Anti- Autism Suit Against Disney Update

[jaklgreen]

What is the magic age? Inquiring (old enough for SS and Medicare) minds want to know? Seriously, neither my husband nor I need nor want one. Or do we have to wait another decade until 80+?

I'm with you on not wanting one. It is kind of silly to just ask for one because you are getting older. But where I live, it seems like every senior over the age of 60 has a placard.

 

[jaklgreen]

Never been to one but using a restroom or washing of hands is not an option at Sonic? You can't do that sitting in your car.

None of the Sonics in the city I live in have a public restroom. They do have tables with ordering boards for those who want to get out of their car though. Some people like to take little kids out of the car to eat so they don't make a mess.

 

[flynnibus]

I would also like to add I have an issue with this idea the people have that all all autistic people have the same issues (having no concept of time, unable to to delay grafication, unable to wait in any line at the park) and the same severity of the disorder. In reality autism is a spectrum, ranging from " you would never know they had it unless they told you" to "they'll probably never be able to live independently". The parents in this lawsuit are using language that to me makes it sound like every autistic child is the latter which bothers me.

Which is why the law is structured this way, and places like Disney ask 'what kind of limitation do you have' or 'what kind of accommodation do you need?' as opposed to 'what disability do you have, so I can tell you what you need'.

The whole point is not to fixate on the disease, disorder, handicap or whatever... it's simply to provide people the assistance they need to be whole along with everyone else.

The language in the lawsuit is necessary to establish the legal standing for their coverage under the law - not because they are stereotyping, etc.

 

[The Mom]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this suit is an appeal to a higher court who will take a second look at the original ruling. I sued someone once. He appealed the judgement to a higher court. It was upheld by the higher court - so it is final.

 

[thomas998]

Never been to one but using a restroom or washing of hands is not an option at Sonic? You can't do that sitting in your car.

Ones I've seen have no public restroom... apparently some do according to some people... but I've not seen them in the Sonic near me, nor has Dan Rather according to his tweet when he was driving through Kansas...



Dan Rather
✔@DanRather

You learn all kinds of things driving through mid-America. Like: Sonic doesn't have bathrooms. Also you forget how flat Kansas is.
7:18 PM - Jul 15, 2017

 

[thomas998]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this suit is an appeal to a higher court who will take a second look at the original ruling. I sued someone once. He appealed the judgement to a higher court. It was upheld by the higher court - so it is final.

As I read the story, the parents' lost the original lawsuit as it appears to have been thrown out by the lower court. This appeal to will send it back to the lower courts to actually go to trial... Then when one side or the other loses that side will likely appeal again no matter which one wins in the lower court... this could go on for years and years before a final judgement is made.

 

[kelknight84]

I'm all for accommodating but these people don't come for a once in a lifetime trip. They go multiple times a week. I read through that lengthy court document and one family said they used to be able to get on 19 rides in one day. That is way above and beyond a regular guest, and again these people visit often. So while I think accommodations are appropriate for the infrequent guest, it totally impacts operations when someone comes all the time. My biggest point of contention though is the want to ride a single ride over and over. That's not reasonable in any scenario. Rides have finite capacity.

 

[jaklgreen]

I'm all for accommodating but these people don't come for a once in a lifetime trip. They go multiple times a week. I read through that lengthy court document and one family said they used to be able to get on 19 rides in one day. That is way above and beyond a regular guest, and again these people visit often. So while I think accommodations are appropriate for the infrequent guest, it totally impacts operations when someone comes all the time. My biggest point of contention though is the want to ride a single ride over and over. That's not reasonable in any scenario. Rides have finite capacity.

Yeah, that is just greed on a persons part to expect that.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Yeah, that is just greed on a persons part to expect that.

Well, I wouldn't call it greed exactly. It is natural for a parent to want to keep their child happy. That is especially true if that child has some form of emotional problem. This is the sad part, autism or no autism, society and life places limits on things. Yes, a child may have a melt down if they cannot get what they want, but, that doesn't mean that it is always going to be available to them. Somewhere, sometime, someone is going to say no and stick to it. Like you can train an animal that really doesn't have a reason factor, they don't understand or grasp the meaning of time, it doesn't matter, they are trained to accept what life gives them. I don't see how always catering to the unreasonable desires just because they don't have a concept of fair or unfair, is a very nice thing to do to that person. They continue to grow up and at some point their advocacy group will no longer be there to scream until they get their own way. Eventually the person learns what no means and meltdowns are not going to change anything.

I don't think that Disney or any other location should be forced to make one persons desires override the needs and desires of everyone else no matter how loud they might yell. It just is a bad way to set that person up for a very bad experience later on. It appears to me that most places and Disney in particular have taken steps to accommodate beyond the letter and even the spirit of the law. Those that try and push it beyond that have probable good intentions, but, for the sake of fairness and common sense, sometimes the answer should be a loud resounding NO!

