Autism lawsuit court date set Feb 2020

[King Panda 77]

FTW!
View attachment 415966

Meh .... Croutons are generally plain not cinnamon.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Meh .... Croutons are generally plain not cinnamon.

Cinnamon makes nearly everything better.

 

[King Panda 77]

Bacon makes nearly everything better.

 

[networkpro]

How do you stop investment in theme parks? This would be one way if the courts found for the plaintiff. It might even lead to ADA limited designs for attractions in public venues.

I know I'll catch flack for this, but wouldn't purposefully including design elements in attractions that are specifically required by ADA for one group like (horns and strobe lights on fire alarms) for visually and hearing impaired patrons over ride those for those who are triggered by such ?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

That too!

 

[Purduevian]

You're getting confused with what I'm saying. This wouldn't be for the masses, just people using DAS. So, the issues you're suggesting wouldn't be any more difficult or confusing than they already are.

I believe there is a way to make it work virtually, taking out the need of a CM at the entrance of an attraction providing a return time. For example, what I suggest would be that guests using DAS, and only DAS, would no longer need to go to each attraction to get a return time, they could just click on the attraction in the app and get a return time that way, using their ticket or magic band to enter the Fastpass line, if available. If it's not available, they could just show their phone to the CM when the time is ready. Even better, Disney could send a notification or reminder when the time is right to return.

For those without smartphones or unable to use them, they could still go and get a paper pass at the front of the attraction. What I'm suggesting is use both forms, not either/or. Most people would probably appreciate a virtual system, but you could keep the paper system around for those unable to use it. That would be going WAY above and beyond, as well as maximizing efficiency.

Yes, I did misunderstand. I thought you wanted virtual lines for all utilizing phones (bad idea), but I think it would be a great idea to improve DAS utilizing this feature. Unfortunately, even with this improvement, I don't think it satisfies the lawsuit.

From what I understand, the basis of the lawsuit is that the person is unable to wait in line or break their Magic Kingdom routine from the original DAS system.

With the idea of 2 different levels of passes (one as is, one skip the line), I don't think it would work at Disney... as people would take advantage and Disney can't ask about specific disabilities.

 

[natatomic]

The scope of this lawsuit is sooooo small though. ONE human in the entire world “can’t” deviate from routine one iota (but as others have said, I doubt this is entirely true given that ride break down, rides close for inclement weather, etc). Could they possibly win this lawsuit that Disney is discriminating against them when the system seems to work for the other 99.9999999999% of humanity, including those with similar disabilities? I know nothing about the law, so maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t imagine forcing a multi-billion dollar company (or anyone really) to change an entire policy because of a single person.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

The scope of this lawsuit is sooooo small though. ONE human in the entire world “can’t” deviate from routine one iota (but as others have said, I doubt this is entirely true given that ride break down, rides close for inclement weather, etc). Could they possibly win this lawsuit that Disney is discriminating against them when the system seems to work for the other 99.9999999999% of humanity, including those with similar disabilities? I know nothing about the law, so maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t imagine forcing a multi-billion dollar company (or anyone really) to change an entire policy because of a single person.

I'm honestly stunned that's it's gotten as far as it has.

 

[flynnibus]

Could they possibly win this lawsuit that Disney is discriminating against them when the system seems to work for the other 99.9999999999% of humanity, including those with similar disabilities?

To keep it simple... yes

The law is not that you must fit into accommodations that work for others -- it's that the business must provide an accommodation for the individual. The 'interpretation' area is that the accommodations must be 'reasonable'.

The individual will simply say "This ride handles over 1,000 people an hour, certainly it is not unreasonable to allow one person and their party to enter the ride without waiting.. the disruption is minuscule". They don't have to argue the accommodation is viable for everyone else, or that it works at scale, they only have to convince the court its reasonable to do it for that individual. The individual will have to argue that the accommodation is necessary and that other 'lesser' options won't meet their needs.

The consequence of that accommodation is much greater tho as it is not just one person, but everyone in their mother will claim the same, and it will be on Disney to argue the accommodation is impractical because they can't do it at scale.

Thus... the complexity and interpretive arguments of ADA cases...

 

[ImperfectPixie]

To keep it simple... yes

The law is not that you must fit into accommodations that work for others -- it's that the business must provide an accommodation for the individual. The 'interpretation' area is that the accommodations must be 'reasonable'.

The individual will simply say "This ride handles over 1,000 people an hour, certainly it is not unreasonable to allow one person and their party to enter the ride without waiting.. the disruption is minuscule". They don't have to argue the accommodation is viable for everyone else, or that it works at scale, they only have to convince the court its reasonable to do it for that individual. The individual will have to argue that the accommodation is necessary and that other 'lesser' options won't meet their needs.

