly which is just not feasible. However, the pass provided an immense benefit to those with it and regulars, particularly at Disneyland, figured out exactly what to say to get the best of the Guest Assistance Cards issued to them. With time, this made the previous system untenable as there was so much fraud and abuse.

"Intents and purposes" != policy.

And, I don't think I'm reading too much into the "terminology".

In these discussions, "front of the line" is a term used over, and over, and over again. Not all day fastpass or alternative access), and is exactly the argument being used in the lawsuit.

In fact, one of the cores of the lawsuit is the inability of the affected to wait...in any line at all.

From the article.

Contending that autistic people have “an inability to comprehend the concept of time, defer gratification, and wait for rides,” the plaintiff parents testified about their children experiencing meltdowns at Disney while waiting for rides.

The policy was clear that the intent of the program was not to provide immediate access. Hence the language. Purposes, policy in general application, yes...CMs, in general, are taught to "make magic" and "kill the issue locally", so, they will tend to make decisions that are better for the situation involved.

But, the issue became where one person would tell their friends or forums or twitter or whatever about the CM who made magic for them, and before you knew it, everyone was demanding this.

So, when Disney started to crack down on GAC (which happened before DAS), and really limit and enforce some of these rules to reign this in, by that point, exceptions to the policy, in practice, became the perceived rule.

This is the crux of the lawsuit, actually. This statement that Disney "did it before", so should "do it again". When, in reality, they are talking about CMs who made a choice to allow exceptions to the policy for whatever reason, not any official policy that ever existed.

 

[flynnibus]

That has been my point all along. The regulations often make no sense because they were not thought out and were a one size fits all approach which will result in wasted resources.

They are not one size fits all - it's just they aren't custom to every site... so no matter what the rules, you can come up with combinations that err to the conservative.

 

[THEMEPARKPIONEER]

I nearly had a meltdown when Bob Iger extended his term as CEO, do I have a lawsuit case?

 

[JennSmith]

My problem here is the plaintiffs are trying to make an entitled class of people who have rights and privileges far beyond the average customer.

There is a big difference between being accommodating to people with special needs and completely designing a system where the special needs people have a much higher level of service than the public in general. Of course, that also goes with an equal pricing structure.

Personal opinion is this. If you can not fit in with society at all you need not go to public places. If I have a stroke leaving me with half my body not functioning with half my brain gone then so be it. I'm not going to Disney, what would be the point anyway? Seriously know your limitations, you can feel sorry all you want for the special needs bunch but they aren't going to get better. Something else has to be found for them at their level not trying to fit them into places that are beyond their capabilities. What they would be happy doing and what you think they are happy doing is two different things.

I dunno...the thing is I don't really care if someone who genuinely can't wait in line skips ahead of me. Even if there wasn't a policy that allows it, I feel most of us would be okay with that. I mean it's a super small sacrifice for those of us who are healthy, who have healthy loved ones. So we may have to wait for another 5 or 10 minutes...big deal. That's nothing compared to what some of these families have to deal with every day. I think, like many others have said, the problem occurs when people abuse this...when people who could wait claim they can't. It truly sucks.
I don't think it's really fair to accuse some of these parents of being selfish and taking their kids to WDW for themselves and not their kids. That may be the case but it also may not be selfish. They may be trying to create memories in a way that they feel is best. Their lives are HARD. Maybe cut them some slack for wanting to attempt to do family vacations like "normal" families.

 

[englanddg]

I dunno...the thing is I don't really care if someone who genuinely can't wait in line skips ahead of me. Even if there wasn't a policy that allows it, I feel most of us would be okay with that. I mean it's a super small sacrifice for those of us who are healthy, who have healthy loved ones. So we may have to wait for another 5 or 10 minutes...big deal. That's nothing compared to what some of these families have to deal with every day. I think, like many others have said, the problem occurs when people abuse this...when people who could wait claim they can't. It truly sucks.
I don't think it's really fair to accuse some of these parents of being selfish and taking their kids to WDW for themselves and not their kids. That may be the case but it also may not be selfish. They may be trying to create memories in a way that they feel is best. Their lives are HARD. Maybe cut them some slack for wanting to attempt to do family vacations like "normal" families.

The issue is...scale.

