Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[AdventureHasAName]

Oh wait.. you mean they CAN'T walk... because of some disability they have? Oh yeah, that's the some position these people are in too (per their claim). Waiting isn't a inconvenience - it's something they are claiming they can not do.

It's also something that they demonstrably had to do in order to get to a position where they are attempting to ride a Disneyland attraction. They had to wait to drop off their luggage at the airport. They had to wait to go through airport security. They had to wait to board the airplane. They had to wait get off the airplane. They had to wait for their luggage at baggage claim. They had to wait for their rental car. They had to wait in the car to pay for access to the parking lots. They had to wait for a tram. They had to wait to go through Disney security. They had to wait to purchase park tickets. They had to wait to get through the turnstiles. They had to wait to go acquire the GAC/DAS card.

Wait for counter service. Wait for sit down restaurants. Wait at a popcorn cart. Wait to buy anything in a store. Wait for the parade to start. Wait for Fantasmic to start. Wait for the fireworks to start.

It is an impossibility to board an attraction (like Peter Pan) without having waited somewhere (at various lengths of times) numerous (hundreds?) of times before getting there. How can it be medically necessary to not wait (ever) if you have to do it multiple times to get to the point where you are claiming medical necessity?

I think that's the issue most people have with the lawsuit. The DAS makes you wait; however you are waiting where ever you want, not inside a line. The lawsuit claims these Plaintiffs medically cannot wait anywhere.

 

[ParentsOf4]

How have they changed to average? Is it because of das?

Universal and Six Flags both offer disabled guests accommodations that are superior to WDW. That makes Disney below average when it comes to amusement parks.

Universal and Six Flags both offer two levels of special access. The first is similar to DAS but disabled guests get access to the preferred line if the wait time is 30 minutes or less. (At WDW, it's 10 minutes.) The second is similar to the old GAC but these are more difficult to obtain.

If Disney wins the lawsuit, I expect Uni and SF will adopt Disney's strategy.

Anyway, the point of the legislation is to provide 'access' to the same facilities that a non disabled person can experience, not to provide preferential treatment.

The point of the legislation is to eliminate barriers for those with disabilities. If there is such a disability that makes waiting for extended periods impossible and if Disney has the means to provide a reasonable accommodation, then Disney must provide that accommodation.

Just to emphasize the point because so many miss it, "reasonable" does not mean fair. It means something that is relatively easy and inexpensive to provide. Since WDW has FP+ lines, both DAS and GAC would be considered reasonable as defined by ADA.

To your point, legally, an accommodation of a disability can result in preferential treatment.

Think of the case of a scooter at a Disney bus stop. That scooter and all members of that party are allowed to enter the bus first, even if others have been waiting longer, even if it means that some non-disabled patrons will have to wait for another bus. In order to accommodate that person with the disability, Disney is allowed by the law to provide that person with preferential treatment.

Also your proposed system doesn't meet the wants of the plaintiff, they want instance access, unlimited use pastpass - not too wait up to an hour.

No, no, no.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs stated how wonderful GAC was. GAC never provided "instance access". In practice (I don't care what it said on the back; I care about how Disney allowed it to be used), it provided immediate access to the FP/FP+ line. We all know that it's common to wait 20 minutes or more for some attractions (Soarin', Tower Of Terror, Test Track, Space Mountain, Toy Story Mania, etc.), even in the FP/FP+ line.

The plaintiffs don't want instant access. They want preferred access.

Instant access would be an unreasonable accommodation, since it would require fundamental alterations to numerous WDW attractions.

It's understandable that everyone has strong opinions about the case. Its outcome affects all of us, including those of us without disabilities. However, it's important to accurately represent the facts of the case in order to avoid confusion and undue bias.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Using your logic... we could say the same thing about Walking. Just replace 'waiting' with 'walking' in your paragraph. So lets tell all those lazy people to get out of those chairs, stop denying life and start walking!

Oh wait.. you mean they CAN'T walk... because of some disability they have? Oh yeah, that's the same position these people are in too (per their claim). Waiting isn't an inconvenience - it's something they are claiming they can not do.