The consequence of that accommodation is much greater tho as it is not just one person, but everyone in their mother will claim the same, and it will be on Disney to argue the accommodation is impractical because they can't do it at scale.

Thus... the complexity and interpretive arguments of ADA cases...

I seriously have ZERO tolerance for those who try to game any kind of system, and you don't want to know what I think of people who try to manipulate systems intended to help those with disabilities...

 

[SSH]

You say tomatoes...I say potatoes
If life gives you potatoes and tomatoes, make a salad.

You guys enjoy your salad. When you say potato...I say vodka.

 

[SSH]

Always an interesting discussion - if my child was scared of the water, I wouldn't throw them in the ocean off a boat. If my child was scared of heights, I wouldn't take them to the top of the Empire State Building and force them to look over. If my child couldn't handle crowds and waiting in lines, I wouldn't take them to Disney World.

There is literally no place on earth worse for crowds and waiting in line than Disney World. Nobody has to go to a theme park (unlike a hospital or school), yet these parents knowingly and voluntarily subject their kids to it. I find that amazing.

yup - sorta like the parents who drag toddlers to Universal's halloween horror nights - despite HUGE warnings about the intensity and recommendations for "over age 13" only....then have the nerve to complain to guest services and yell at CMs that the event upset their child. And I'm hearing quite a few do just that.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

To keep it simple... yes

The law is not that you must fit into accommodations that work for others -- it's that the business must provide an accommodation for the individual. The 'interpretation' area is that the accommodations must be 'reasonable'.

The individual will simply say "This ride handles over 1,000 people an hour, certainly it is not unreasonable to allow one person and their party to enter the ride without waiting.. the disruption is minuscule". They don't have to argue the accommodation is viable for everyone else, or that it works at scale, they only have to convince the court its reasonable to do it for that individual. The individual will have to argue that the accommodation is necessary and that other 'lesser' options won't meet their needs.

The consequence of that accommodation is much greater tho as it is not just one person, but everyone in their mother will claim the same, and it will be on Disney to argue the accommodation is impractical because they can't do it at scale.

Thus... the complexity and interpretive arguments of ADA cases...

And there is a simple way for them to use the DAS pass in its current form - send another person in their party to get return times while the young man and the rest of his party follow his routine.

 

[BigThunderMatt]

yup - sorta like the parents who drag toddlers to Universal's halloween horror nights - despite HUGE warnings about the intensity and recommendations for "over age 13" only....then have the nerve to complain to guest services and yell at CMs that the event upset their child. And I'm hearing quite a few do just that.

I'm sadly not in Orlando for HHN this year but my facebook feed has been filled with lukewarm reception for it. From the sound of it, it's been toned down significantly this year in terms of intensity. I think the biggest mistake they ever made with HHN was introducing IPs intended to be fan-service rather than legitimately scary. It started with Walking Dead, then American Horror Story, now Stranger Things. But I digress, back to the topic at hand.

 

[BigThunderMatt]

The consequence of that accommodation is much greater tho as it is not just one person, but everyone in their mother will claim the same, and it will be on Disney to argue the accommodation is impractical because they can't do it at scale.

I think that argument is incredibly fair. A theme park experience, in particular Disney, is too large and too high volume to provide a custom-tailored experience for each individual's own unique needs without negatively impacting the guests who do not need accommodations. While the old system was still more general, it did require people to go more in-depth about their needs and then for the Guest Relations Cast Member to determine what stamp was the best fit for them.

Obviously this was easy to abuse as long as you knew what the 'right answer' was to get the alternate entrance stamp which essentially meant FastPass line. This, coupled with the fact that there was no limitation on uses and that you could take up to 5 people in the line with you, meant the level of abuse reached absurd levels contributing to overcrowding of the FastPass lines as well as practically guaranteeing the holder of a card the ability to experience double the amount of attractions that a guest without disabilities would on any given day.

The system Disney has in place now is what other parks like Universal and Cedar Fair have been using for years. It provides a basic accommodation to the broadest demographic of guests with the least amount of impact on guests that do not use the service. Is it ideal for every specific situation? No. There are always going to be outliers. But I would absolutely agree that the system in place is both reasonable and fair, and that those arguing to the contrary are the ones who are not being reasonable. Could they go above and beyond for those outliers? Absolutely. Should they? No. Because as I stated previously it's just going to create a slippery slope where people will know the right answer to get what they want and we'll be right back where we started.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I'm sadly not in Orlando for HHN this year but my facebook feed has been filled with lukewarm reception for it. From the sound of it, it's been toned down significantly this year in terms of intensity. I think the biggest mistake they ever made with HHN was introducing IPs intended to be fan-service rather than legitimately scary. It started with Walking Dead, then American Horror Story, now Stranger Things. But I digress, back to the topic at hand.

