Meltdown is a subjective term and it depends on age, a 2 year old having a meltdown vs a 12 year old having a meltdown is not the same thing. And I don't necessarily mean a nuclear meltdown, which I have seen more adults have than kids.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines
- Thread starter GrumpyFan
- Start date
Meltdown is a subjective term and it depends on age, a 2 year old having a meltdown vs a 12 year old having a meltdown is not the same thing. And I don't necessarily mean a nuclear meltdown, which I have seen more adults have than kids.
we used to carry it all the time and showed it till they told they didn't want to see it.
flynnibus
Premium Member
It's double edged. Disney doesn't want to see it so they can try to separate themselves from any claims of misinterpretation or discrimination. It's a protective move on their part - it has nothing to do with privacy or HIPPA (as some clowns say). The law is also setup this way in ensuring the business does NOT play the interpretive role.. which is why the guidance is 'tell me what you can't do' instead of 'tell me what medical issue you have'. The business is never supposed to care about where your disability originates from.. only that its real and how it impacts your ability to function.
This reduces the burden on those being protected. And that's the intent of the law - those being protected should not have to argue or prove they need assistance.. but should get that help by default.
Once they extended the scope of the ADA to include basically every life impacting issue instead of just accessibility issues.. this is a no win situation.
The root issue is people suck. We shouldn't have to ask people to get certified or carry credentials to get what they are entitled to being with (which was the intent of the law). But because people suck, we can't just let those who need extra help get it.
This is part of the issue with all the transgender hot topics now as well.. or even service dogs within the scope of the ADA. We are writing protections for groups that we can not easily identify or define explicit boundaries for.. which leaves the door open for people to abuse privileges and leaves an even bigger door open for judging/speculating/etc. Its impossible to win unless people stop sucking.. or we start forcing people to be 'qualified' as included in the protected class. And then you start labeling/branding people...
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Over 50 Million people per year visit WDW because they "need a vacation". They all have varying reasons for needing that vacation, some more challenging than your own. You are a hard-working American mom just like most other hard-working American moms who want a vacation.
The judge in this case summed up that concept and ruled in Disney's favor. Disney is doing nothing wrong or illegal, and is trying to be a good host to 50+ Million people per year who want a vacation.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
I think a much bigger problem is an overly broad interpretation of "reasonable accommodation" by courts. For example, a "reasonable accommodation" would be a handful of resorts on property that had a lift chair in their feature pool. However, the judges and regulators have gone completely overboard by requiring a lift chair in every single guest-accessible body of water on property, including hot tubs that are barely any bigger than the lift itself.
flynnibus
Premium Member
'separate but equal' has long been established as discriminating. Imagine liking the polynesian and being told 'well if you want to use a pool, you can hop on the bus over to the contemporary and use their pool'
The issue is at the core... you can't practically include EVERYONE from EVERY condition equally. That's where the 'reasonable' portion was supposed to come in.. but the DOJ has gone to the extreme with requirements trying to include too much IMO.
I am going to assume you mean that the business cannot require proof of the disability, which is not actually true (though Flynn will disagree with me). If you look at the law, the only restrictions on proof of disability are under the sections on Service Animals and Employment. Federal and State Agencies, and even schools (both private and public) generally require proof of disabilities prior to making accommodations or dispensing benefits. (There may, of course, be case law that restricts the requirement of proof that I am not aware of).
However, it is not in most business' best interests to require proof because a) though the law itself does not actually prohibit it, a court may very well determine that places of public accommodation may not ask for proof (the provision regarding service animals prohibits such inquiries as it relates to the use of a service animal, as such it can be argued, as Flynn does, any requirement of proof is therefore against the law) and b) denying an accommodation to a disabled person because they do not have proof would cause the business to violate the ADA. Generally, the most common forms of accommodation don't really require much effort on the part of businesses, so requiring proof would be unnecessarily burdensome anyway.
