Anti- Autism Suit Against Disney Update

[Elizabeth Swann]

You do realize that the tables outside are intended as a place for the workers and not customers... I have even seen signs that state they will not serve walk-ups at the parking spots. They may have some Sonics somewhere in the world that actually have a place to order if you just walk up but I've never seen one. Which again leads to the question of why require special parking in a place where no one is expected to actually get out of their car.

I have 2 Sonics with in 5 miles of me and they both have outside seating with the ordering panels

 

[lazyboy97o]

You do realize that the tables outside are intended as a place for the workers and not customers... I have even seen signs that state they will not serve walk-ups at the parking spots. They may have some Sonics somewhere in the world that actually have a place to order if you just walk up but I've never seen one. Which again leads to the question of why require special parking in a place where no one is expected to actually get out of their car.

Those tables have menu boards for ordering. They’re for customers.

 

[Shouldigo12]

You do realize that the tables outside are intended as a place for the workers and not customers... I have even seen signs that state they will not serve walk-ups at the parking spots. They may have some Sonics somewhere in the world that actually have a place to order if you just walk up but I've never seen one. Which again leads to the question of why require special parking in a place where no one is expected to actually get out of their car.

Both Sonics near me have outside seating with ordering boards. I don't know how ypur Sonic works but I've seen many with that set up.

 

[englanddg]

Or, they could have just bought a ticket...

The issue with “equity” is that there endless problems. And, you can’t design a system around proposing endless solutions to those endless problems.

Then you don’t have a system. You have chaos.

 

[englanddg]

Disney’s big challenge will be demonstrating that the old system was unreasonable. While the plaintiffs have additional desires (notably the guaranteed 15 minute maximum wait) this whole issue came from the change in systems. My understanding is that the written rules of the previous system were not actually for the sort of immediate access that people received but that became the default since it was easier to just let people on the ride. It’s one thing to say something new is unreasonable but it is harder to say something you used to do for your own convenience is now unreasonable.

Yes.

What the new system eliminates is some of the “flex” the old system allowed. The problem was, when people would hear about this “flex”, which was often at CM discretion, they began to assume it was the policy.

The policy was printed on the card.

 

[englanddg]

I think it all goes back to what is reasonable accommodation? Many of the things that we take for granted - handicapped parking spaces, entrances, restroom facilities, ramps, etc were hotly debated way back when, with many people calling them unreasonable.

And who will pay for them.

 

[englanddg]

Assume the parents win, that would result in closing down Disney as now no normal guest could ever ride any ride because it would be continually full of autistic kids and their families riding the rides over and over because they could do so without ever standing in line.

Of course the counter is that now anytime anyone goes to Disney they just claim they are autistic and since Disney can't ask for proof of the disability then anyone would be able to get a front of the line pass such that every ride would have very long lines for the front of the line pass and no one using the regular lines... and of course the autistic kids would be having a melt down because the front of the line line was 90 minutes long... So basically the parents wouldn't be able to give their kid that they wanted....

In the end this is just another reason the ADA needs to be revised with very specific details on exactly who it was intended to protect. If you look back at the history of the ADA it was never intended to "protect" as many people as we now have using it as a tool to get something for nothing.... it was never intended for emotional support dogs, it was originally intended for seeing eye dogs but now its been used to turn airplanes into flying dog kennels.

Just for clarity, emotional support animals are not covered or recognized by ADA.

However, as ADA notes, some States and Local Governments may have laws recognizing them as such.

A business is under no federal obligation under ADA to modify their existing pet / animal policies to account for these emotional support animals.

Ref:

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html#def

 

[thomas998]

Just for clarity, emotional support animals are not covered or recognized by ADA.

However, as ADA notes, some States and Local Governments may have laws recognizing them as such.

A business is under no federal obligation under ADA to modify their existing pet / animal policies to account for these emotional support animals.

Ref:

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html#def

You are right, emotional support animals don't qualify... but you can't ask for proof of the disability or proof that the animal is a trained service animal. All anyone would have to do is say they were a diabetic and the animal could help sense when their glucose was out of whack, or say they suffered from epilepsy and the animal was trained to help them when they were having a seizure.... any number of stories from the person gaming the system and their dog gets a free pass because there are no ways to know when someone is being honest or making up a tall tale so Fido can get on the plane with the owner instead of sitting in the cargo hold.

 

[WDWTrojan]

Disney’s big challenge will be demonstrating that the old system was unreasonable. While the plaintiffs have additional desires (notably the guaranteed 15 minute maximum wait) this whole issue came from the change in systems. My understanding is that the written rules of the previous system were not actually for the sort of immediate access that people received but that became the default since it was easier to just let people on the ride. It’s one thing to say something new is unreasonable but it is harder to say something you used to do for your own convenience is now unreasonable.