 

[I'mwatchinguWizowski]

Again think this lawsuit is crazy but I would have no problem showing proof from our dr that our son is indeed in on the spectrum. Yes GAC was great and made touring very easy but we are completely happy with the accommodations that Disney has given us with DAC. With a good plan and use of FP it’s helped on some occasions. Most of us parents who go through IEP meetings and what not are used to providing schools or multiple docs with various evals showing what accommodations we need. I don’t get why the ADA doesn’t make you show proof to guest relations.

 

[Shouldigo12]

Well, I wouldn't call it greed exactly. It is natural for a parent to want to keep their child happy. That is especially true if that child has some form of emotional problem. This is the sad part, autism or no autism, society and life places limits on things. Yes, a child may have a melt down if they cannot get what they want, but, that doesn't mean that it is always going to be available to them. Somewhere, sometime, someone is going to say no and stick to it. Like you can train an animal that really doesn't have a reason factor, they don't understand or grasp the meaning of time, it doesn't matter, they are trained to accept what life gives them. I don't see how always catering to the unreasonable desires just because they don't have a concept of fair or unfair, is a very nice thing to do to that person. They continue to grow up and at some point their advocacy group will no longer be there to scream until they get their own way. Eventually the person learns what no means and meltdowns are not going to change anything.

I don't think that Disney or any other location should be forced to make one persons desires override the needs and desires of everyone else no matter how loud they might yell. It just is a bad way to set that person up for a very bad experience later on. It appears to me that most places and Disney in particular have taken steps to accommodate beyond the letter and even the spirit of the law. Those that try and push it beyond that have probable good intentions, but, for the sake of fairness and common sense, sometimes the answer should be a loud resounding NO!

I think you've done a great job of explaining what I've, and others, have been saying. I don't think anybody here is grinning with glee at the thought of telling a child, or anyone, with a disability "sorry, but it's unreasonable to expect us to accomodate all of your needs" knowing that that means they probably won't be able to go to the parks. That's not a happy thought. But it comes to a point when someone simply can't be accommodated reasonably by the company.

 

[Shouldigo12]

Also, I've seen a few people mention that Disney World should offer quiet rooms at the park. I was just lookong at the webaite and it mentioned they had break rooms for overstimulated guests to use. Has anyone had any experience with those and how useful they are?

 

[thomas998]

Well, I wouldn't call it greed exactly. It is natural for a parent to want to keep their child happy. That is especially true if that child has some form of emotional problem. This is the sad part, autism or no autism, society and life places limits on things. Yes, a child may have a melt down if they cannot get what they want, but, that doesn't mean that it is always going to be available to them. Somewhere, sometime, someone is going to say no and stick to it. Like you can train an animal that really doesn't have a reason factor, they don't understand or grasp the meaning of time, it doesn't matter, they are trained to accept what life gives them. I don't see how always catering to the unreasonable desires just because they don't have a concept of fair or unfair, is a very nice thing to do to that person. They continue to grow up and at some point their advocacy group will no longer be there to scream until they get their own way. Eventually the person learns what no means and meltdowns are not going to change anything.

I don't think that Disney or any other location should be forced to make one persons desires override the needs and desires of everyone else no matter how loud they might yell. It just is a bad way to set that person up for a very bad experience later on. It appears to me that most places and Disney in particular have taken steps to accommodate beyond the letter and even the spirit of the law. Those that try and push it beyond that have probable good intentions, but, for the sake of fairness and common sense, sometimes the answer should be a loud resounding NO!

But if you know that your child can't handle only getting to ride a ride one time without having to wait again before riding it... and you know that your child will then have a melt down... then why in the world would you take them to begin with? You would really expect a parent to consider whether seeing their kid happy for the 2 minutes that a ride was going to be going would be worth them having a meltdown for the next hour. If some of these kids can't handle the situation then maybe the best the parent can do is not take them to begin with... If you think about it the majority of people on the planet don't go to Disney even once in their life... Disney really is a luxury, not anywhere near a necessity of a complete and full life.

 

[Goofyernmost]

But if you know that your child can't handle only getting to ride a ride one time without having to wait again before riding it... and you know that your child will then have a melt down... then why in the world would you take them to begin with? You would really expect a parent to consider whether seeing their kid happy for the 2 minutes that a ride was going to be going would be worth them having a meltdown for the next hour. If some of these kids can't handle the situation then maybe the best the parent can do is not take them to begin with... If you think about it the majority of people on the planet don't go to Disney even once in their life... Disney really is a luxury, not anywhere near a necessity of a complete and full life.

That is two different things. There is the question of how much accommodation should Disney be forced to make as opposed to 'at what point should the parents know the limitations of their child and not force them into situations that will only cause upset for them'. That is what this lawsuit is going to be answering. If they side with the parents then they are telling them that they have no responsibility in determining what is possible and what is just a single desire demand. If they find for Disney, then they are being forced to make that determination because Disney will not be obligated to provide such an unreasonable request. To us on the outside looking in, it seems like a no brainer, to the parents of those kids it seems the same, however, opposite, no brainer. One side or the other is going to be unhappy.