I wonder if the IP were added in as fan-service or whether they were to please the younger children people seem to be bringing to the event...which is further evidence of people dragging along kids to do things that aren't meant for them and similar to the social media blitz of warnings prior to the release of Deadpool...because some parents just don't seem to grasp that not everything is appropriate for young children. Unfortunately, it sort of applies to this court case as well. As an autism parent, I feel that the DAS pass is wonderful and provides easy access to WDW for those who are unable to handle waiting in the long lines. While we've not needed to use the DAS pass as of yet, it's very comforting to know that it's available, and even with the DAS pass, there are shows in the parks that my sons aren't able to handle due to the sound/noise quality in the theaters and under the roofs. I would never expect Disney to change the way they present their shows just for us - that would be ludicrous. We give them one shot each trip...so far, no go, but I'm hopeful that in the future my boys will be able to enjoy them. If they aren't? No big deal...hubby and I can wait until they're old enough to go off on their own for a bit.

 

[flynnibus]

I think that argument is incredibly fair. A theme park experience, in particular Disney, is too large and too high volume to provide a custom-tailored experience for each individual's own unique needs without negatively impacting the guests who do not need accommodations.
[...]
Could they go above and beyond for those outliers? Absolutely. Should they? No. Because as I stated previously it's just going to create a slippery slope where people will know the right answer to get what they want and we'll be right back where we started.

Unfortunately neither “impact on others” nor “easy to abuse” are not general defenses against not doing something under the current law. The business really has to argue about the impractically or high burden the accommodation would cause... not that its somehow uneven, or would impact others.

The law is intentionally written to ensure the least burden possible on the disabled person as the access is intended to be there by default... not as something the person is supposed to prove constantly or request specially. Obviously there are practical constraints on that... but thats where the law is coming from. And of course... the bigger the “gain” one can get from the accommodation... the greater the temptation for people to abuse it. It is this inherent temptation that puts businesses in such a bad spot and we’re still waiting for some landmark case to really establish a practical “line in the sand..” that puts a cap on these kinds of accommodations in public waiting or venue situations. Im hoping this case is it.

Congress really created this quagmire when they expanded the law to mental disabilities and rework the law to combat the limitations the courts had put on the original ada.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Unfortunately neither “impact on others” nor “easy to abuse” are not general defenses against not doing something under the current law. The business really has to argue about the impractically or high burden the accommodation would cause... not that its somehow uneven, or would impact others.

The law is intentionally written to ensure the least burden possible on the disabled person as the access is intended to be there by default... not as something the person is supposed to prove constantly or request specially. Obviously there are practical constraints on that... but thats where the law is coming from. And of course... the bigger the “gain” one can get from the accommodation... the greater the temptation for people to abuse it. It is this inherent temptation that puts businesses in such a bad spot and we’re still waiting for some landmark case to really establish a practical “line in the sand..” that puts a cap on these kinds of accommodations in public waiting or venue situations. Im hoping this case is it.

Congress really created this quagmire when they expanded the law to mental disabilities and rework the law to combat the limitations the courts had put on the original ada.

Wouldn't it be relatively easy for Disney's lawyer to prove this request is "unreasonable" though? Seriously - the young man doesn't even have to be present for someone in his party to get a return time.

 

[flynnibus]

And there is a simple way for them to use the DAS pass in its current form - send another person in their party to get return times while the young man and the rest of his party follow his routine.

Yes and no... if the pattern is the kid “has” to do something “now”... or on a soecific schedule... das doesnt cover it. I’m not saying they should be entitled to that kind of accommodation... but thats the argument against return times. It does not allow them to set their own schedule fully.

Me, I’d point to the long fastpass return lines and ultimate waits we face in those lines and say “well how did junior survive that? Return lines are not immediate boarding. Why can you tolerate an unpredictable wait in line there... but insist other waits are not tolerable?

 

[flynnibus]

Wouldn't it be relatively easy for Disney's lawyer to prove this request is "unreasonable" though? Seriously - the young man doesn't even have to be present for someone in his party to get a return time.

not as easy as it would seem when people have these impossible restrictions that somehow only rear themselves at disney parks

The law does not define limits on what is reasoanble or not for these kinds of accommodations... so it boils down to the courts. And the law is stacked against the business in this regard.

People even challenged the idea and burden people had to go through to register for the das access, etc. and they are right... but disney has to prove to the court it is a practical balance and that the burden is not too great. I think disney is correct in their argument for it being a practical limitation that does not pose too much of a burden... but there is basis to challenge it.