Another reason it would not be in the best interest of businesses to require proof. While a doctor won't lie, doctors generally take any ailments described by the patient at face value, since they can't always disprove something (they can prove you don't have a broken leg, but they can't necessarily prove it doesn't hurt your knee when you walk, etc.). I missed a final in college once because I wasn't ready, so I went to the doctor claiming I had been sick, and would be given a note.
My understanding was that this was more of an issue at Disneyland than at Walt Disney World. I'll never forget standing in line at City Hall behind a woman getting the new pass, trying to find a ride with a long wait so she could get the new pass. It was a slow day, so wait times were general 30 minutes or less. It was unbelievable.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
"Separate but equal" is discriminating when it comes to race because there's no legitimate difference between human beings of different skin color. The same cannot be said of disabilities. If you can't walk and climb stairs, you can't experience the Swiss Family Treehouse. That's not discriminatory, that's just a statement of fact. It's an unfortunate fact for those who are not ambulatory, but trying to deny its truth is simply ignorant.* Just watch, eventually someone is going to sue Disney because the Treehouse isn't handicap accessible and the result of the case will depend entirely on what judge they get.
*I'm not saying your'e denying that truth or that you're ignorant. My beef is with the DOJ.
DrummerAlly
Well-Known Member
I'd like to add that I'm totally fine with the new system as a parent of an autistic child.
I agree with the judge in this case. I find the new DAS policy to be a reasonable accommodation for families like mine. My comments were directed toward another poster who had a suggestion for a different policy that I found to be unreasonable. The type of accommodation he was suggesting would make it so that my family had no chance at trying a WDW vacation, which was what made me type that last sentence.
I agree with the judge in this case. I find the new DAS policy to be a reasonable accommodation for families like mine. My comments were directed toward another poster who had a suggestion for a different policy that I found to be unreasonable. The type of accommodation he was suggesting would make it so that my family had no chance at trying a WDW vacation, which was what made me type that last sentence.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The separate.. Statement was referring to the facilities , not the disability. (Colored schools, bathrooms,etc). The point of the Ada was to try to make people able to participate as part of the mainstream... Not always find the handicap version of something. The idea of only having some properties with accessibility flies completely counter to the intend of the law.
The law was attempting to make things accessible to the disabled BY DEFAULT and hence the push for things like the standards of accessible design to make spaces welcoming by default.
those with disabilities will always have burdens to bear, the Ada was established to try to prevent the creation of additional burdens.
It's not black&white where the line should be... But it's important for people to remember the reason for the law in the first place- to counter the trend that saw the disabled being handled like second class people.
Not being able to ride public transit... Being excluded from jobs... Being excluded from public spaces...being excluded from entertainment etc.
But yes, there is a line when people need to accept the reality something is not for them and they should not seek accommodation
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Ah, got it. Thank you for clarifying. And enjoy your next well-earned WDW vacation, Mom!
DrummerAlly
Well-Known Member
I'm not a legal scholar and clearly many of you have thought about this topic more in depth than I have, but I think Disney has done a fantastic job on this problem in balancing accommodations and an attempt at a nice vacation for children with disabilities with the need to make the theme park experience fair for all. Clearly not all children with autism spectrum disabilities or other disabilities will be able to (or would want to) experience a theme park regardless of the accommodations made. I have a cousin who fits into this category.
My family fits into the exact category that Disney is trying hard to accommodate. My daughter has high functioning autism with cognitive, emotional, behavioral delays, and sensory processing disorder. If you're not familiar with what that could look like and you watch Big Bang Theory - picture a 3 year old Sheldon Cooper with below average cognitive functioning, not above. With careful planning and the accommodations of a DAS, we have a shot at a decent couple of hours at the park followed by the rest of the day at the resort. In the few hours we manage the parks - equipped with our snacks, her sunglasses, her headphones to dim sound, and the security of a stroller so she has a little "bubble", on the least crowded days of the year, I'm hoping we can do about half of what a family with "normal" young children can do. Why are we doing it? My daughter is OBSESSED with Disney Princess, Disney characters, Disney... everything. The kid's memorized the Disney Parks Planning DVD. I'm hopeful it goes okay, but I'm terrified.
