Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[StarWarsGirl]

I agree, I don't get this whole argument that Disney can't require proof of disability. Have you ever tried to get a handicap placard? It takes an act of congress and you can bet your bottom dollar that you aren't getting one without a letter from the doctor. If Disney wanted to require it, they could.

I believe that the reason the government can require it is because, well, they are the government. Disney is a private company. I know when I put my medical documentation in for school (I have asthma and migraines; it allows me to skip class or a test without a doctor's note or get an extension on an assignment) I had to sign a form before they would even read my doctor's note. I'm sure there's some legal thing that has to do with HIPPA or the ADA

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

I think this would be a good idea to do and probably wouldn't be all that difficult to implement. However, I don't think that step alone would result in the lawsuit being dropped. It would address one of the many items listed.

Oh, I definitely agree this alone wouldn't cause the lawsuit to be dropped. There are other issues about which the plaintiffs are suing Disney. I just thought this would be something that should/could be done to help address some issues listed in the lawsuit. Honestly, I think Disney should do this kiosk setup for DAS regardless of if it will affect the lawsuit. I think it would be an easy fix for Disney and a big improvement for some disabled guests.

 

[flynnibus]

I agree, I don't get this whole argument that Disney can't require proof of disability. Have you ever tried to get a handicap placard? It takes an act of congress and you can bet your bottom dollar that you aren't getting one without a letter from the doctor. If Disney wanted to require it, they could.

Handicap placards are covered under different laws - it's not apples to apples. The ADA has no standing on who qualifies for handicap accessible parking or its enforcement. Handicap parking is part of the design standards in requiring it to be present and their physical design, but not regulating DMV issuance of handicap placards.

The ADA is not the only disability law on the books...

 

[flynnibus]

I believe that the reason the government can require it is because, well, they are the government. Disney is a private company. I know when I put my medical documentation in for school (I have asthma and migraines; it allows me to skip class or a test without a doctor's note or get an extension on an assignment) I had to sign a form before they would even read my doctor's note. I'm sure there's some legal thing that has to do with HIPPA or the ADA

Disabilities within the school system is covered under different laws - specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Getting exceptions within curriculum and school work falls under different laws than ADA.

People need to remember the scope of the ADA is well defined in WHO it applies to...
Title I - Employment
Title II - Government Services and Transit Systems
Title III - Public accommodations

There are whole other hosts of laws that deal with specific situations like.. air carriers, home buying, etc. For a short list.. look at http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm

 

[ParentsOf4]

The Federal government's website offers the following explanations:

What is a fundamental alteration? A fundamental alteration is a modification that is so significant that it alters the essential nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered.

What is an undue burden? "Undue burden" is defined as "significant difficulty or expense. " Among the factors to be considered in determining whether an action would result in an undue burden are the following --
1) The nature and cost of the action;
2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or any other impact of the action on the operation of the site;
3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity;
4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity.​

By these standards, neither DAS or GAC seem to be an "undue burden".

Is DAS or GAC a "fundamental alteration"?

Is waiting for an ride part of its "essential nature" or is the ride itself its "essential nature" and waiting is simply a byproduct?

What I grapple with is that, depending on the time of year and time of day, waits times vary tremendously. Does this mean that a ride's "essential nature" is being altered constantly? I don't think so. So then how can actual wait times be considered part of that ride's "essential nature"?

Conversely, some waiting occurs on all popular rides. Some waiting is part of its "essential nature". Demanding immediate access to rides to accommodate a disability would alter its essential nature, but altering the lengths of those waits would not if there was a system in place (i.e. FP+) that could be used to accommodate that adjusted wait time.

Compare this to show times, which occur at fixed times. Demanding that a show's start time be altered dynamically in order to accommodate those with disabilities would alter the essential nature of those shows. It would cause an undue burden, since it would require those involved in the production of the show to be constantly on-call to accommodate those with disabilities.

Could it be argued that the average guest typically experiences X number of attractions per day, and so providing X number of FP+ is fair and reasonable to accommodate some with certain disabilities, but granting unlimited FP+ (i.e. GAC) is not?