Just want to clarify this... the old system basically had multiple tiers of service, based on your disability. If you were in a wheelchair, for example, you were issued a card that allowed you to use the wheelchair entrance - in some cases this was the standard queue, in others it was more expedited. If you had a disability that prevented you from being in the sun for long periods, they actually had a card that permitted for a shaded queue. The "alternative entrance" card they issued to autistic kids (and certain others) basically made it an unlimited Fastpass. However, oftentimes if guests complained enough, they would be issued the "alt entrance" pass, often for the entire duration of their stay. If they were an annual pass holder, it was often for the month.

The system had always been abused but trouble really began when it hit the press that "wealthy parents" were hiring people with disabilities to skip the queues. While this may have been somewhat prevalent, it was overblown. What was not overblown was people who had learned exactly what to say via online message boards and social media groups (particularly at Disneyland with their huge AP contingent) so that they could be issued the highest type of GAC. It led to widespread abuse. Given all of this, Disney essentially did away with the GAC program and rolled out the new program.

With the new card you are basically given a return time to come back for roughly the same amount of time as the current queue. If the queue is less than 15 minutes, you are given immediate access via Fastpass. The argument is that Disney is not accommodating autistic kids because they are no longer granting them immediate access and the ability to ride repeatedly. While it can be frustrating, you can not expect a theme park to grant you immediate ride access but they must provide reasonable accommodation. Disney has basically done that with the new system.

The one thing that has surprised me is that Disney has not created "quiet rooms," which is common in places that deal with autistic kids from what I understand. It would be an ideal rebuttal to many of the points made by the judges. The new Sesame Street park has them, for example. Giving autistic kids a quiet place away from the noise/commotion is a perfect workaround. I believe in the lawsuit Disney mentioned this was already available via First Aid but they don't advertise it as such and many parents are left in the lurch.

 

[englanddg]

You are right, emotional support animals don't qualify... but you can't ask for proof of the disability or proof that the animal is a trained service animal. All anyone would have to do is say they were a diabetic and the animal could help sense when their glucose was out of whack, or say they suffered from epilepsy and the animal was trained to help them when they were having a seizure.... any number of stories from the person gaming the system and their dog gets a free pass because there are no ways to know when someone is being honest or making up a tall tale so Fido can get on the plane with the owner instead of sitting in the cargo hold.

Quite. As noted, I mentioned it just for clarity. A business is allowed to inquire if the animal is a service animal due to disability, and are allowed to ask what task the animal has been trained to do. They are not allowed to demand, or even ask, for proof.

At this point, if someone says “Well, FiFi just keeps me calm when she is in my lappie poo”, the business could reject. And, it only covers dogs and horses, so other animals can be rejected.

The issue is, as there is no notification required to file ADA lawsuits, so this act alone (or a variety of things) could trigger civil action. Therefore, when pressed, most businesses opt not to take that risk (and I don’t blame them).

I, anecdotally, don’t think abuse is all that rampant. But, I do think that when going into a crowded or hectic situation, marking the service animal as such is appropriate and courteous to all involved. Not sure if it should be made a law, like parking placards, but it certainly helps.

 

[thomas998]

Just want to clarify this... the old system basically had multiple tiers of service, based on your disability. If you were in a wheelchair, for example, you were issued a card that allowed you to use the wheelchair entrance - in some cases this was the standard queue, in others it was more expedited. If you had a disability that prevented you from being in the sun for long periods, they actually had a card that permitted for a shaded queue. The "alternative entrance" card they issued to autistic kids (and certain others) basically made it an unlimited Fastpass. However, oftentimes if guests complained enough, they would be issued the "alt entrance" pass, often for the entire duration of their stay. If they were an annual pass holder, it was often for the month.

The system had always been abused but trouble really began when it hit the press that "wealthy parents" were hiring people with disabilities to skip the queues. While this may have been somewhat prevalent, it was overblown. What was not overblown was people who had learned exactly what to say via online message boards and social media groups (particularly at Disneyland with their huge AP contingent) so that they could be issued the highest type of GAC. It led to widespread abuse. Given all of this, Disney essentially did away with the GAC program and rolled out the new program.

With the new card you are basically given a return time to come back for roughly the same amount of time as the current queue. If the queue is less than 15 minutes, you are given immediate access via Fastpass. The argument is that Disney is not accommodating autistic kids because they are no longer granting them immediate access and the ability to ride repeatedly. While it can be frustrating, you can not expect a theme park to grant you immediate ride access but they must provide reasonable accommodation. Disney has basically done that with the new system.

The one thing that has surprised me is that Disney has not created "quiet rooms," which is common in places that deal with autistic kids from what I understand. It would be an ideal rebuttal to many of the points made by the judges. The new Sesame Street park has them, for example. Giving autistic kids a quiet place away from the noise/commotion is a perfect workaround. I believe in the lawsuit Disney mentioned this was already available via First Aid but they don't advertise it as such and many parents are left in the lurch.