So either discredit the medical limitation... or accept it. It's not about 'convenience'.

The answer is easy... if it doesn't fit 'everyones' needs, simply be flexible. Disney has gone too rigid

Very nicely stated!

The lawsuit is predicated on the concept that there is an ADA-protected disability that makes waiting for extended periods impossible.

Is there? I don't know. It's a medical question that, IMHO, only can be answered by those with expertise in the treatment of Autism.

What I do know is that Autism is a spectrum disorder. There are varying degrees of the disability.

For the most severely disabled, there is no way they ever will be able to visit WDW because there is no amount of "reasonable accommodation" that Disney could ever provide to make it workable for them. Per ADA, Disney does not have to accommodate these people.

At the other end if the spectrum, I suspect there are those with Autism that don't need DAS.

The plaintiffs claim to fall in between. They claim that GAC was a sufficient accommodation for their disability but DAS was not.

I really want to hear what the medical community has to say about this. We all might learn something.

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

Just to emphasize the point because so many miss it, "reasonable" does not mean fair. It means something that is relatively easy and inexpensive to provide. Since WDW has FP+ lines, both DAS and GAC would be considered reasonable as defined by ADA.

To your point, legally, an accommodation of a disability can result in preferential treatment.
Think of the case of a scooter at a Disney bus stop. That scooter and all members of that party are allowed to enter the bus first, even if others have been waiting longer, even if it means that some non-disabled patrons will have to wait for another bus. In order to accommodate that person with the disability, Disney is allowed by the law to provide that person with preferential treatment.
.

Excellent point. However, I would say that "reasonable" does not only mean inexpensive and easy for the corporation. I would say it also means logical.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Reasonable?s=t
It would be entirely up to the court to decide what accommodation would be inexpensive, easy, and logical for Disney to provide. Such as your example with the scooter- it might be considered preferential treatment, but it is done this way because logically that person needs to move and not run into other patrons on a crowded bus as they are trying to load and secure the scooter. So the court would have to decide what would be both inexpensive, easy, and logical accommodation (but "fair" is still not legally required).

 

[mcurtiss]

actually, used legally, reasonable is kind of different than common use. It's "fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances". It's a very objective standard.

Seen through that lens, one could argue that the changes that Disney made were reasonable. IMO, If you insert "logical", its becomes more subjective and easier to pick apart individual decisions that go against someone else's logic.

 

[flynnibus]

It's also something that they demonstrably had to do in order to get to a position where they are attempting to ride a Disneyland attraction.

This argument assumes all waiting in all places is equal. Which may or may not be true for the individual. You also gloss over how someone can cope with the varied situations and instead only look at all include 'a wait'.

Which is why I said.. you need to focus on the test of if the limitation and disability meet the legal requirements. Not if you think it's fair, or reasonable, or whatever. Qualify the legitimacy of the claimed limitation on it's own merits.

I'm not defending their claim - but you have to dissect it in the context of the law, not mob think.

 

[networkpro]

Universal and Six Flags both offer disabled guests accommodations that are superior to WDW. That makes Disney below average when it comes to amusement parks.

Universal and Six Flags both offer two levels of special access. The first is similar to DAS but disabled guests get access to the preferred line if the wait time is 30 minutes or less. (At WDW, it's 10 minutes.) The second is similar to the old GAC but these are more difficult to obtain.

If Disney wins the lawsuit, I expect Uni and SF will adopt Disney's strategy.

The point of the legislation is to eliminate barriers for those with disabilities. If there is such a disability that makes waiting for extended periods impossible and if Disney has the means to provide a reasonable accommodation, then Disney must provide that accommodation.

Not necessarily so, The ADA act reads :

"A modification is not required if it would "fundamentally alter" the goods, services, or operations of the public accommodation."

One could argue that providing dissimilar access, aka preferential, to the same accommodation otherwise known as a entertainment experience with a limited capacity of guests per hour would fundamentally alter the good.

