Anti- Autism Suit Against Disney Update

[thomas998]

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.

The vagueness of what is reasonable is the real problem with the ADA. Congress took the easy way out and just left it for courts to interpret what they wanted the law to do when it would have been much better for everyone if they spelled out who it covered and exactly that accommodations needed to be made. Sure things change over time but the law could have been changed in the future when it needed to be changed. But I don't think Congress will ever go back and fix the problem which just means it will eventually become an even bigger mess as random courts change it to suit the judges vision which may or may not make any sense.

 

[Bairstow]

The vagueness of what is reasonable is the real problem with the ADA. Congress took the easy way out and just left it for courts to interpret what they wanted the law to do when it would have been much better for everyone if they spelled out who it covered and exactly that accommodations needed to be made. Sure things change over time but the law could have been changed in the future when it needed to be changed. But I don't think Congress will ever go back and fix the problem which just means it will eventually become an even bigger mess as random courts change it to suit the judges vision which may or may not make any sense.

I would imagine that legislation that attempted to spell out with any degree of particularity how every conceivable public accommodation offering every conceivable service would have to provide for accommodation for every conceivable disability would be positively gargantuan.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

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).

How would they ban such groups though? They can't ask for proof of disability, nor can they dictate who a person is visiting with.

The law as is doesn't allow asking for proof with good reason, so that people with a disability cannot be refused accommodation in their day to day lives because they don't happen to have a doctor's note with them. The downside is, in the rare instance where a disability can be "advantageous", like at Disney, people take advantage. Disney has tried to find a balance that meets guests needs.

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).

Before the GAC overhaul, it was often reported that many wait times for disabled guests were getting so bad as to exceed the stand-by lines. The wheelchair line at Disneyland's POTC for example. I can't speak to your experience, but I got the impression that it was getting to the point where Disney had to make changes.

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.

This lawsuit wants to take away any discretion, and make immediate boarding and repeat rides a requirement at all times.

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

It's unfortunate, and I think most people want guests with disabilities to be accommodated at Disney parks. The problem is, and you said it yourself, is that this particular policy just goes too far. I feel bad for your cousin, but sometimes that how life is.

If someone has a physical injury, and can no longer do some things the rest of us can, that's simply a fact of life. As I said before, when someone is so disabled, that they cannot handle even the slightest wait in line or not staying on an attraction indefinitely, then visiting a Disney theme park may be something they just cannot do.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I would imagine that legislation that attempted to spell out with any degree of particularity how every conceivable public accommodation offering every conceivable service would have to provide for accommodation for every conceivable disability would be positively gargantuan.

Just look at the size of the specified design standards.
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards.pdf

 

[flynnibus]

I would imagine that legislation that attempted to spell out with any degree of particularity how every conceivable public accommodation offering every conceivable service would have to provide for accommodation for every conceivable disability would be positively gargantuan.

It’s handled by the DOJ. And what they do today for physical access. It wasn’t that bad until congress went back and made sure all kinds of psychological impairments were included too.

Many laws... are written so a federal agency is empowered to make the detailed implementation after the fact and record it in the federal register.

 

[flynnibus]

Many cities had free meter parking in handicap parking spots. Many cities are thinking about, or already do, charging everyone to park due to abuse. People were "borrowing" placards to avoid paying. Now, even those who can legally park in one will still have to feed the meter. I'm sure some are/will be very angry about it. No one likes to have a "perk" removed.

And WDW/DL changed the system because the ADA insists upon an honor system - which, as you pointed out, leaves it ripe for abuse.

The free handicapped parking was always just a way to avoid accessibility issues with the old payment systems afaik

 

[flynnibus]

I am guessing your not familiar with what a Sonic Drive-in is... It is a fast food place where you drive up in a car, roll your window down and order from an intercom after which a person brings the food to your car. You the customer never get out of your car. There is no public restroom available and no place for anyone to order food from except the intercoms by the car windows. In other words the driver whether in a wheelchair bound or not never gets out of their car. Now do you understand why it makes no sense to have handicapped parking at a place like this?

I think you take the term too literally....

Because every sonic I’ve ever seen, from Virginia, to Texas, to Cali... has everything you say they don’t. Public bathrooms and seating.

Sonic is supposed to mimic the old carhop diners.... not some drive throughs.

And your theory also misses the idea of employees. You think because what the business sells, they can’t have employees themselves that might need handicap accessible spots?

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Unless you are by yourself.

(Do you really think these things haven’t been thought through?)

So in your world.... all handicapped people must have full time assistants...

 

[Club Cooloholic]

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.