Yeah, the DAS will surely also get abused by people, but it does more good than overall. I just want to give everyone a human face to this debate because while you may get angry at families that you think are abusing it, remember that there are a lot of families for whom this makes a trip possible.
My family fits into the exact category that Disney is trying hard to accommodate. My daughter has high functioning autism with cognitive, emotional, behavioral delays, and sensory processing disorder. If you're not familiar with what that could look like and you watch Big Bang Theory - picture a 3 year old Sheldon Cooper with below average cognitive functioning, not above. With careful planning and the accommodations of a DAS, we have a shot at a decent couple of hours at the park followed by the rest of the day at the resort. In the few hours we manage the parks - equipped with our snacks, her sunglasses, her headphones to dim sound, and the security of a stroller so she has a little "bubble", on the least crowded days of the year, I'm hoping we can do about half of what a family with "normal" young children can do. Why are we doing it? My daughter is OBSESSED with Disney Princess, Disney characters, Disney... everything. The kid's memorized the Disney Parks Planning DVD. I'm hopeful it goes okay, but I'm terrified.
Yeah, the DAS will surely also get abused by people, but it does more good than overall. I just want to give everyone a human face to this debate because while you may get angry at families that you think are abusing it, remember that there are a lot of families for whom this makes a trip possible.
DrummerAlly
Well-Known Member
You've really hit the nail on the head here, except that I think most people really are good. There will always be people who abuse the system, but while they stand out they really are few and far between. They do often ruin it for the rest of us. Just like most people are fine with their handicap parking pass on their car, everyone that I know with a disability or a child with a disability would be happy to carry around proof of need all the time in order to get the accommodations we need with less hassle and without being looked at like we are scammers. I'm sure that most owners of service dogs would also happily do the same for the same reason.
I'm already stressed out about having to explain to the person at guest relations the scope of my daughter's disability and the things she can't do and what she struggles with to get the DAS. Theres a pretty good chance she'll be happily sitting in her stroller, looking totally fine. I also don't want to have to explain out loud where she can hear it all of her struggles. I wish I could just hand them a card that explains her limitations, her diagnosis sheet, or a doctors note and have it be done with. I don't think many people in our situation would see that has labeling/branding people.
VIPguide_2030
Active Member
Autistic child parent here as well, new system works fine, people just need to get used to it and accept it. Last system was awesome for the family but I felt guilty sometimes. We certainly need some assistance but that didn't make us more special than any other family. This way we still wait but it can be on our daughters terms.
There are some children and adults for that matter that do deserve something similar to the old system but that is a very small %. I feel like full disclosure with medical records should be required and it cuts down on even more fraud. I realize it is against the law but you are asking for special privileges so I don't see the issue.
There are some children and adults for that matter that do deserve something similar to the old system but that is a very small %. I feel like full disclosure with medical records should be required and it cuts down on even more fraud. I realize it is against the law but you are asking for special privileges so I don't see the issue.
Last edited:
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
The judge got this one right.
As described in the ruling, central to ADA cases is the requirement that a plaintiff show that what's being requested is a "necessary modification". Disney understood this to be key. Quoting from the ruling:
In using this as their primary argument, Disney's attorneys correctly understood that the "necessary" standard was the critical factor in determining this ADA case.
In the ruling, the judge noted:
In a nutshell, the plaintiff failed to show that a return to the old GAC system was necessary. Other points related to ADA are superfluous if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the requested modification is needed.
What's interesting to note is a point I've emphasized in the past:
Disney has always accepted that a modification to accommodate those with Autism is necessary. Disney recognizes that Autism is real and that modifications are needed. The central point being argued in this case was simply how much of a modification.