If the equivalent mechanism (either manual DAS or standby queue) presents the same opportunity to occupy one of the limited entertainment experiences per hour for an attraction how is it discriminatory ? Both also have access to FP+ .

Unfortunately there currently isn't a way to tailor all physical public accommodations to meet the needs of every person with their own individual physical,cognitive, and sensory abilities.

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

The lawsuit is predicated on the concept that there is an ADA-protected disability that makes waiting for extended periods impossible.

Is there? I don't know. It's a medical question that, IMHO, only can be answered by those with expertise in the treatment of Autism.

This I too find interesting. What would the medical community say about waiting? How would they compare standing in line waiting to waiting in another area- or would there be a difference to them? What would they say is an extended amount of time? Would it apply if the wait was over 10 mins, 30 mins, over an hour, etc? Would doctors agree on this or would it be very different depending on which doctor you consult (or which patient you are referring to)? I hope there is a forum reader who is a doctor and could give us some insight into this from a medical perspective.

Whatever was decided, it would definitely set a precedent for other businesses. Which makes it an interesting case, regardless of what side you are on.

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

actually, used legally, reasonable is kind of different than common use. It's "fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances". It's a very objective standard.

Seen through that lens, one could argue that the changes that Disney made were reasonable. IMO, If you insert "logical", its becomes more subjective and easier to pick apart individual decisions that go against someone else's logic.

Good to know! I am not a lawyer at all, so glad to hear from someone with more legal knowledge to help clarify

 

[ParentsOf4]

actually, used legally, reasonable is kind of different than common use. It's "fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances". It's a very objective standard.

Seen through that lens, one could argue that the changes that Disney made were reasonable. IMO, If you insert "logical", its becomes more subjective and easier to pick apart individual decisions that go against someone else's logic.

I agree with the general legal principle.

Within the context of ADA, discrimination includes:

"(ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations"

How this is interpreted depends on a number of factors but “fair” or, more to the point, “equal” is not necessarily one of them.

Does ADA allow for positive discrimination in favor of those with disabilities?

Clearly, the answer is yes.

DAS provides guests with certain disabilities the advantage of not having to wait in line like everyone else. Those guests are able to use that time for more enjoyable activities.

Is that “fair” or “equal”? No.

Suggesting that DAS is “reasonable” means also acknowledging that an accommodation of a disability does not have to be “fair” or “equal”.

 

[Gomer]

This I too find interesting. What would the medical community say about waiting? How would they compare standing in line waiting to waiting in another area- or would there be a difference to them? What would they say is an extended amount of time? Would it apply if the wait was over 10 mins, 30 mins, over an hour, etc? Would doctors agree on this or would it be very different depending on which doctor you consult (or which patient you are referring to)? I hope there is a forum reader who is a doctor and could give us some insight into this from a medical perspective.

I am neither a doctor nor a medical expert (I’m not sure any experts on this specific topic actually exist honestly), but as someone with experience with Autism I’ll chime in a little here.

The waiting issue has been described by some with severe autism who have found the ability to express some thoughts on their condition in writing, as almost existing outside of linear time. They say that they lose grasp on any passage of time, and may ask for the same thing over and over again, because to them it the memory of asking the first time has no context as to when it was first asked. Their memories are describes as jumbled snapshots with no linking timeline to put them in any sort of relatable order.

Before I read that for myself, I used to get frustrated with my son. He would ask me to pour him some juice, and I’d say “just a second”. He would literally ask every three seconds until I found my way to the kitchen to get the juice for him. I thought he just wasn’t listening to me, but after reading that statement I summarized above, it became clear. He was asking again and again, because he didn’t know how much time had passed since the last request. To him it might as well have been a year that he had been waiting for his apple juice. Knowing where he is coming from in that regard has made me much better equipped with how to deal in these sorts of situations.