Your mention of the quiet rooms reminds me of taking my kids to see Sesame Street live when they were younger, the parents in front of us brought their boy that clearly had issues with loud sounds as he was holding his ears and kind of rocking before the show started... when the show started he pretty much had a meltdown from the sensory overload that lasted the entire show... Pretty much making it a bad experience for everyone within 20 feet of him... Yet the parents never bothered to remove him, to take him to someplace quiet, they just let it happen. It makes me wonder if some people that bring kids that can't handle the crowds and noise of Disney aren't doing it for themselves and not for the kids. If I had a kid that was incapable of handling crowds and noise I wouldn't take him to a place like Disney to begin with. In fact I would probably never even tell them about a place like Disney as why would you even want them to know about and want to go to a place that you knew would cause a constant meltdown. It makes me wonder if the parents are delusional and somehow think if they enjoyed Disney that their kids will no matter what.

 

[JayWaters]

I am a lurker who wanted to comment on this.

I have a cousin with severe autism who has used both systems at Disneyland. For context let me just state he is not on the high end of the spectrum, rarely speaks, doesn’t read, and it’s a challenge for him to do basic tasks.

As you might expect doing Disneyland with him is a challenge. But the old system worked so well to address his needs. We were constantly on the move and would have a blast. Heck, he felt like a special guy because he was helping the whole family move through the park fast.

Fast forward to the new system and it’s now basically impossible to attend the parks with him. “Killing time” with someone with severe autism is neither fun nor easy. Neither is trying to get them to understand the concept of an “appointment.”

Just think how upset people are about every time a ride closes. Imagine what it must be like to not be able to attend Disney all together anymore.

I don’t think Disney is under any legal obligation to revert to the old system, but I would encourage them to do so.

I believe the reason the old system was shuttered was because some disabled persons were selling “tour services” to bring non-family members on a daily basis into the park so they could all get fast passes. I understand why Disney would want to shut down this abuse, but I feel there are better ways they could have done this (perhaps by banning such people clearly offering “disabled tours” as my understanding these people were all known by cast members as they would come every day with a different group).

Anyway, I have seen a number of people explain why the old system wouldn’t work and I just wanted to address some concerns:

1. Negatively impacting other guests. The old disabled lines were not overwhelmed with people clogging up rides. It’s a challenge to attend Disney with a person with a disability and usually there were only a handful of folks in the Park using this system (you would get to know all these folks on the days you visited as they were pretty easy to spot).

2. Kids wanting to ride Peter Pan 127 times in a row. Cast members used good judgement when dealing with the system. On the rare occasions a lined formed through the disabled entrance they would tell us it would be a little longer as they would only be taking one family at a time. I never recall going on the same ride back to back but if it would have been disruptive I think a cast member could have addressed this.

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.

I can see why people could have different views. But just remember Disney used to be a magical place for my cousin...and now it’s a place he can’t really handle.

How would you feel if Disney changed a policy that made it all but impossible to attend anymore?

 

[Lucky]

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.

I can see why people could have different views. But just remember Disney used to be a magical place for my cousin...and now it’s a place he can’t really handle.

How would you feel if Disney changed a policy that made it all but impossible to attend anymore?

I'm not sure what you mean by "instant front of the line access." The common practice under the GAC system (it was never an official policy) was for CM's to admit anyone with a GAC to the FastPass line.

Most former GAC-users seem to find the DAS system a reasonable and workable substitute, that creates somewhat less of an incentive for cheating by the non-disabled.

Disney's FAQs on DAS suggest that if it doesn't meet a particular family's needs that additional arrangements can be discussed. But I have no idea if, or how, that part of it is being implemented.

What will Disney Parks do if a Guest is concerned DAS doesn’t meet their needs?
Disney Parks have long recognized and accommodated guests with varying needs and will continue to work individually with guests with disabilities to provide assistance that is responsive to their unique circumstances. Guests should visit Guest Relations to discuss their individual needs.

 

[englanddg]

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.

See, and this is where I get a bit confused. Because, from what I have seen, Disney, literally (and in bold face) did not offer a “front of the line” accommodation.

From Disneyland.

The issue, as I understand it, was that discretion was allowed to CMs. And, with that there became accusations of unequal treatment under the policy as well as demands for “what the other family got”.

I, personally, don’t see it as much of an issue. Of course I don’t mind if a family or child with disabilities gets accommodation, even if the result is that they “cut ahead”.

But, I can understand why Disney doesn’t want to make this policy.

Imho this was a small group of people making outrageous demands of Disney, for an accommodation that they perceived to be true, but didn’t actually exist, that caused the shift.