This entire line of reasoning depends on the courts accepting the concept that there is a disability protected by ADA (i.e. Autism) that makes waiting for extended periods difficult.

If the above reasoning seems convoluted, I present it because it gets us to exactly to where Disney was at when it first implemented DAS along with the "Magic List" referenced in the lawsuit. In other words, it seems to me that Disney used a similar line of thought to come up with the system it created in October.

What is your opinion ?

 

[GoofGoof]

The Federal government's website offers the following explanations:

What is a fundamental alteration? A fundamental alteration is a modification that is so significant that it alters the essential nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered.

What is an undue burden? "Undue burden" is defined as "significant difficulty or expense. " Among the factors to be considered in determining whether an action would result in an undue burden are the following --
1) The nature and cost of the action;
2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or any other impact of the action on the operation of the site;
3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity;
4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity.​

By these standards, neither DAS or GAC seem to be an "undue burden".

Is DAS or GAC a "fundamental alteration"?

Is waiting for an ride part of its "essential nature" or is the ride itself its "essential nature" and waiting is simply a byproduct?

What I grapple with is that, depending on the time of year and time of day, waits times vary tremendously. Does this mean that a ride's "essential nature" is being altered constantly? I don't think so. So then how can actual wait times be considered part of that ride's "essential nature"?

Conversely, some waiting occurs on all popular rides. Some waiting is part of its "essential nature". Demanding immediate access to rides to accommodate a disability would alter its essential nature, but altering the lengths of those waits would not if there was a system in place (i.e. FP+) that could be used to accommodate that adjusted wait time.

Compare this to show times, which occur at fixed times. Demanding that a show's start time be altered dynamically in order to accommodate those with disabilities would alter the essential nature of those shows. It would cause an undue burden, since it would require those involved in the production of the show to be constantly on-call to accommodate those with disabilities.

Could it be argued that the average guest typically experiences X number of attractions per day, and so providing X number of FP+ is fair and reasonable to accommodate some with certain disabilities, but granting unlimited FP+ (i.e. GAC) is not?

This entire line of reasoning depends on the courts accepting the concept that there is a disability protected by ADA (i.e. Autism) that makes waiting for extended periods difficult.

If the above reasoning seems convoluted, I present it because it gets us to exactly to where Disney was at when it first implemented DAS along with the "Magic List" referenced in the lawsuit. In other words, it seems to me that Disney used a similar line of thought to come up with the system it created in October.

What is your opinion ?

Since the GAC existed for many years its hard to argue it is now an undue burden or a fundamental alteration to go back to it. Unless you try to tie in NextGen and say the park experience including nextgen is fundamentally different than it was before and GAC would not work with it because its an undue burden. The system relies on precise return times and planning ahead. Using the billion dollar budget could help boost that argument. Still seems like an uphill battle to me.

 

[cw1982]

@ParentsOf4 from what I have been reading on this and the other threads that got deleted, it seems like GAC may have arguably been a fundamental alteration in that, based on what people were saying in those threads (I have no experience with this firsthand because I never paid attention to this on my trips to WDW as a kid), that wait times for some attractions for non-GAC guests were being impacted to the point where non-GAC guests were unable to experience as much of the park that day due to GAC abuse. If people are not able to experience everything they want to in a day because the line gets unexpectedly backed up due to an abuse of the system, then to me, the experience that those guests have paid for has been fundamentally altered.

Having said that, my first paragraph does make several generalizations/assumptions, including the idea that GAC users were abusing the system. I'm sure that not everyone who had access to GAC was abusing it; in fact, I am willing to bet that there were less abusers than non-abusers, but that's just a hunch based on my experiences with families with children who are disabled... unless it was more of a situation where people were lying about having a disability, etc... again, I don't know, because I've never had a reason to pay attention to this before.

My first paragraph also assumes that any potential abuse was so bad that guests with no disabilities were missing out on part of their plans for the day due to the abuse.

So, admittedly, there's a lot of assumption behind my first statement. I was simply providing my thoughts based on what I have read.