Now the frequency and severity of that issue will depend not only on the severity of their autism, but also their surroundings, mood, and their level of fixation on what it is they are waiting for. My son doesn’t have an issue waiting for 5 minutes at the grocery store or waiting for the bus at the hotel, because as far as I know, he doesn’t care about when it ends. He is not fixated on the end result of either of those things, so he just exists in those moments with little care for when they end. If he is fixated on something, that all changes drastically (I beleive this is why not requiring person in question to be present at the ride for DAS assignement is a big deal) . My son has moderate autism, so I can rationalize with him and work with him to improve on his behavior in these situations. But someone with severe autism may not be able to.

So, I’m not sure if a definable amount of time can be specified. There are far too many variables to ever set a time frame for such a thing. Even with my son, I’ve seen him brave a 8 hour car ride like a champ one way, and on the way back be near inconsolable for most of the trip just based on a change in destinations and mood.

 

[gaga4disney]

Does anyone know if there is data on the standby wait times now that DAS has replaced GAC? Has it made that much of a difference? Being that 1 in every 5 was a GAC user, that should make a noticeable change in the wait times. I am just curious if it really had that much of an impact.

 

[maxairmike]

Universal and Six Flags both offer disabled guests accommodations that are superior to WDW. That makes Disney below average when it comes to amusement parks.

Universal and Six Flags both offer two levels of special access. The first is similar to DAS but disabled guests get access to the preferred line if the wait time is 30 minutes or less. (At WDW, it's 10 minutes.) The second is similar to the old GAC but these are more difficult to obtain.

Just one point to consider about the bolded. At Uni an Express Pass line is utilized far, far less than a FastPass line at Disney (generally speaking). That likely has a lot to do with the time difference between the two policies.

 

[Todd H]

So, I’m not sure if a definable amount of time can be specified. There are far too many variables to ever set a time frame for such a thing. Even with my son, I’ve seen him brave a 8 hour car ride like a champ one way, and on the way back be near inconsolable for most of the trip just based on a change in destinations and mood.

I know what that's like. My son is autistic as well and cried uncontrollably during our eight hour drive back the last time we went to WDW. I thought he would eventually calm down but he never did. In fact it's made me think twice about any more long trips. We now just stick to the beach, which is only about a three hour drive away.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Using your logic... we could say the same thing about Walking. Just replace 'waiting' with 'walking' in your paragraph. So lets tell all those lazy people to get out of those chairs, stop denying life and start walking!

Oh wait.. you mean they CAN'T walk... because of some disability they have? Oh yeah, that's the some position these people are in too (per their claim). Waiting isn't a inconvenience - it's something they are claiming they can not do.

If they absolutely cannot wait, then maybe a theme park isn't the right place to take them, just like a nature hike isn't the right place for someone who can't walk.

You seem to flip flop your stance on this.

The answer is easy... if it doesn't fit 'everyones' needs, simply be flexible. Disney has gone too rigid

And then when you become flexible, where does it end? "Oh, but you did it for so-and-so so why not me?" Then it becomes scammed and abused just like GAC.

 

[flynnibus]

If they absolutely cannot wait, then maybe a theme park isn't the right place to take them, just like a nature hike isn't the right place for someone who can't walk.

This is simply dismissive attitudes that lead to people being discriminated against. Instead of saying "lets see what we can do.." your attitude is "you shouldn't be here". Instead of accommodation you are looking at them as a burden. Exactly the type of dismissive thinking that was causing the disabled to be excluded by default.

You seem to flip flop your stance on this.

No, I'm able to articulate both sides and explain how the situation must be disected under the law.

And then when you become flexible, where does it end? "Oh, but you did it for so-and-so so why not me?" Then it becomes scammed and abused just like GAC.

Where does it end is defined by the limits on how far the business must go. "Flexible" does not mean "do everything" - flexible means be willing to listen and adapt.. and not just think "one size fits all".

If the system gets overloaded due to fakers, the business has the ability to adjust what they offer because the consequences of providing the accommodation will change as well.

 

[ParentsOf4]

If they absolutely cannot wait, then maybe a theme park isn't the right place to take them, just like a nature hike isn't the right place for someone who can't walk.

Interesting you mention that example because I've been to National Parks where some trails have been modified for those in wheelchairs.

Please read some of the earlier posts on this thread.

