Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[GoofGoof]

Disney cannot operate in a way that truly can accommodate every single individual.

There's not a nice way to say this but it's not Disney's responsibility to determine if their theme parks are for kids all across the spectrum. When does it become the parents responsibility to PROPERLY determine if their child can handle the sensory overload that is WDW.

This is true. Disney cannot be expected to accommodate every last individual. It is up to the parents to determine if their children can handle the sensory overload. That's not what this is about. This lawsuit is specifically related to the aspect of waiting in lines for attractions. Nobody is suing Disney in an attempt to reduce or remove sensory overload. That would be impossible in a theme park. The DAS (and GAC before it) are simple accommodations that can be made to eliminate the issue of waiting in line for an attraction.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Since all these lawsuits are being looked at individually, what happens - hypothetically - if the judge rules that the DAS doesn't properly accommodate the needs of one of these families?

One of the subtleties that seems to have been overlooked in the recent ruling is that Disney already knows that DAS is not good enough in all cases.

Let's start with some background.

Quoting from the WDW ASD Guide:

To access our attractions, Guests with cognitive disabilities have several options including use of the standard queue, Disney FastPass+, the Disability Access Service, and/or additional accommodations based on individual service need [emphasis added].​

In order to comply with ADA, companies like Disney must make an individual assessment of the needs of the person with the disability. The part I bolded is Disney's recognition of its legal obligation.

In most cases, an individual assessment is superfluous. Disney has, for example, modified its hotels, buses and theme parks to accommodate the overwhelming majority of those with mobility limitations. With these modifications in place, there simply is no need for an individual assessment in most cases.

However, ADA requires that Disney accommodate all of those with mobility issues as long as those accommodations are "reasonable" and do not "fundamentally alter the nature of such goods [or] services". (Please read my post here if you want to understand what these terms mean from an ADA perspective.) Hence the need for the individual assessment.

By law, Disney cannot categorize all people with mobility limitations into one bucket. Most will fit into a broad category but a few will not. Disney needs to provide accommodations for those who do not neatly fall into the broader accommodations that Disney has created for most Guests with mobility disabilities.

The same standard applies to those with mental disabilities. DAS will accommodate the vast majority of those with Autism, but not all. The overlooked part of the ruling is that Disney already offers something more than DAS. Mentioned throughout the text is something called "readmission passes".

What are readmission passes?

According to the ruling: "In addition to DAS, some guests receive a number of 'readmission passes' permitting them to enter the Fastpass line for any attraction without having to stand in line or wait virtually."

In this particular lawsuit, the plaintiffs not only had access to DAS but also to 24 readmission passes (for a party of 6).

What's clear from the ruling is that these readmission passes were an important, perhaps even critical factor:

As noted, a combination of DAS and readmission passes could have afforded Plaintiff access to the attractions on his preferred list. Based on these facts, a reasonable juror could not find that Plaintiff’s requested accommodation [i.e. a return to GAC] is necessary.​

With this first ruling, I can't imagine there ever will be a return to full-blown GAC.

However, it's also equally clear that Disney knows that straight-up DAS is not sufficient in all cases either.

 

[ford91exploder]

One of the subtleties that seems to have been overlooked in the recent ruling is that Disney already knows that DAS is not good enough in all cases.

Let's start with some background.

Quoting from the WDW ASD Guide:

To access our attractions, Guests with cognitive disabilities have several options including use of the standard queue, Disney FastPass+, the Disability Access Service, and/or additional accommodations based on individual service need [emphasis added].​

In order to comply with ADA, companies like Disney must make an individual assessment of the needs of the person with the disability. The part I bolded is Disney's recognition of its legal obligation.

In most cases, an individual assessment is superfluous. Disney has, for example, modified its hotels, buses and theme parks to accommodate the overwhelming majority of those with mobility limitations. With these modifications in place, there simply is no need for an individual assessment in most cases.

However, ADA requires that Disney accommodate all of those with mobility is issues as long as those accommodations are "reasonable" and do not "fundamentally alter the nature of such goods [or] services". (Please read my post here if you want to understand what these terms mean from an ADA perspective.) Hence the need for the individual assessment.