As a teacher who primarily works with students with disabilities, though, I can say that this is an issue we deal with on a daily basis. We have to make sure that we are providing the support necessary to ensure that all students have the same opportunity for success in our classrooms (which is the way it should be, whenever possible), yet we also have to do what we can to make sure that the students who don't need the extra support don't suffer because we are having to modify for the others. It's a very thin line, and it's something that takes a lot of planning and detailed thought in advance to do successfully.

It sounds like Disney is trying to find a good solution, and that this, like many of the other new things they are implementing, could be tweaked for further improvement.

 

[GoofGoof]

@ParentsOf4 from what I have been reading on this and the other threads that got deleted, it seems like GAC may have arguably been a fundamental alteration in that, based on what people were saying in those threads (I have no experience with this firsthand because I never paid attention to this on my trips to WDW as a kid), that wait times for some attractions for non-GAC guests were being impacted to the point where non-GAC guests were unable to experience as much of the park that day due to GAC abuse. If people are not able to experience everything they want to in a day because the line gets unexpectedly backed up due to an abuse of the system, then to me, the experience that those guests have paid for has been fundamentally altered.

Having said that, my first paragraph does make several generalizations/assumptions, including the idea that GAC users were abusing the system. I'm sure that not everyone who had access to GAC was abusing it; in fact, I am willing to bet that there were less abusers than non-abusers, but that's just a hunch based on my experiences with families with children who are disabled... unless it was more of a situation where people were lying about having a disability, etc... again, I don't know, because I've never had a reason to pay attention to this before.

My first paragraph also assumes that any potential abuse was so bad that guests with no disabilities were missing out on part of their plans for the day due to the abuse.

So, admittedly, there's a lot of assumption behind my first statement. I was simply providing my thoughts based on what I have read.

As a teacher who primarily works with students with disabilities, though, I can say that this is an issue we deal with on a daily basis. We have to make sure that we are providing the support necessary to ensure that all students have the same opportunity for success in our classrooms (which is the way it should be, whenever possible), yet we also have to do what we can to make sure that the students who don't need the extra support don't suffer because we are having to modify for the others. It's a very thin line, and it's something that takes a lot of planning and detailed thought in advance to do successfully.

It sounds like Disney is trying to find a good solution, and that this, like many of the other new things they are implementing, could be tweaked for further improvement.

I think to make this argument Disney would need proof of longer lines and abuse. Longer lines resulting from disabled GAC users would not by itself be a valid argument. If they could quantify and prove the abuse they could argue the GAC system was fundamentally broken and a new system was needed.

 

[cw1982]

I think to make this argument Disney would need proof of longer lines and abuse. Longer lines resulting from disabled GAC users would not by itself be a valid argument. If they could quantify and prove the abuse they could argue the GAC system was fundamentally broken and a new system was needed.

Right. That's part of what I was getting at when I emphasized that I didn't know enough to make this claim definitively lol. It would be interesting to see what kind of official data does exist that would prove abuse of GAC existed. Not saying it didn't happen, just that it would be interesting to know if there is a way to prove it.

 

[Lucky]

Right. That's part of what I was getting at when I emphasized that I didn't know enough to make this claim definitively lol. It would be interesting to see what kind of official data does exist that would prove abuse of GAC existed. Not saying it didn't happen, just that it would be interesting to know if there is a way to prove it.

Everyone has a different definition of abuse. But if you define it as guests who have no disability at all and lie to get a GAC, that problem was clearly far more prevalent at DL than at WDW.

 

[cw1982]

Everyone has a different definition of abuse. But if you define it as guests who have no disability at all and lie to get a GAC, that problem was clearly far more prevalent at DL than at WDW.

There very well may have been other types of abuse; maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that one in particular because my intent was to be general while still giving some indication of what I was thinking of when I wrote that. I know I've seen comments about other abuses of that system. That's just the one that stuck out in my mind as most talked about. There were other things that some labeled as abuse that, in my mind, may or may not have been abuse depending on the specifics, and there were other things that clearly were likely abuse... the dishonesty component was just the most obvious one to me.