At capacity, Magic Kingdom alone has 100,000+ people in it. If you assume the average of society (about 1% of people are assumed to be autistic), that's 1,000 visitors each day. If you assume they are there with at least 3 family members, that's 4,000 people, all being shuttled through the system, each day....at one park.

Now, is that doable? Absolutely! But, when you start to break it down to the ride throughputs, the other concerns (there are more disabled and special needs guests there than just the autistic families), etc...it can cause a cramp. And, that cramp is what Disney is trying to address.

But, to give that some scale, that's like a high school or two (or three in some places) worth of people. Imagine your high school, all trying to queue up, without disability concerns...it's not a simple task.

In all the years I have seen this topic tossed around various forums, I can't recall (doesn't mean it didn't happen) someone who said, on an individual basis, they were not willing to wait for the next boat at PoTC, for example....all in the name of accomodation.

But, when you start tossing those numbers at a boarding queue system, and then toss in the further issue of the demand of "immediate access"....well, there begin to be problems.

I wonder how many guests know that "ride breakdowns" of some of the older ride systems (like Peter Pan and PoTC) are really due to hold ups during launch because of boarding issues for compliance? The answer is, I'd suspect, most guest experienced "ride breakdowns" that stop and start are due to this. Not because Disney had poor maintenance, etc. But, getting on the loudspeaker and saying "yeah, guys, sorry you get to watch the wench auction for 3 rounds of the song, but this dude in his wheelchair was really hard to get in the boat" is a nonstarter.

Does that mean there shouldn't be accomodation? Absolutely not.

Does that mean that Autistic children (and adults and near adults) and their families shouldn't receive accommodation? Absolutely not.

But, the question is...what is a fair level of accomodation? If the answer is "my child needs access to the ride when demanded", well, that's a pretty tall order. Not out of some sort of spite, but because it's operationally infeasible. And yet, that is pretty much exactly what is being asked.

And, as many have noted, DAS actually works better for them and their families. Or they find the system adequate, etc. So, an interesting metric (which I do not know the answer to) would be, for every DAS participant, who also experienced GAC, how many actually find the new system inadequate?

Considering the numbers I started this post with, and then comparing that to the 40-50 lawsuits that arose, I'd say most parents of children all over the spectrum find DAS acceptable, or go the extra mile to communicate with Disney what could be done better or what they require during the planning process...instead of suing them for "violating" a policy that never existed in the first place.

 

[englanddg]

What is interesting, though....is that Tokyo Disney doesn't seem to have these issues, and yet, per 10,000 children...Japan has more than twice the number of people on the autism spectrum as the US.

I wonder if a Tokyo Disney aficionado could weigh in on that?

 

[Bairstow]

The issue is...scale.

At capacity, Magic Kingdom alone has 100,000+ people in it. If you assume the average of society (about 1% of people are assumed to be autistic), that's 1,000 visitors each day. If you assume they are there with at least 3 family members, that's 4,000 people, all being shuttled through the system, each day....at one park.

It would be interesting to know whether people with autism are statistically under, or over-represented among Disney park guests.

 

[WDWTrojan]

"Intents and purposes" != policy.

And, I don't think I'm reading too much into the "terminology".

In these discussions, "front of the line" is a term used over, and over, and over again. Not all day fastpass or alternative access), and is exactly the argument being used in the lawsuit.

In fact, one of the cores of the lawsuit is the inability of the affected to wait...in any line at all.

From the article.

Contending that autistic people have “an inability to comprehend the concept of time, defer gratification, and wait for rides,” the plaintiff parents testified about their children experiencing meltdowns at Disney while waiting for rides.

The policy was clear that the intent of the program was not to provide immediate access. Hence the language. Purposes, policy in general application, yes...CMs, in general, are taught to "make magic" and "kill the issue locally", so, they will tend to make decisions that are better for the situation involved.

But, the issue became where one person would tell their friends or forums or twitter or whatever about the CM who made magic for them, and before you knew it, everyone was demanding this.

So, when Disney started to crack down on GAC (which happened before DAS), and really limit and enforce some of these rules to reign this in, by that point, exceptions to the policy, in practice, became the perceived rule.

This is the crux of the lawsuit, actually. This statement that Disney "did it before", so should "do it again". When, in reality, they are talking about CMs who made a choice to allow exceptions to the policy for whatever reason, not any official policy that ever existed.