By law, Disney cannot categorize all people with mobility limitations into one bucket. Most will fit into a broad category but a few will not. Disney needs to provide accommodations for those who do not neatly fall into the broader accommodations that Disney has created for most Guests with mobility disabilities.

The same standard applies to those with mental disabilities. DAS will accommodate the vast majority of those with Autism, but not all. The overlooked part of the ruling is that Disney already offers something more than DAS. Mentioned throughout the text is something called "readmission passes".

What are readmission passes?

According to the ruling: "In addition to DAS, some guests receive a number of 'readmission passes' permitting them to enter the Fastpass line for any attraction without having to stand in line or wait virtually."

In this particular lawsuit, the plaintiffs not only had access to DAS but also to 24 readmission passes (for a party of 6).

What's clear from the ruling is that these readmission passes were an important, perhaps even critical factor:

As noted, a combination of DAS and readmission passes could have afforded Plaintiff access to the attractions on his preferred list. Based on these facts, a reasonable juror could not find that Plaintiff’s requested accommodation [i.e. a return to GAC] is necessary.​

With this first ruling, I can't imagine there ever will be a return to full-blown GAC.

However, it's also equally clear that Disney knows that straight-up DAS is not sufficient in all cases either.

Yes and Disney policy recognizes this and allows for additional 'on the spot' accomodation, So I think the GAC is well and truly dead because of this.

 

[flynnibus]

One of the subtleties that seems to have been overlooked in the recent ruling is that Disney already knows that DAS is not good enough in all cases.

Overlooked? I don't think so.. I pointed it out in the very first reply to the news of the ruling

What is left dangling tho is the counterpoint relied on the issuing of readmitance passes.. not just DAS virtual queuing. That still leaves a pretty big hole.

and the combination of DAS + Readmission cards gave them sufficient accommodations based on his interpretation of what they really could or could not do in waiting.

This still leaves a very big door for the stubborn to pass through on their way to 'Im more important than everyone else-land'

What is untested in this summary judgement is what qualifies that need, and how much is enough. Basically the judge just summarized (paraphrasing) 'you had enough to be able to visit in a way consistent with your demonstrated tolerances and that the plantiff didn't show how disney's accommodations weren't sufficient'. People are just going to be arguing with Disney over how many passes they can get.. and Disney is going to have to find that line on who gets passes or not. So still very messy... but the judge was still very much on Disney's side in the sense of calling out their 'unfettered access' need as unnecessary.

 

[natatomic]

This is true. Disney cannot be expected to accommodate every last individual. It is up to the parents to determine if their children can handle the sensory overload. That's not what this is about. This lawsuit is specifically related to the aspect of waiting in lines for attractions. Nobody is suing Disney in an attempt to reduce or remove sensory overload. That would be impossible in a theme park. The DAS (and GAC before it) are simple accommodations that can be made to eliminate the issue of waiting in line for an attraction.

I might be missing something, so forgive me, but if Disney cannot be expected to accommodate every last individual and their specific needs, then why are these cases being heard individually? If the DAS works for 99.9% of people with autism and other disabilities, then why do these two dozen families (out of the millions of families that visit every year) get to sue to have treatment different and superior compared to treatment of the other 99.9% of guests with autism?

 

[ParentsOf4]

I might be missing something, so forgive me, but if Disney cannot be expected to accommodate every last individual and their specific needs, then why are these cases being heard individually? If the DAS works for 99.9% of people with autism and other disabilities, then why do these two dozen families (out of the millions of families that visit every year) get to sue to have treatment different and superior compared to treatment of the other 99.9% of guests with autism?

The law states that entities such as Disney must make modifications to accommodate all qualifying disabilities unless certain criteria are met. In order of priority, these criteria are:

1. Safety - The modification results in a safety risk to either those with or without disabilities. I think this one is straightforward.
2. Cost or Administrative Burden - The modification results in an overly burdensome expense for the entity. For example, it's relatively inexpensive for a large company to provide an elevator to the second floor of a building but cost-prohibitive to require an owner of a two-story house to provide an elevator. This factor takes into account the resources of the entity providing the modification.
3. Fundamental alteration - The modification fundamentally alters the nature of the thing being modified. The example I use is a rollercoaster. By its very nature, a rollercoaster is fast and bumpy. Slowing it down to 5 MPH in order to accommodate a disability would alter the essence of what a rollercoaster is.