ETA: I'm not trying to turn this thread into a debate about what does or does not constitute abuse... My point was that, if Disney can argue that abuse of the old system was causing a real alteration of the experiences for everyone, then they'll have much less difficulty in showing that GAC needed to be replaced. Heck, if the abuse was as bad as some have said, people with disabilities may have been suffering from that abuse along with everyone else, to some extent.

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

I think to make this argument Disney would need proof of longer lines and abuse. Longer lines resulting from disabled GAC users would not by itself be a valid argument. If they could quantify and prove the abuse they could argue the GAC system was fundamentally broken and a new system was needed.

I wonder if percentages or statistics of number of GAC would be able to be used? Such as, in 1990 GAC users on an average daily basis were 2.5% of the park attendees, therefore not causing a significant fundamental alteration to the ride/wait experience. But in 2010,GAC users on average were 18.5% which did cause a fundamental alteration. (By the way, those numbers are totally and completely made up- I have absolutely no idea on what the real numbers would be but was just trying to illustrate how Disney may argue their case.) I don't know if this would work to help prove abuse, though, because the statistical population of Americans with disabilities may have also increased in that same time frame.

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

I also wonder if Disney will have to "prove" that the GAC was abused, or flawed, or whatever. They absolutely have to follow guidelines as determined by the court. But perhaps their argument would be that DAS does meet the minimum requirements by law. I don't know if it would, or should, matter that they used to offer something better. The real question is, does the DAS appropriately and legally meet requirements of the law? This would go right back to the court trying to decide if this new system has merit or not.

Can I just say I am SO GLAD I am not a judge or a lawyer? This one example of one case makes my head hurt and I could not do this all the time!

 

[cw1982]

I also wonder if Disney will have to "prove" that the GAC was abused, or flawed, or whatever. They absolutely have to follow guidelines as determined by the court. But perhaps their argument would be that DAS does meet the minimum requirements by law. I don't know if it would, or should, matter that they used to offer something better. The real question is, does the DAS appropriately and legally meet requirements of the law? This would go right back to the court trying to decide if this new system has merit or not.

Can I just say I am SO GLAD I am not a judge or a lawyer? This one example of one case makes my head hurt and I could not do this all the time!

I agree completely. I don't know that they would have to prove their motive for changing the system in court. The only reason I was thinking in terms of GAC being such an alteration of goods and services at all was because of the way other posts here have compared the two systems. I do think, though, that if anyone was to try to argue that Disney should reinstate GAC (not sure that this would be an argument, just throwing thoughts out there), that this kind of argument may be helpful to have on the back burner as an argument for why it needs to not come back, if they are determined to not go back to it.

From everything I have read, it sounds like DAS is compliant with ADA, but that it could be improved if it was integrated into the FP+ system on the phone app. Maybe people who are traveling with a guest who qualifies for DAS could call Disney in advance to have the DAS aspect of FP+ unlocked, if such a thing were created? Then one quick phone call could take care of everything as far as getting those FP+ implemented, those FP+ choices would already be worked into the FP+ system so as to minimize the impact on other guests' wait times, and there could still be some structure to it all. Maybe let those guests who qualify for DAS book their FP+ at 60 days out (or 45 or something... just before the 30-day window then things start to fill up) and not limit them to the same three that everyone else can book in advance. They would still only be booking one in an hour, since those times are all in an hour window each, but that should be fine since they should be able to find something to do between each pass, right?

 

[Lucky]

I wonder if percentages or statistics of number of GAC would be able to be used? Such as, in 1990 GAC users on an average daily basis were 2.5% of the park attendees, therefore not causing a significant fundamental alteration to the ride/wait experience. But in 2010,GAC users on average were 18.5% which did cause a fundamental alteration. (By the way, those numbers are totally and completely made up- I have absolutely no idea on what the real numbers would be but was just trying to illustrate how Disney may argue their case.).

Don't be surprised if those numbers get repeated as fact later on or even on other sites!

I think they have some numbers, but not going back anywhere near 1990. I think the program was much more recent. And at WDW at least it would be well below 18.5.