You're not really making sense and I don't think you understand the issue at hand. The operational process of the earlier Guest Assistance Cards never varied. Guests who were given the "alternate entrance" pass you showed in your previous post were given immediate access to the Fastpass queue when they showed the card. Some attractions don't use Fastpass, so they were directed to the exit or a separate entrance for guests with disabilities. The Guest Assistance Card with that stamp (which was the stamp autistic kids got) got you right in, you were never asked to "come back later." No cast member "magic" required. The language on the card is meant to imply you may still have to wait a short time at the attraction (i.e. the Fastpass line may be ten minutes).

With time there was widespread abuse of the program, as the Guest Assistance Cards became de facto "front of line" passes, even if that meant waiting in the shorter Fastpass queue.

Disney discontinued the Guest Assistance Card program entirely. They replaced it with a new program called the DAS. Basically a guest may get a card for that day from Guest Relations. The key difference is that they are no longer given immediate access to the Fastpass queue. Attraction cast members give them a time to come back, roughly equal to the current standby wait time. The only exception is if the queue is shorter than 15 minutes, then they get right through. This was Disney's way of evening the playing field and, frankly, making the program less appealing to those wanting to abuse the system.

The lawsuit is saying that because Disney is not making attractions available on-demand anymore, they are discriminating against kids with autism. The virtual wait time, according to them, is nearly as bad as standing in a queue as the park is noisy and full of commotion.

 

[englanddg]

It would be interesting to know whether people with autism are statistically under, or over-represented among Disney park guests.

It truly would be. Simply for the fact that it would help Disney assess the situation and potentially plan for it in future developments.

If you don't know, you can't ever plan for it. That's why "ride on demand" can't work with a ride system that was designed in an era when mostly able bodied people were assumed to attempt able bodied adventures.

As we strive for a more inclusive society, the answer cannot hinge on outliers.

You can't design systems around planning for each and every possible outlier situation. You'll end up with no system at all, only chaos.
Now, the issue is, in the past, this was left to individual discretion at some level. But, one thing the internet has given us (good or bad) are communities of like minded individuals who really do not know each other, but share a common something or other (like, a passion for Disney, and come to Disney forums as a result).

And, these communities exist for Austism parents. And they are healthy, and helpful, so I hope no one reads that as a criticism.

But, when you end up with one person talking about some special accomodation they "got" at something, then an expectation is formed.

Heck, it's not limited to Autism parents. It's society in general.

And, that has led to general dissatisfaction as to "why didn't I get what this other family I read about online got".

And, THAT leads to a sense of entitlement.

And, when you can seem to base that sense of entitlement on something legal, like ADA, that leads to lawsuits.

And, THAT leads to people at the lower levels, who really can make magic for these parents (by quietly allowing their child to ride the ride again) losing the authority to do so.

It's a vicious cycle that eats itself...and the basis of the saying "This is why we can't have good things", imho.

 

[englanddg]

You're not really making sense and I don't think you understand the issue at hand. The operational process of the earlier Guest Assistance Cards never varied. Guests who were given the "alternate entrance" pass you showed in your previous post were given immediate access to the Fastpass queue when they showed the card. Some attractions don't use Fastpass, so they were directed to the exit or a separate entrance for guests with disabilities. The Guest Assistance Card with that stamp (which was the stamp autistic kids got) got you right in, you were never asked to "come back later." No cast member "magic" required. The language on the card is meant to imply you may still have to wait a short time at the attraction (i.e. the Fastpass line may be ten minutes).

With time there was widespread abuse of the program, as the Guest Assistance Cards became de facto "front of line" passes, even if that meant waiting in the shorter Fastpass queue.

Disney discontinued the Guest Assistance Card program entirely. They replaced it with a new program called the DAS. Basically a guest may get a card for that day from Guest Relations. The key difference is that they are no longer given immediate access to the Fastpass queue. Attraction cast members give them a time to come back, roughly equal to the current standby wait time. The only exception is if the queue is shorter than 15 minutes, then they get right through. This was Disney's way of evening the playing field and, frankly, making the program less appealing to those wanting to abuse the system.

