seabreezept813
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification. I am always a bit skeptical about people who are sue happy regardless of the issue.
-
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
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Companies such as Disney must comply with U.S. law when it comes to the treatment of protected classes of people. This includes those with disabilities.
Those with disabilities have legal rights guaranteed by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to demand that companies such as Disney make modifications in order to accommodate their disabilities. This law was passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, signed by the President, and accepted as Constitutional by the Supreme Court on several occasions. ADA is the law of the land.
ADA requires, for example, expensive regulations to accommodate those in wheelchairs. Companies the size of Disney spend tens-of-millions-of-dollars in order to comply with ADA.
ADA protects both physical and mental disabilities. Autism is a universally accepted mental disability. Disney does not dispute that in order to comply with ADA, it must make alterations in order to accommodate those with Autism. Disney knows and accepts that it has to do this.
What was being argued in court was the type of modification, not whether a modification was needed.
Wiki has a pretty good summary of ADA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
If you want to understand why Disney must do something to accommodate those with disabilities, I suggest reading it.
Last edited:
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Sure you have protection, but Disney does not have to hand the whole place over on a silver platter. Yes, they have to make accommodations That is my point.
Still...one does not have a "Right" to visit anywhere. It is a choice, no matter what the law says.
Last edited:
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
As I'm sure has been pointed out already Disney has arrangements in place for those with various disabilities which is what they're required to do. People don't like them changing those arrangements as they think it diminishes their enjoyment of the parks, however that's Disney's call as they still provide special arrangements.
There's a moral argument I suppose but that's very different from a successful legal one. If people hadn't abused the system then I'd imagine nothing would have changed, it's sad they had to but there you go.
There's a moral argument I suppose but that's very different from a successful legal one. If people hadn't abused the system then I'd imagine nothing would have changed, it's sad they had to but there you go.
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
I love to see people quote Wikipedia when trying to argue for their point. (Btw, college professors LOVE wikipedia. Try it, once.)
Try the ACTUAL ADA source....
http://www.ada.gov/
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm
Try the ACTUAL ADA source....
http://www.ada.gov/
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Which part of the Wikipedia summary was not accurate?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I didn't read @ParentsOf4 post and get that he thinks Wikipedia is the bastion of all accurate knowledge. He just said Wikipedia has a pretty good summary. If he is familiar with the full legislation (which he seems to be) and he read the summary on Wikipedia and felt it was a pretty good summary then what's the harm in posting that. Most people here don't want to have to page through numerous pages of a complicated law to find the relevant pieces to this case.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
The ADA website and law are complex, with much information that's not applicable to the Disney lawsuit. Beyond those, there's a great deal of case law, especially several Supreme Court rulings, which I highly recommend to those who want to understand legal precedents and how, in my opinion, the judge correctly considered them in the recent ruling.
For someone not interested in reading potentially hundreds of pages to become well-versed on the topic, the Wiki description is a good introduction.
Alternatively, for those not interested in ADA itself, I'm reposting something I wrote last year explaining the legal aspects of the recent case:
This ADA lawsuit has come up a few times on these threads, generating a great deal of debate each time. For those of you who might be interested in the less emotional aspects of the lawsuit, I decided to put together the following.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 and strengthened in 2008. It passed with near-unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans. The two parties might be partisan on most issues, but ADA is not one of them.
ADA protects those with physical or mental disabilities from discrimination. ADA specifies that discrimination occurs when there is “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”.
ADA applies to private companies such as Disney that sell goods or services to the public. Amusement parks are specifically cited in ADA. By law, WDW must comply with ADA.
ADA requires Disney to take proactive steps to eliminate discrimination due to disability at its theme parks.
For those with mobility issues, Disney must build ramps, provide accessible buses, and alter hotel rooms. Disney must provide braille menus or alternatives for the blind. Disney must assist those with hearing disabilities. Disney has spent tens-of-millions of dollars in order to comply with this aspect of ADA.
Disney also must do something for those with mental disabilities, which is why it created the Disability Access Service (DAS). To be clear, Disney did not create DAS because it is being magnanimous. It created DAS because Disney is legally obligated to create something like it.
ADA has limitations. It uses terms such as “reasonable modifications” and “fundamentally alter” to define those limits. (I’ll explain these in a bit.) Above all, ADA places safety first. Safety trumps the rest of ADA. Companies sometimes try to stretch the definition of safety because they know if they win this argument, they’ll win the case.
Some ADA cases have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a relatively well-known case, a PGA golfer with a physical disability wanted to use a golf cart during tournament play. The PGA fought him and lost.