Autism is a spectrum disorder. That means, for example, someone with severe symptoms will never be able to visit WDW. As you wrote, "If they absolutely cannot wait", then Disney does not need to accommodate them because there would be no way to reasonably do so. ADA requires a reasonable accommodation, not an absolute accommodation.

At the other end of the spectrum, some probably don't need DAS.

In between, some might need DAS to be accommodated. Some might need something more.

It's important to remember that there probably are those with an ADA-protected disability that will need varying degrees of accommodation. By law, Disney must accommodate those who can be reasonably accommodated.

What's reasonable and who needs to be accommodated is what the lawsuit is all about.

 

[CJR]

Keep in mind, this is just my opinion on the matter:

By my beliefs, Disney does provide reasonable accommodation in this case and the lawsuit would be dismissed.

I do not believe Disney is taking anything away that the average guest benefits from. Although I feel sorry for those with guests autism (and I do mean theme park guests, who actually attend WDW, since some cases are so extreme that they could never make it there), they are capable of waiting in line, if required to. They did wait in line at the tram stop. They did wait in line at the monorail station or boat dock. They had to go through security and the main entrance. In my opinion, if they can do all this, plus waiting for the vacation itself to get here, they are capable of using Disney's current system.

They might not "like" the system, but they are capable of using it (and they are indeed using it right now). Just because Disney provides accommodation does not mean you would have to like what they provide. If you disliked it, that does not make it unreasonable.

I absolutely believe the system can be improved and would like to see it improved. If a guest is able to control everything from a smart phone, I think that would make their experience much better. This takes away the need to walk up to an attraction, or even a certain area of the park.

I do not believe a guest should get unlimited fastpasses for everyone in their party for every ride in the park. I guess that's what some people are wanting, but if the court sees it the same way I do, it won't happen (again).

Again, that's my opinion on the issue. I realize some may disagree with it and they're not wrong either. Everyone probably has their own definitions here, this is just how I personally view the issue.

 

[Gomer]

Keep in mind, this is just my opinion on the matter:
By my beliefs, Disney does provide reasonable accommodation in this case and the lawsuit would be dismissed.
I do not believe Disney is taking anything away that the average guest benefits from. Although I feel sorry for those with guests autism (and I do mean theme park guests, who actually attend WDW, since some cases are so extreme that they could never make it there), they are capable of waiting in line, if required to. They did wait in line at the tram stop. They did wait in line at the monorail station or boat dock. They had to go through security and the main entrance. In my opinion, if they can do all this, plus waiting for the vacation itself to get here, they are capable of using Disney's current system.
They might not "like" the system, but they are capable of using it (and they are indeed using it right now). Just because Disney provides accommodation does not mean you would have to like what they provide. If you disliked it, that does not make it unreasonable.
I absolutely believe the system can be improved and would like to see it improved. If a guest is able to control everything from a smart phone, I think that would make their experience much better. This takes away the need to walk up to an attraction, or even a certain area of the park.
I do not believe a guest should get unlimited fastpasses for everyone in their party for every ride in the park. I guess that's what some people are wanting, but if the court sees it the same way I do, it won't happen (again).
Again, that's my opinion on the issue. I realize some may disagree with it and they're not wrong either. Everyone probably has their own definitions here, this is just how I personally view the issue.

I’m not sure if you read my post on the previous page, but as someone with extensive life experience dealing with waiting and autism, not all lines are created equal and being able to wait 5 minutes for a tram in no way has any bearing on an individual with autism being able to wait in a hot, loud, and lengthy line for a ride in a theme park. The rationalization that one wait prepares a person for the other is taken from a typical brain’s point of view. I understand that it is difficult for those who do not have autism or have extensive experience with it to put themselves into the shoes of someone else with a view of the world that is completely foreign to the average person, but it is what is needed for this discussion.

A typical brain will never fully comprehend the feelings and needs of someone with autism. The best we can do is listen to them and try to act on what information they can provide us. And that information, is unfortunately full of inconsistencies that can appear nonsensical to a typical person. One person may very well be able to wait in a TSA security line, but not the line for Peter Pan because of a variety of factors. And the next person may be able to wait for Pan, but not TSA. There is no standard that can be applied to this unfortunately. No blanket statement that says if A=B and B=C, then A must = C.