The lawsuit is saying that because Disney is not making attractions available on-demand anymore, they are discriminating against kids with autism. The virtual wait time, according to them, is nearly as bad as standing in a queue as the park is noisy and full of commotion.

First, let us review the comment, or the part of the comment (more accurately) I was responding to.

3. It’s unreasonable to expect instant front of the line access if your autistic. But this was literally the system that my cousin grew up with. It’s not a hare brain idea. It’s a system that Disney successfully used for years.

He, himself, uses the term "front of the line", and then goes on to imply that it was "front of the line", etc. He says it was "literally the system".

It was not "literally the system". That was his impression of the system. You argue de facto vs de jure, but the reality is, de facto is only, and always, based on CM considerations. And, as I noted in my previous posts, those are important.

So, lets think about how you deal with a queue, and I'll be a bit blunt about it, so excuse that in advance...

If you see that there is a really really obese person coming down the pike in the line, you may wish to advance that person in line and get them into a staging area so they can take their time (for their comfort, and general comfort frankly) to get ready to transfer to the ride vehicle.

A GAC card gave that flexibility. The current system, does not necessarily do that (though it still happens, I'm sure).

If someone suffers from a "waiting disorder" (note, not all the plaintiffs are autistic) of some sort, that is harder to diagnose, because people in general have various forms of "waiting disorders"...but, the CM can still make a decision. And, frankly, they should. They aren't there just to make sure you have your seat belt fastened, they are managing the queue. Or, at least, they used to. (they still do...calls for "party of 2, anyone party of 2!?" still happens).

But you are correct about what the lawsuit is saying. The question is, are the plaintiffs correct in asserting such?

They are claiming intentional discrimination because the DAS system doesn't give them what they expected from the GAC system.

Disney's defense is that the GAC system never provided that, and they are making unreasonable requests for accommodations (ADA requires only reasonable requests).

And, looking at the card, Disney is correct.

For a loose analogy, back in the days of paper FastPass, if I got one that said 12:30, but showed up at 12:05, but the CM motioned me through and didn't mind (which happened all the time), does that mean that Disney had a policy that FP's have a window of 25 minutes prior to printed time? Of course it doesn't.

And, when it comes to matters of law, application of policy will count. And, this is why CMs will be removed any sort of leeway.

Now, here's why I think this is all a very bad move.

Without that leeway, CMs are not allowed to MAKE THE REASONABLE BUSINESS DECISIONS at the ground level....because now there is a liability precedent.

As a result, the policy will not be changed, but the "magical decisions" and "turns of the cheek to policy" will begin to disappear...

And, for those who are dealing with a special accommodation request, this means they get shoved into a system, by their own demand, instead of allowing the general grace of society at large to carry them through...all because a select few are upset about the changes.

Abuse of the system to the point where it broke other systems is what caused Disney to act. This reaction will not bring the old system back. It will merely solidify that no leeway is given again to such special considerations unless it is run through the proper bureaucratic channels.

Cutting off noses to spite faces....imho....

 

[englanddg]

btw, if anyone actually is interested.

Here's some of the argument.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201612647.pdf

 

[JennSmith]

The issue is...scale.

At capacity, Magic Kingdom alone has 100,000+ people in it. If you assume the average of society (about 1% of people are assumed to be autistic), that's 1,000 visitors each day. If you assume they are there with at least 3 family members, that's 4,000 people, all being shuttled through the system, each day....at one park.

Now, is that doable? Absolutely! But, when you start to break it down to the ride throughputs, the other concerns (there are more disabled and special needs guests there than just the autistic families), etc...it can cause a cramp. And, that cramp is what Disney is trying to address.

But, to give that some scale, that's like a high school or two (or three in some places) worth of people. Imagine your high school, all trying to queue up, without disability concerns...it's not a simple task.

In all the years I have seen this topic tossed around various forums, I can't recall (doesn't mean it didn't happen) someone who said, on an individual basis, they were not willing to wait for the next boat at PoTC, for example....all in the name of accomodation.

But, when you start tossing those numbers at a boarding queue system, and then toss in the further issue of the demand of "immediate access"....well, there begin to be problems.