Note that I'm not passing judgment on any of these, only trying to explain what the law requires.

Remember, those with disabilities don't get whatever they want, only what the courts decide is "necessary" to accommodate their disabilities.

In the recent case, the plaintiff wanted a return to GAC. The judge basically eviscerated the plaintiff in the ruling.

The plaintiff had a right to sue and the judge had the right to say "you're wrong" based on the facts of the case.

 

[GoofGoof]

I might be missing something, so forgive me, but if Disney cannot be expected to accommodate every last individual and their specific needs, then why are these cases being heard individually? If the DAS works for 99.9% of people with autism and other disabilities, then why do these two dozen families (out of the millions of families that visit every year) get to sue to have treatment different and superior compared to treatment of the other 99.9% of guests with autism?

My comment about not accommodating every last person was specifically in reference to the other person's comment about sensory overload. It would not be possible to take away the censory overload in a theme park without fundamentally changing the park. It would be expensive and pretty much impossible.

These lawsuits are specifically related to the system in place (DAS vs GAC) to help with the issue of those who cannot wait in line for an attraction. I'm assuming that the judge chose to hear the cases individually because the plaintiffs would need to prove that DAS does not work in their specific case. Since everyone is different and has different levels of tolerance for waiting in lines it's possible that DAS will work well for some or most people but not all. In the case heard DAS + the additional readmission cards was deemed to be acceptable.

Anyone is free to sue Disney over this, but if legal precedent is set and the cases are all decided in favor of Disney it will be harder and harder to find a lawyer willing to take new cases with a slim chance of succeeding. Assuming the rest of the current slate of cases go the same way, DAS is here to stay, which is a good thing for 99.9% of guests.

 

[Tay]

So many ignorant comments in here. Typical, a lot of you people don't know what autism is and how autistic children are. So autistic children shouldn't do normal childhood activities because they have autism? I'm in favor of the new policy because I'm sure the old one was being abused but Disney and many of posters should kind of research autism and know that , their solutions would cause a lot of problems for families with autistic children. No one should be discriminated against, law or no law.

 

[unkadug]

So many ignorant comments in here. Typical, a lot of you people don't know what autism is and how autistic children are. So autistic children shouldn't do normal childhood activities because they have autism? I'm in favor of the new policy because I'm sure the old one was being abused but Disney and many of posters should kind of research autism and know that , their solutions would cause a lot of problems for families with autistic children. No one should be discriminated against, law or no law.

Why should Disney have to "kind of research" this if you are in favor of what they have done. That makes no sense at all.

"kind of" research is looking at Wikipedia which is a pretty ignorant thing to do in itself.

 

[GoofGoof]

So many ignorant comments in here. Typical, a lot of you people don't know what autism is and how autistic children are. So autistic children shouldn't do normal childhood activities because they have autism? I'm in favor of the new policy because I'm sure the old one was being abused but Disney and many of posters should kind of research autism and know that , their solutions would cause a lot of problems for families with autistic children. No one should be discriminated against, law or no law.

Did you know that Disney worked directly with Autism advocacy groups when designing DAS?

 

[Goofyernmost]

So many ignorant comments in here. Typical, a lot of you people don't know what autism is and how autistic children are. So autistic children shouldn't do normal childhood activities because they have autism? I'm in favor of the new policy because I'm sure the old one was being abused but Disney and many of posters should kind of research autism and know that , their solutions would cause a lot of problems for families with autistic children. No one should be discriminated against, law or no law.

No one thinks that autistic children shouldn't do normal childhood activities because they have autism, what some of us do think is that autism sometimes is what prevents children from doing normal childhood activities. It's not a matter of prevention it is a matter of fairness to everyone else. No one has a problem that DAS allows people to only virtually stand in line and no one gets even a little upset when it is used for that purpose. However, it seems that people with autistic children are not happy with letting them have a fair way for their child to have that experience, they feel that their child should have more then what a normal childhood activity allows. A normal childhood activity in a theme park is to stand in line for extended periods of time, weaving in and around the path. Autistic children are given the option that "normal childhood" does not have on a massive scale. When it is said, for example, that your autistic child should be able to just circle around and ride the same ride immediately, with no delay, they are not living a "normal childhood activity. Non-autistic children cannot do that. Your autistic child may want to do it, but, the world is not set up to grant every wish to everyone no matter what it is. In the meantime, they and you are getting a pretty good perk that the rest of us are not getting. Most of us do not feel badly about that, but, we do wonder why all the ADA equality of accessibility isn't enough. What is being asked for is not equal at all.