One of the footnotes in this PGA v. Martin ruling outlines the basic legal principles the Courts consider when making an ADA ruling:
As we have noted, the statute contemplates three inquiries: whether the requested modification is "reasonable," whether it is "necessary" for the disabled individual, and whether it would "fundamentally alter the nature of" the competition.
For the plaintiffs in the Disney lawsuit to win their case, they must prevail on all 3 points.
Necessary Modification
The plaintiffs must show that what is being requested is a “necessary modification”.
This is where I believe the plaintiffs’ case is weakest.
A necessary modification means the modification is required in order to accommodate the disability. In most successful ADA lawsuits, the plaintiffs’ need for the modification was obvious. Often it was uncontested.
In the Disney lawsuit, neither side disputes that some modification is necessary. However, the two sides disagree on how much of a modification is needed.
Disney has offered the plaintiffs DAS, a fair modification. The plaintiffs claim that DAS is insufficient.
For this point, the plaintiffs need to show that the modifications they seek are necessary, which is made more difficult given Disney’s willingness to provide them with something that's fair.
Prior rulings suggest that it’s insufficient for the plaintiffs to get on the stand and claim, “I need this modification”. A statement of need is not proof of need, and the Courts generally have not showed much sympathy for this tactic. Usually, it requires corroborative evidence to support the claim. Autism is a well-established mental disability but getting on the stand and crying about “my child’s life challenges” is not going to win the case in court.
IMO, the plaintiffs need to present expert medical testimony to support their claim. If they don’t, then prior rulings suggest Disney will win.
Even if the plaintiffs present expert testimony, Disney can counter with its own experts. It could come down to a judge deciding whose testimony is more persuasive.
One thing to keep in mind is that Autism is a spectrum disorder. What works for one person with Autism might not work for another. Thus, today’s finding [recall that I originally wrote this in March 2015 regarding a finding by a State of Florida commission, not the recent court ruling] that Disney discriminated wasn’t because Disney failed to provide a modification; it was because DAS was a “blanket accommodation that did not take into account the nuances between various disabilities”.
Reasonable Modification
Prior rulings suggest that the Courts do not define a “reasonable modification” to be one that’s ‘fair’ or ‘equal’ to those without disabilities. The Courts don’t seem to be applying the “reasonable person” standard to this. Instead, the Courts have ruled that it’s perfectly acceptable to provide those with disabilities with preferential treatment, if this preferential treatment is needed in order to accommodate the disability.
Taking this one step further, the Supreme Court ruled that an “accommodation is not reasonable if it imposes undue financial and administrative burdens”. Thus, it appears that the correct interpretation of an “unreasonable modification” is one that creates an excessive burden for the defendant (i.e. Disney).
Given Disney’s considerable financial resources, I don’t see how Disney wins this point.
Fundamental Alteration
Unlike the first two points, the burden of proving that something is a “fundamental alteration” is on the defendant (i.e. Disney).
Generally, the Courts have used a high standard when determining whether something is a fundamental alteration. An alteration does not make it a fundamental alteration. The use of the qualifier “fundamental” explains why the Courts have used this high standard.
Based on the reasoning applied in PGA v. Martin, it appears that if an entity has a way to easily modify its rules in order to accommodate a disability, then it does not rise to the standard of a fundamental alteration.
Disney already offers FP and FP+, which offer limited express line access to all Guests. Furthermore, front line supervisors have the authority to distribute additional complementary FP/FP+ for numerous reasons. Providing additional complementary FP/FP+ in order to accommodate a legally protected disability certainly would not seem to constitute a fundamental alteration.
As with "reasonable modification", don’t confuse “fundamental alteration” with ‘fair’. You and I might think it’s unfair for someone with a disability to receive preferential treatment. However, this does not fundamentally alter the nature of an attraction, especially since Disney already offers an express line for most attractions. The allotment of FP+ is a rule that Disney easily could modify to accommodate someone with a disability.
What would I consider to be a fundamental alteration?
IMO, requiring a roller coaster to operate at (for example) 5 MPH to accommodate a person’s disability would be a fundamental alteration. By its very nature, a roller coaster is fast and bumpy. Slowing it down to 5 MPH would be a fundamental alteration. It would alter its essence.
What does it mean?
According to today’s article [again, this is a reference back to a March 2015 article], Disney “Argued that the complaints failed to prove that the Disability Access Service program hasn’t accommodated their disability”. I believe this is in response to the “necessary modification” inquiry. IMO, this is Disney’s best line of attack. I don't place much weight in the commission's finding since I suspect they were more sympathetic than the Courts might be.