I wonder how many guests know that "ride breakdowns" of some of the older ride systems (like Peter Pan and PoTC) are really due to hold ups during launch because of boarding issues for compliance? The answer is, I'd suspect, most guest experienced "ride breakdowns" that stop and start are due to this. Not because Disney had poor maintenance, etc. But, getting on the loudspeaker and saying "yeah, guys, sorry you get to watch the wench auction for 3 rounds of the song, but this dude in his wheelchair was really hard to get in the boat".

Does that mean there shouldn't be accomodation? Absolutely not.

Does that mean that Autistic children (and adults and near adults) and their families shouldn't receive accommodation? Absolutely not.

But, the question is...what is a fair level of accomodation? If the answer is "my child needs access to the ride when demanded", well, that's a pretty tall order. Not out of some sort of spite, but because it's operationally infeasible. And yet, that is pretty much exactly what is being asked.

And, as many have noted, DAS actually works better for them and their families. Or they find the system adequate, etc. So, an interesting metric (which I do not know the answer to) would be, for every DAS participant, who also experienced GAC, how many actually find the new system inadequate?

Considering the numbers I started this post with, and then comparing that to the 40-50 lawsuits that arose, I'd say most parents of children all over the spectrum find DAS acceptable, or go the extra mile to communicate with Disney what could be done better or what they require during the planning process...instead of suing them for "violating" a policy that never existed in the first place.

I get it. And by no means am I saying I think this lawsuit is deserved...I don't.

 

[JayWaters]

Englandddg, I don’t think you’re right that it was never the policy to go to the front of the line and this was only done at the discretion of the castmembers and that instead the proper policy was to put disabled people into the FastPass line.

Because I am pretty sure I attended Disneyland with my cousin before the introduction of the FastPass system at Disneyland. There wouldn’t have been a FastPass line to enter at the time.

I see FastPass was introduced in 1999 at Disneyworld but can’t find when Disneyland got its system. I would imagine a few years later. So I might be recalling from a bit longer than 10 years ago. I hope I am not thinking of something from 20 years ago!

 

[jaklgreen]

First, let us review the comment, or the part of the comment (more accurately) I was responding to.



He, himself, uses the term "front of the line", and then goes on to imply that it was "front of the line", etc. He says it was "literally the system".

It was not "literally the system". That was his impression of the system. You argue de facto vs de jure, but the reality is, de facto is only, and always, based on CM considerations. And, as I noted in my previous posts, those are important.

So, lets think about how you deal with a queue, and I'll be a bit blunt about it, so excuse that in advance...

If you see that there is a really really obese person coming down the pike in the line, you may wish to advance that person in line and get them into a staging area so they can take their time (for their comfort, and general comfort frankly) to get ready to transfer to the ride vehicle.

A GAC card gave that flexibility. The current system, does not necessarily do that (though it still happens, I'm sure).

If someone suffers from a "waiting disorder" (note, not all the plaintiffs are autistic) of some sort, that is harder to diagnose, because people in general have various forms of "waiting disorders"...but, the CM can still make a decision. And, frankly, they should. They aren't there just to make sure you have your seat belt fastened, they are managing the queue. Or, at least, they used to. (they still do...calls for "party of 2, anyone party of 2!?" still happens.

But you are correct about what the lawsuit is saying. The question is, are the plaintiffs correct is asserting such?

They are claiming intentional discrimination because the DAS system doesn't give them what they expected from the GAC system.

Disney's defense is that the GAC system never provided that, and they are making unreasonable requests for accommodations (ADA requires only reasonable requests).

And, looking at the card, Disney is correct.

For a loose analogy, back in the days of paper FastPass, if I got one that said 12:30, but showed up at 12:05, but the CM motioned me through and didn't mind (which happened all the time), does that mean that Disney had a policy that FP's have a window of 25 minutes prior to printed time? Of course it doesn't.

And, when it comes to matters of law, application of policy will count. And, this is why CMs will be removed any sort of leeway.

Now, here's why I think this is all a very bad move.

Without that leeway, CMs are not allowed to MAKE THE REASONABLE BUSINESS DECISIONS at the ground level....because now there is a liability precedent.

As a result, the policy will not be changed, but the "magical decisions" and "turns of the cheek to policy" will begin to disappear...

And, for those who are dealing with a special accommodation request, this means they get shoved into a system, by their own demand. Instead of allowing the general grace of society at large to carry them through because they are upset about it.