There was a rather high profile thing bouncing around various forums a few years back where a mother actually threatened a CM that if her near adult son didn’t get to immediately repeat ride, her son could lose control and start beating people up.

The mother thought it would be a good idea to film this interaction and upload it to YouTube, and then post it here and other places.

She didn’t get the response she expected from the general Disney community...

My point is not that most, or even sizable percentage, of families using GAC in these cases ever acted like that.

But, imho, it was those style of interactions that would lead a company to modify their policies to create some clarity.

 

[Willmark]

Your mention of the quiet rooms reminds me of taking my kids to see Sesame Street live when they were younger, the parents in front of us brought their boy that clearly had issues with loud sounds as he was holding his ears and kind of rocking before the show started... when the show started he pretty much had a meltdown from the sensory overload that lasted the entire show... Pretty much making it a bad experience for everyone within 20 feet of him... Yet the parents never bothered to remove him, to take him to someplace quiet, they just let it happen. It makes me wonder if some people that bring kids that can't handle the crowds and noise of Disney aren't doing it for themselves and not for the kids. If I had a kid that was incapable of handling crowds and noise I wouldn't take him to a place like Disney to begin with. In fact I would probably never even tell them about a place like Disney as why would you even want them to know about and want to go to a place that you knew would cause a constant meltdown. It makes me wonder if the parents are delusional and somehow think if they enjoyed Disney that their kids will no matter what.

To me, what you outlined is crazy. I can't imagine subjecting my child to that in an effort to "treat him the same as everyone else?" I glad I'm not in that situation to be sure.

Its an unfortunate fact of life... that life is not fair. Everyone is not equal no matter how we try to make it so. Should we help those less abled then others? Sure, I dont think that is really up for debate. I think the crux of this discussion is what's reasonable. I don't think that anyone will argue against reasonable accommodations. The problem is, what is reasonable? Because if this thread (and others) is any indication its open for a lot of interpretation.

 

[JayWaters]

When I last attended with my cousin it was 10 years or more ago. I don't remember there being fast passes at Disneyland, but perhaps I am misremembering this. Also, I recall this change happening about 10 years ago so perhaps I'm recalling the old-old system.

But at the time we would go to city hall, show some documentation, get something (don't remember what) and then it was basically immediately to the front of the line. The two exceptions I remember are Dumbo and Space Mountain having longer waits of about 15 minutes.

 

[JennSmith]

You do realize that the tables outside are intended as a place for the workers and not customers... I have even seen signs that state they will not serve walk-ups at the parking spots. They may have some Sonics somewhere in the world that actually have a place to order if you just walk up but I've never seen one. Which again leads to the question of why require special parking in a place where no one is expected to actually get out of their car.

I have been to multiple Sonics in multiple states and everyone of them had an area with picnic tables AND ordering kiosks for walk up orders. I'm not saying that your experience is not real, I'm just reiterating what others have said...just because you haven't seen something does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Paper straw fan]

Unfortunately it's always the people who take advantage of a system that can ruin it for people who actually depend on it.

I thought WDW had quiet rooms in certain areas of their parks now?

 

[Bairstow]

I have been to multiple Sonics in multiple states and everyone of them had an area with picnic tables AND ordering kiosks for walk up orders. I'm not saying that your experience is not real, I'm just reiterating what others have said...just because you haven't seen something does not mean it doesn't exist.

From my experience it seems to depend how old the location is; Sonics built after 2005 or so tend to have the picnic tables and walk-up boards. A lot of the Sonics that lack these were built on smaller lots and use narrower buildings without room for the tables. There's even some newer Sonics up north with indoor seating, but I've not seen one in person.

 

[thomas998]

Quite. As noted, I mentioned it just for clarity. A business is allowed to inquire if the animal is a service animal due to disability, and are allowed to ask what task the animal has been trained to do. They are not allowed to demand, or even ask, for proof.

At this point, if someone says “Well, FiFi just keeps me calm when she is in my lappie poo”, the business could reject. And, it only covers dogs and horses, so other animals can be rejected.

The issue is, as there is no notification required to file ADA lawsuits, so this act alone (or a variety of things) could trigger civil action. Therefore, when pressed, most businesses opt not to take that risk (and I don’t blame them).

I, anecdotally, don’t think abuse is all that rampant. But, I do think that when going into a crowded or hectic situation, marking the service animal as such is appropriate and courteous to all involved. Not sure if it should be made a law, like parking placards, but it certainly helps.

I don't see rampant abuse of it at Disney, now in the local stores around me it is getting a bit ridiculous. It isn't quite to the point that I"m seeing more dogs being pushed around in shopping carts than kids but its getting close... and I have to wonder why a true service dog would need to be in the shopping carts being pushed around.... it also just seem unsanitary to have someone plopping their dog into a shopping cart that is also going to be used by the next customer that gets it for food.