As described in the ruling, central to ADA cases is the requirement that a plaintiff show that what's being requested is a "necessary modification". Disney understood this to be key. Quoting from the ruling:
Defendant [i.e. Disney] primarily argues [emphasis added] that Plaintiff has not met his burden because an accommodation beyond DAS is not necessary as demonstrated by Plaintiff’s conduct during the visit at issue and in other instances.
In using this as their primary argument, Disney's attorneys correctly understood that the "necessary" standard was the critical factor in determining this ADA case.
In the ruling, the judge noted:
Reversion to the GAC system is not necessary for Plaintiff to have equal access to Defendant’s parks. This is because (1) Defendant provided Plaintiff an opportunity to gain a like benefit from its park as nondisabled individuals; (2) Plaintiff can deviate from his preordained route; (3) he can wait for a sufficient amount of time to access attractions; and (4) DAS is an existing means to equal access. Moreover, DAS and readmission passes would have allowed Plaintiff to experience the attractions he particularly listed in whatever order of his choosing. The Court assesses the “necessary” inquiry first [emphasis added] because a showing that Plaintiff did not need the accommodation obviates further discussion regardless if it is reasonable.
In a nutshell, the plaintiff failed to show that a return to the old GAC system was necessary. Other points related to ADA are superfluous if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the requested modification is needed.
What's interesting to note is a point I've emphasized in the past:
The parties agree that only one prohibition is at issue:
[F]ailure 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.
Pursuant to this prohibition, the parties disagree over the extent of the accommodations [emphasis added] Defendant is required to provide
Disney has always accepted that a modification to accommodate those with Autism is necessary. Disney recognizes that Autism is real and that modifications are needed. The central point being argued in this case was simply how much of a modification.
Last edited:
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
So happy about this. Having seen the effect the original GAC cards and their widespread abuse had on wait times, its relieving that Disney will not have to return to that system, nor with other parks have to follow suit.
seabreezept813
Well-Known Member
From a simply logical approach, I just don't understand the need to sue. If you are not satisfied with the service the company offers (for whatever reason) then maybe just stop being a patron of the company. Bring your business elsewhere instead.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Mainly because it's not about what they can do, it is about what they want to do that DAC will not let them do. The reason that they didn't win is probably because Disney already does more then other venues do, but, it isn't enough. Although, I understand that when it applies to (generic) your family, that you want what you want. However, there are thousands of other families that have their own requirements and it just is totally without merit to think that any place can flex for every single desire. When done the way it is legal to do, by asking what is it that your disability will not let you do, it really simplifies the situation and become more of a system that is fair to just about everyone.
No one, be it an autistic child or anyone else should have a need to ride the same ride over and over. Yes, they would like it to be that way but it isn't fair to anyone else. One experience is all that anyone should feel entitled too. If they can get more.. then great, but, one shouldn't expect it. In the case of can't stand in line it cannot extend beyond that one ride. For example, if you say that they cannot stand in line and then that they cannot do anything else while waiting for the time to open, perhaps Disney isn't the place that can accommodate almost impossible scenario's like that without negatively affecting others, disabled or not. Disney does way more then any other place to try and accommodate people with disabilities, but, common sense has to enter into it. When people ask for things that are above and beyond what everyone else gets, then you have to wonder where it all will end. Disney had no choice but to defend their program otherwise a total cluster would result. Back in the 80's and early 90's I escorted many folks with physical and mental disabilities to WDW. Disney didn't have that program back then. Still they did whatever they could, within reason, to accommodate everyone. No one should ask for anymore then that.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
But...but ....going to WDW is a god given "Right".
GoofGoof
Premium Member
They believe that the move to DAS is a violation of ADA. They aren't saying they aren't happy with the level of service or the offerings but that Disney is violating a federal law. Obviously the judge disagreed. Case closed...until the next one goes to court.
Not god given, but given by the United States federal government.