The article doesn’t mention anything about “fundamental alteration” or “reasonable modification”. It would be interesting to learn if these points were raised at all to the commission.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Because it is the way the ada is enforced.
flynnibus
Premium Member
If the article is good... It sure saves me from having to duplicate the effort for those who can't do their own homework
A good sourced article is still good, regardless of its location
Great post, I just wanted to make one "argument" on this, for the sake of discussion.
Disney could argue that modification and a return to something similar to the previous system would create an unfair advantage for both disabled and non-disabled guests and allow abuse of the system, as it was being done. Would this satisfy the argument of making it an unreasonable modification? It seems this would create an administrative issue as well as possibly making it a fundamental alteration in how guests tour the parks.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I don't think it does. First, ADA only protects disabled people. The provisions of the law don't take into account the impact of the modification on the non-disabled customers. It's a one sided law. Second, it would be difficult for Disney to argue that the previous system was an administrative burden since it existed for many years and was well established.
Their best argument (and the one they made successfully in this case) is that DAS is an acceptable modification as well. There is no requirement that says they can't change the system, the requirement is that whatever system is in place needs to meet the standards set by ADA. I think that's the basis of the whole lawsuit. If DAS is ruled an acceptable system under ADA then the fact that the GAC worked better for some guests is not legally relevant.
seabreezept813
Well-Known Member
This is helpful. I was trying to make sense of it in a broader sense without political and emotional attachments, but I see now it is a much more complex issue.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Getting an 'advantage' is irrelevant in the eyes on the law. And you'd pretty much paint yourself a souless b when you compare waiting in line longer vs what the intended audience faces in their daily life.
The abuse angle alone is untested AFAIK but I think that would be a tough hill to climb to argue on that merit alone the accommodation is unreasonable. Where Disney or others could bring abuse into the mix is illustrate how a system could not be sustainable or would fundamentally alter how they operate.
The courts generally don't care that someone can 'fake it' because the law is written, and has been interpreted to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Right, but if the unfair advantage that was created by DAS was also impacting to disabled guests and it altered everyone's experience, that creates an administrative nightmare for the park managers and every guest.
It doesn't appear they need to, but they could bring that aspect of the previous program into their argument as to why the system needed to be modified. It goes to show that they are attempting to accommodate disabled guests in accordance with the law and prevent other (non-disabled) guests from abusing the provided access intended only for disabled guests.
It doesn't appear they need to, but they could bring that aspect of the previous program into their argument as to why the system needed to be modified. It goes to show that they are attempting to accommodate disabled guests in accordance with the law and prevent other (non-disabled) guests from abusing the provided access intended only for disabled guests.
flynnibus
Premium Member
but Disney doesn't have to justify changing the system... only show that the new system still meets the legal requirements. And you see that played out in this case too.. the judge didn't give one toot over how effective GAC was or not.. it was all about what Disney was doing at the time and if that met the requirements.
I get where you coming from @GrumpyFan - I just think it's 'human layer stuff' that doesn't necessarily map into the legal arguments which are going to focus the discussion purely on what is necessary.
I get where you coming from @GrumpyFan - I just think it's 'human layer stuff' that doesn't necessarily map into the legal arguments which are going to focus the discussion purely on what is necessary.
jaklgreen
Well-Known Member
I think Disney does a great job trying to accommodate everyone, no matter what their issues are. To me, DAS is more then fair and can work for a number of issues, whether it is autism or someone who can not be out in the sun too long because of things like lupus, etc. Getting mad at someone having to use the DAS is like getting mad at a person using the handicap tag on their car when they legitimately need one. To those who do not think DAS is fair. Don't you think that people that need some help at times should get help? If not DAS, then what do you think is "fair" ? What other options do you suggest for people who, for one reason or another, can not wait in the long lines?
I don't mean to sound crude in my response, but I know it will probably be interpreted that way, so apologies in advance. There are many ways to avoid standing and waiting in long lines, avoid going to the parks at the busiest of times, get a fast pass+ or just don't go at all. I have a family member who has no pigment in her skin and she has trouble with temperatures above 80 degrees, so she avoids going anywhere outside for long periods of time and especially stays away from pretty much anything in Florida. She has no expectation of anyone changing anything, weather or sun, she just goes on with her life and finds other things to enjoy.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Yeah,except you only get 3 fastpass a day.
THEN you can have more by lining up on the kiosk (which is probably with a big line on busy days)
peter11435
Well-Known Member
You don't need to line up at the kiosk. Additional fastpasses can be made through MDX