Some people are using the system now. I am one of them and I am fine with it as is. I had absolutely no issues and find it to be fine for what my son needs. But the fact that it works for my son isn’t proof that it should work for all. Its only proof that it works for him at this time. Autism unfortunately isn’t a disease with easily definable symptoms that can be accommodated in broad strokes. Each individual is unique as are their requirements, so a one size fits all approach will never work for everyone.

 

[arko]

Keep in mind, this is just my opinion on the matter:

By my beliefs, Disney does provide reasonable accommodation in this case and the lawsuit would be dismissed.

I do not believe Disney is taking anything away that the average guest benefits from. Although I feel sorry for those with guests autism (and I do mean theme park guests, who actually attend WDW, since some cases are so extreme that they could never make it there), they are capable of waiting in line, if required to. They did wait in line at the tram stop. They did wait in line at the monorail station or boat dock. They had to go through security and the main entrance. In my opinion, if they can do all this, plus waiting for the vacation itself to get here, they are capable of using Disney's current system.

They might not "like" the system, but they are capable of using it (and they are indeed using it right now). Just because Disney provides accommodation does not mean you would have to like what they provide. If you disliked it, that does not make it unreasonable.

I absolutely believe the system can be improved and would like to see it improved. If a guest is able to control everything from a smart phone, I think that would make their experience much better. This takes away the need to walk up to an attraction, or even a certain area of the park.

I do not believe a guest should get unlimited fastpasses for everyone in their party for every ride in the park. I guess that's what some people are wanting, but if the court sees it the same way I do, it won't happen (again).

Again, that's my opinion on the issue. I realize some may disagree with it and they're not wrong either. Everyone probably has their own definitions here, this is just how I personally view the issue.

The main difference in all those examples is that those lines generally have a short wait time of at most 10 minutes even on a busy day, and the line wait area's are generally a bit open with space to move around (within reason of course). Compare that to average standby wait times at a ride like Soarin or TSMM which regularly have 90+ minute wait times. Also most ride queues have very rigid and confining queue areas that have zero egress, unlike all the examples you gave where a person could simply walk away at any time.

Lets also dispel another myth, that for familiies with a disability it was simply unlimited fastpasses on all rides. while in theory this was true, in most cases the only people who could actually take advantage of this were fully abled people gaming the system. In most cases families with a family member with a disability were more likely to actually see less of the park even with a GAC ,depending on the severity of the disability. When my son was younger 4 hours was about the max time he could last without starting to have issues. The GAC allowed us to go on the 3 maybe 4 rides that he cared about without worrying about being stuck in a line and have to worry about a schedule. With the DAS I would say our time in the park has easily doubled, which luckily is not as much of an issue now that he is older. It also involves me running one way to get a time while my wife and kids head the other way, and involves bouncing around the park a lot more.

That lost flexibility is what a lot of these parents are upset about, and yes its going to mean some kids who used to be able to go to Disney might not anymore. Disney knew this when they made the change and took the easy route that in reality solved very little. In my 2 visits using the DAS I have seen it being abused just as much as the old system. Because in the age of FP+ and 3 max FP's, its basically unlimited fastpasses with only a limitation of one active FP at a time. Yes not as good as the old GAC but still better than FP+.

Disney needed to make it a 2 tier system, DAS requiring no proof and additional services on showing proof of disability. Disney can legally ask for this if the accommodation goes beyond basic ADA requirements. I actually confirmed this by contacting the Justice Department ADA hotline during the last big debate.

As far as suing Disney the suit will most likely fail, but it may push Disney to make some of the more reasonable changes, like not requiring someone to go to the ride to get a time, or an eventual integration into the Disney FP+ system, which already tracks wait times.

The GAC is gone and it will never return in its old form, but there is nothing that says Disney can't tweak the DAS system to be a bit more flexible down the line