Abuse of the system to the point where it broke other systems is what caused Disney to act. This reaction will not bring the old system back. It will merely solidify that no leeway is given again to such special considerations unless it is run through the proper bureaucratic channels.

Cutting off noses to spite faces....imho....

I think the issue is that what your cousin grew up with was a rare accommodation, by that I mean not that many people received it. Now, as other have said, with the internet everyone knows about it and expects it. Even for those who truly do not need it. It is the horrible part of human nature that everyone want's whatever benefit the next person has. There will always be people who lie and cheat to get, what they perceive to be, the best they can get. And in this situation it is the "instant front of the line". We know this is the reason why Disney changed the policy. It is just not sustainable in today's society. Not only do people know about it now, the parks are also much much busier then they were back then, increasing wait times leading to frustration. Right or wrong, if a person has been in line for over an hour with their toddler and they keep seeing these families walk right past them and get right on over and over, it is going to make people very angry. Now multiply that by almost every ride you go on. You have to understand that even the most understanding person has their limits. Places like a grocery store or any general place, most people have no issue with accommodation special needs. But you get to WDW, where it costs thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, heat, lines, frustration, etc and people start to loose their caring nature. We all want our kids to have the best experience possible. I totally understand, like I said we have taken our autistic niece to WDW and have seen that side but have never done the old system with instant access. But we have also taken our kids when they were toddlers and both have their challenges. So I can completely see how both sides are viewed. I hate the argument that a person should just be happy that their kid does not have autism because that means that everyone should feel sorry for those who do. We don't feel sorry for ourselves that our niece has it. She is amazing and smart, and funny and she is just Maddie, not autistic Maddie. Besides, most people have issues in their life and you can choose to have a victim mentality and expect everyone to feel sorry for you or you can embrace your life and differences and be happy with the joys you do have.

 

[englanddg]

Englandddg, I don’t think you’re right that it was never the policy to go to the front of the line and this was only done at the discretion of the castmembers and that instead the proper policy was to put disabled people into the FastPass line.

Because I am pretty sure I attended Disneyland with my cousin before the introduction of the FastPass system at Disneyland. There wouldn’t have been a FastPass line to enter at the time.

I see FastPass was introduced in 1999 at Disneyworld but can’t find when Disneyland got its system. I would imagine a few years later. So I might be recalling from a bit longer than 10 years ago. I hope I am not thinking of something from 20 years ago!

I never said that was the policy. Others did.

What I said (in summary, I suppose, though I never said that either, but based on what is printed on that card and how I recall it being described at the time) is that GAC was a system that was a card to present to a CM at a ride with recommendation(s) stamped on it, and the CM team at said ride would then exercise their judgement as to how best accommodate keeping that in mind.

It was not a promise of immediate access, and it clearly indicated it was not.

It was not a promise of access to the FP line, if one existed, or not.

It was a promise that the CM at the ride would take the recommendations on the card into account (meaning the card holder and their party didn’t have to explain to each CM what their issues and needs were in great detail) and work the Guest into the ride with those concerns in mind.

My general understanding of GAC was that there was no promise of any exact policy, just a best effort system that had some common workarounds.

DAS fixed this ambiguity.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I never said that was the policy. Others did.

What I said (in summary, I suppose, though I never said that either, but based on what is printed on that card and how I recall it being described at the time) is that GAC was a system that was a card to present to a CM at a ride with recommendation(s) stamped on it, and the CM team at said ride would then exercise their judgement as to how best accommodate keeping that in mind.

It was not a promise of immediate access, and it clearly indicated it was not.

It was not a promise of access to the FP line, if one existed, or not.

It was a promise that the CM at the ride would take the recommendations on the card into account (meaning the card holder and their party didn’t have to explain to each CM what their issues and needs were in great detail) and work the Guest into the ride with those concerns in mind.

My general understanding of GAC was that there was no promise of any exact policy, just a best effort system that had some common workarounds.

DAS fixed this ambiguity.