If the scales of justice are properly used, the numbers of people negatively affected by allowing that demand to become a rule of law far outdistances the numbers of upset people pushing for that accommodation. There is no simple solution for Disney, however, there is a simple solution for the parents. If your child cannot handle the normal requirements of a theme park then it is obviously a place that they should not attempt to conquer. Not unlike, in many ways, the factual nature of a paraplegic being unable to climb stairs demanding a second floor apartment and then insisting that the other tenants carry them up the stairs even though there is a ground floor place available. These parents are demanding that the rest of the guests share in their burden. Something that I think is unreasonable and hopefully a court of law will do so as well. They have already been giving an accommodation that the rest of us are not allowed to have, and no one has any real problem with that. Now they want more because of an inability to understand why they cannot.

 

[thomas998]

That is two different things. There is the question of how much accommodation should Disney be forced to make as opposed to 'at what point should the parents know the limitations of their child and not force them into situations that will only cause upset for them'. That is what this lawsuit is going to be answering. If they side with the parents then they are telling them that they have no responsibility in determining what is possible and what is just a single desire demand. If they find for Disney, then they are being forced to make that determination because Disney will not be obligated to provide such an unreasonable request. To us on the outside looking in, it seems like a no brainer, to the parents of those kids it seems the same, however, opposite, no brainer. One side or the other is going to be unhappy.

If the scales of justice are properly used, the numbers of people negatively affected by allowing that demand to become a rule of law far outdistances the numbers of upset people pushing for that accommodation. There is no simple solution for Disney, however, there is a simple solution for the parents. If your child cannot handle the normal requirements of a theme park then it is obviously a place that they should not attempt to conquer. Not unlike, in many ways, the factual nature of a paraplegic being unable to climb stairs demanding a second floor apartment and then insisting that the other tenants carry them up the stairs even though there is a ground floor place available. These parents are demanding that the rest of the guests share in their burden. Something that I think is unreasonable and hopefully a court of law will do so as well. They have already been giving an accommodation that the rest of us are not allowed to have, and no one has any real problem with that. Now they want more because of an inability to understand why they cannot.

One can only hope the lower court judge that gets this gets it right... I've found that court rulings can swing all over the place and wouldn't be surprised if the parents win... If that happens then the only real question is whether Disney would have to change their policy until the appeal of the decision is decided or not.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The parents have money or some lawyer wants to sue Disney after this to make his payday. Lawyers are whores they are after money so the parents are paying them straight up or this is a setup up for a lawsuit for million against Disney for discriminating against the disabled. Which I think is hysterical because Disney has gone out of there way to cater to the disabled, the dead and dying. Disney literally has made it a decision to cater to kids who are going to die soon and the last thing they need is a trip to Disney world. Not like Disney gives them a discount? I doubt they do. Got ring out some thousands before they go. I'm sure the walk dead are always pointed to the high-end hotels. Such a waste.

You might want to clarify that last short sentence. Are you talking about the lawsuit as being a waste or are you talking about giving them the high end hotels and special treatment a waste. Used at the end of that sentence makes it sound like you think that doing all those good things for people is a waste. That doesn't sound at all like the beginning of your post.

 

[Disney.Mike]

This lawsuit is ridiculous. The ADA is about access, not excess. This lawsuit is all about EXCESS. Honestly, if the child is so severally autistic, the parents cant get a card to come back in an hour then they have no business at Disney. The lawyers that have taken this to court should be disbarred.

This is nothing but money chasing lawyers harassing a business.

 

[larryz]

btw, if anyone actually is interested.

Here's some of the argument.

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

The appeal is based on a flawed assumption, stated in the first sentence of paragraph I.B -- that Disney's FP system is designed to reduce wait times. While that may be an effect, it was primarily intended to get people out of line so they can spend money in shops and restaurants between rides.

Ones I've seen have no public restroom... apparently some do according to some people... but I've not seen them in the Sonic near me, nor has Dan Rather according to his tweet when he was driving through Kansas...



Dan Rather
✔@DanRather

You learn all kinds of things driving through mid-America. Like: Sonic doesn't have bathrooms. Also you forget how flat Kansas is.
7:18 PM - Jul 15, 2017

I wouldn't believe Dan Rather if he said the sky was blue.

 

[jloucks]

The ADA is about access, not excess.

I am so stealing that line.

 

[Kingtut]

There is of course the option of having the person that has no mobility issues dropping off the person that has mobility issues at the entrance and then going to park, that would actually result in the person with mobility issues having to walk less than if they used the handicapped parking.

I would be arrested if I left my wheelchair bound daughter alone in front of Walmart while I went to find a parking space in the next county. The real issue is that there are so many different types of disabilities ( some visible some not) and different levels of severity - that there is no one best way to handle accommodations for shopping/parking/ ride lines/ restrooms for them all. Those of you who are blessed in not having to worry about dealing with these issues should thank your lucky stars because you have absolutely no idea as to how much planning and work goes into just an everyday outing let alone trying to go to as theme park.

We as a society do not want to just lock these people in the basement ( or an institution) and attempt to allow them to have as "normal" a life as possible.