I was in an LL Bean and large family came walking in with a beagle. Cute dog...but still, one of the daughters was walking him and this is the conversation
Mom: Oh yeah, Tim needs to hold the leash
Daughter Why?
Mom: He Just does
Other Daughter: Yeah mom but why
Mom: Just give him the leash

 

[homerdance]

A). I am all for equal experience when possible with reasonable accommodations. This lawsuit is not asking for equal opportunity, it is asking for elevated privilege based on a handicap.

B)

 

[thomas998]

I think you take the term too literally....

Because every sonic I’ve ever seen, from Virginia, to Texas, to Cali... has everything you say they don’t. Public bathrooms and seating.

Sonic is supposed to mimic the old carhop diners.... not some drive throughs.

And your theory also misses the idea of employees. You think because what the business sells, they can’t have employees themselves that might need handicap accessible spots?

I have never seen a Sonic anywhere that had public restrooms, I even had my wife ask once because she wanted to wash her hands and was told that they don't have public restrooms...
As for the handicapped parking being for employees, if that were the case why would those handicapped parking spaces have intercoms for people to order from? The parking for employees wouldn't have an intercom and menu that would be a complete waste of space if you actually think about it.

 

[thomas998]

I would imagine that legislation that attempted to spell out with any degree of particularity how every conceivable public accommodation offering every conceivable service would have to provide for accommodation for every conceivable disability would be positively gargantuan.

I doubt it would have been anywhere near as large as the tax code. The first iteration would have probably just put out laws covering people in wheelchairs and the blind which was really the only groups that were mentioned when the law was being created. It likely wouldn't have included autistic kids or any number of other groups that have gotten protection through the courts, whether those other groups would have been written into subsequent revisions is anyone's guess... but it would have made things much easier for any business that had to abide by it.

 

[flynnibus]

I have never seen a Sonic anywhere that had public restrooms, I even had my wife ask once because she wanted to wash her hands and was told that they don't have public restrooms...

Definition: Anecdotal...

What you're trying to apply wide and universal has been disproven repeatedly. It's time to recognize your exposure was not typical...

As for the handicapped parking being for employees, if that were the case why would those handicapped parking spaces have intercoms for people to order from? The parking for employees wouldn't have an intercom and menu that would be a complete waste of space if you actually think about it.

How about multiple uses?

You started off by saying a business of this type should not need handicap parking... a fallacy because you want to trap people in their cars or think handicapped people can just be dropped off where needed..

Ever think that the building codes don't differentiate enough in their types of businesses? So often we have to err to the regulations vs 'tailored to every use'.

Your example would be much better off with something like "Why does the local outdoor paintball place need handicap parking? No mobility disabled are going to be running through the woods playing paintball?" - But even this is just a foolish argument. You don't need those spots that bad that you can't give the disabled the benefit of the doubt.

 

[flynnibus]

The first iteration would have probably just put out laws covering people in wheelchairs and the blind which was really the only groups that were mentioned when the law was being created

No...

 

[The Mom]

I have never seen a Sonic anywhere that had public restrooms, I even had my wife ask once because she wanted to wash her hands and was told that they don't have public restrooms...
As for the handicapped parking being for employees, if that were the case why would those handicapped parking spaces have intercoms for people to order from? The parking for employees wouldn't have an intercom and menu that would be a complete waste of space if you actually think about it.

The world is a big place. You may not have seen a Sonic with seating areas and bathrooms for customers - but others have. You may not have seen handicapped skiers - but others have. Your experience may not be universal. Just because you haven't seen or experienced something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just because something is not common in your corner of the world doesn't mean that it isn't an everyday event someplace else.

People have given you logical explanations as to why things you think are not needed might actually be needed - you just choose to ignore them. Sometimes, the right response is a quote from the late Johnny Carson, "I did not know that."

 

[jloucks]

Sometimes, the right response is a quote from the late Johnny Carson, "I did not know that."

... I heard that in my head with his voice.

 

[JennSmith]

I have never seen a Sonic anywhere that had public restrooms, I even had my wife ask once because she wanted to wash her hands and was told that they don't have public restrooms...
As for the handicapped parking being for employees, if that were the case why would those handicapped parking spaces have intercoms for people to order from? The parking for employees wouldn't have an intercom and menu that would be a complete waste of space if you actually think about it.

Yea and I have never seen a million dollars but I know it exists.

 

[aw14]

... I heard that in my head with his voice.

So did I

 

[thomas998]

Ever think that the building codes don't differentiate enough in their types of businesses? So often we have to err to the regulations vs 'tailored to every use'.

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.

 

[WDWTrojan]

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.

View attachment 305764

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.

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.