They had that before any GAC card anyway. I used to bring disabled folks to WDW long before either of those things existed. All they did was, when necessary, send you to the exit line and there you had to wait until a there was room for another disabled person on the ride. If you could use the regular line, you used that and the same delay was in affect but at the load zone. That might be right away or it might be a cycle into it. They only allowed a certain number of people that required special assistance in the event of a required emergency evacuation. GAC became necessary when the "challenged" were broken down into sub-category's of physical and emotional. The massive abuse of that led to DAS. I believe this fight has already been fought, back when DAS first came out. I don't remember the details of the results, or I have forgotten, but, nothing changed about the DAS at the time since it was more then accommodating under the spirit and the word of the law. I'm thinking the same will apply now or thrown out as an already determined ruling.

 

[flynnibus]

It was thrown out before trial before because Disney made the point the kids wait elsewhere.... judge now is saying, “well let’s hear it out in court”

Do people even read the articles?

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Do people even read the articles?

Not really. They read headlines...then they perceive what they think those headlines mean. At the end of the day - they've created their own story.

You're right though. The thing that rubs me wrong is the discrimination aspect. I don't think people really understand what discrimination is.

 

[WDWTrojan]

Disney's defense is that the GAC system never provided that, and they are making unreasonable requests for accommodations (ADA requires only reasonable requests).

And, looking at the card, Disney is correct.

That really isn't their defense though. They fully admit the previous process gave people essentially an immediate Fastpass and that the new system does not. However, they claim that while different, the new DAS card system still addresses the needs of autistic kids and those unable to wait in a line due to a disability just fine.

 

[WDWTrojan]

I never said that was the policy. Others did.

What I said (in summary, I suppose, though I never said that either, but based on what is printed on that card and how I recall it being described at the time) is that GAC was a system that was a card to present to a CM at a ride with recommendation(s) stamped on it, and the CM team at said ride would then exercise their judgement as to how best accommodate keeping that in mind.

It was not a promise of immediate access, and it clearly indicated it was not.

It was not a promise of access to the FP line, if one existed, or not.

It was a promise that the CM at the ride would take the recommendations on the card into account (meaning the card holder and their party didn’t have to explain to each CM what their issues and needs were in great detail) and work the Guest into the ride with those concerns in mind.

My general understanding of GAC was that there was no promise of any exact policy, just a best effort system that had some common workarounds.

DAS fixed this ambiguity.

Sorry I don't want to harp on this but you wrong. The GAC card system was unique in that an effort was made to accommodate based on the nature of the disability, there was five or so different stamps for the cards.

For a time, many people were getting wheelchairs in an effort to skip the line. To combat this, one of the stamps was "guest may use the wheelchair entrance, where applicable." Many of the newer attractions (and some older ones that had been retrofitted) could accommodate guests in wheelchairs in the standard queue. So this card often provided no special access, except in cases where the standard queue could not fit a wheelchair. Another stamp offered a "shaded wait area" because guests would often claim they couldn't stand in the sun for very long - so the cast members may have given the guests a special place to wait, or allowed them to skip an outdoor portion of the queue. In designing the original GAC program, Disney did not want attractions cast members, who are often not quite as well trained and savvy as Guest Relations cast, questioning guests as to the nature of their disability or potentially sensitive issues. Therefore, all of the decision making in this process was made at Guest Relations.

The stamp you posted in your original post, offering guests an "alternate entrance," was basically the second highest level of service Disney offered for guests with any kind of disability and the one most prone to fraud & abuse. It is also the stamp issued to autistic guests. There was no decision making at the attraction level. This pass provided guests immediate access to the Fastpass queue. If there was no Fastpass queue, they were provided a 'backdoor'-type access. There was no debating this - if a cast member failed to provide this level of service for a guest holding this card, they'd likely be spoken to by a leader.

The language about "immediate boarding" was to quell people who might be angry about being stuck in a fifteen minute Fastpass line, instead of being granted a VIP-type service OR guests who may have been issued a lesser stamp, like the wheelchair one I mentioned above. Before Fastpass and GAC existed, all guests holding a disability card, regardless of the nature of their issue, were basically given a VIP-level of service, which was no longer the case.

The trouble with DAS is that there are no longer different types of stamps or cards. It is a blanket policy. Those using it are told to come back in roughly the same amount of time as the attraction queue, unless it is a fifteen minute queue or shorter. So autistic guests, who would have previously been given immediate access, now have to wait a significant period. Therein lies the issue.