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

Don't be surprised if those numbers get repeated as fact later on or even on other sites!

I think they have some numbers, but not going back anywhere near 1990. I think the program was much more recent. And at WDW at least it would be well below 18.5.

Ha! I hope no one else repeats those numbers as fact but I guess it could happen. . I just didn't want anyone to think I was using estimates or information I gathered- I just tossed some random numbers in there to illustrate the example.

 

[unkadug]

I wonder if percentages or statistics of number of GAC would be able to be used? Such as, in 1990 GAC users on an average daily basis were 2.5% of the park attendees, therefore not causing a significant fundamental alteration to the ride/wait experience. But in 2010,GAC users on average were 18.5% which did cause a fundamental alteration. (By the way, those numbers are totally and completely made up- I have absolutely no idea on what the real numbers would be but was just trying to illustrate how Disney may argue their case.) I don't know if this would work to help prove abuse, though, because the statistical population of Americans with disabilities may have also increased in that same time frame.

Don't be surprised if those numbers get repeated as fact later on or even on other sites!

I think they have some numbers, but not going back anywhere near 1990. I think the program was much more recent. And at WDW at least it would be well below 18.5.

64.2% of statistics are made up on the spot....including this one!

 

[GoofGoof]

64.2% of statistics are made up on the spot....including this one!

100% of what you read on the Internet is true so I believe you

 

[sedati]

Time is a valuable thing. Money is also valuable. There are conditions and disorders that make it hard to understand abstract concepts like money. A quick search shows that this is a common symptom of fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS/E.
Now, visiting a shop or restaurant is as much a part of the Disney experience as going on a ride, so no one should be excluded. So imagine going into a gift shop and you see a child bring an item to the counter and hand over a dollar bill. The cashier tells him this is not enough for the item. The parent shows a card to the cashier and he sells the child the item for a dollar. Surprised you ask the parent about the card. Well, my child has a condition where he can't understand how money works- if you go to town hall and tell them, they'll give you a card where your child can get anything he wants for whatever he thinks it's worth. You might immediately run to city hall yourself and see if this is true and if your family qualifies- or you may question the parent on whether or not such a system seems fair, after all your child has been mulling over a purchase for the last half hour trying to figure out what a season's worth of chores might buy. The parent says what business is it of yours- that what they're doing doesn't effect the cost of your item, and besides, Disney has had this policy for years. If their child can't get the item he'll have a meltdown and that's not good for anyone. You should be happy to have a child who can understand value and exchange of goods and services. This comment is made with no understanding of your family's own health or financial status which is most likely far from ideal.
Not trying to be rude, just trying to offer a somewhat exaggerated take on where the precedent of this court ruling could lead.

 

[Lucky]

Time is a valuable thing. Money is also valuable. There are conditions and disorders that make it hard to understand abstract concepts like money. A quick search shows that this is a common symptom of fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS/E.
Now, visiting a shop or restaurant is as much a part of the Disney experience as going on a ride, so no one should be excluded. So imagine going into a gift shop and you see a child bring an item to the counter and hand over a dollar bill. The cashier tells him this is not enough for the item. The parent shows a card to the cashier and he sells the child the item for a dollar. Surprised you ask the parent about the card. Well, my child has a condition where he can't understand how money works- if you go to town hall and tell them, they'll give you a card where your child can get anything he wants for whatever he thinks it's worth. You might immediately run to city hall yourself and see if this is true and if your family qualifies- or you may question the parent on whether or not such a system seems fair, after all your child has been mulling over a purchase for the last half hour trying to figure out what a season's worth of chores might buy. The parent says what business is it of yours- that what they're doing doesn't effect the cost of your item, and besides, Disney has had this policy for years. If their child can't get the item he'll have a meltdown and that's not good for anyone. You should be happy to have a child who can understand value and exchange of goods and services. This comment is made with no understanding of your family's own health or financial status which is most likely far from ideal.
Not trying to be rude, just trying to offer a somewhat exaggerated take on where the precedent of this court ruling could lead.

Nice try, but even if time is money, this isn't just about time.