 

[GoofGoof]

No one thinks that autistic children shouldn't do normal childhood activities because they have autism, what some of us do think is that autism sometimes is what prevents children from doing normal childhood activities. It's not a matter of prevention it is a matter of fairness to everyone else. No one has a problem that DAS allows people to only virtually stand in line and no one gets even a little upset when it is used for that purpose. However, it seems that people with autistic children are not happy with letting them have a fair way for their child to have that experience, they feel that their child should have more then what a normal childhood activity allows. A normal childhood activity in a theme park is to stand in line for extended periods of time, weaving in and around the path. Autistic children are given the option that "normal childhood" does not have on a massive scale. When it is said, for example, that your autistic child should be able to just circle around and ride the same ride immediately, with no delay, they are not living a "normal childhood activity. Non-autistic children cannot do that. Your autistic child may want to do it, but, the world is not set up to grant every wish to everyone no matter what it is. In the meantime, they and you are getting a pretty good perk that the rest of us are not getting. Most of us do not feel badly about that, but, we do wonder why all the ADA equality of accessibility isn't enough. What is being asked for is not equal at all.

The new system does go above and beyond just creating a level playing field and will actually accommodate some of these situations. For Disney it goes beyond just doing enough to meet minimum standards set by a federal law. These are paying customers (many of whom are loyal and frequent visitors). It's just good business to make them feel welcome and keep them coming back. The key is that in addition to DAS a guest can work with Disney directly on a case by case basis to accommodate unique needs. This is from the autism speaks website back when the plan was initially being rolled out:

Disney Explains the New Plan
Disney Parks have an unwavering commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment and accessible experiences for guests.

On October 9, the process that provides access to attractions for guests with disabilities, known as the Guest Assistance Card, will be replaced with the new Disability Access Service (DAS) Card. Guests will request the new card at Guest Relations and DAS Cardholders will receive a return time for attractions based on the current wait time. The DAS Card is designed to provide the special experience guests have come to expect from Disney. It will also help control abuse that was, unfortunately, growing at an alarming rate.

For more information on this new card, please visit our website.

We believe that the DAS card, with its virtual wait, will accommodate many of our guests with disabilities.

However, we also recognize that our guests with disabilities have varying needs, and we will continue to work individually with them to provide assistance that is responsive to their unique circumstances.

While each situation will be handled individually at Guest Relations, following are two examples of accommodations that could be offered based on a guest’s needs:

• For a guest whose disability enables them to be in the park for only a limited time, the guest might be offered an accommodation that enables them to use the DAS Card in conjunction with access to a number of attractions without having to obtain a return time.
• Another potential accommodation, based on a guest’s unique needs, might include providing access to a favorite attraction multiple times in a row without having to obtain a return time.

If you need more information or have specific questions about an upcoming trip, please send an email to disability.services@disneyparks.com. If you are planning a vacation in the next few months, please include a contact phone number and the best time for us to reach you.

The new system will likely work for most but not all guests. These lawsuits represent a fraction of a fraction of the guests with disabilities who visit Disney parks every year. They aren't necessarily representative of the feelings of the average guest with special needs.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The new system does go above and beyond just creating a level playing field and will actually accommodate some of these situations. For Disney it goes beyond just doing enough to meet minimum standards set by a federal law. These are paying customers (many of whom are loyal and frequent visitors). It's just good business to make them feel welcome and keep them coming back. The key is that in addition to DAS a guest can work with Disney directly on a case by case basis to accommodate unique needs. This is from the autism speaks website back when the plan was initially being rolled out:

The new system will likely work for most but not all guests. These lawsuits represent a fraction of a fraction of the guests with disabilities who visit Disney parks every year. They aren't necessarily representative of the feelings of the average guest with special needs.

Show me a situation where they don't do just that... much more then most any other place you care to name. However, just because someones situation is unique doesn't mean that it can be accommodated without having more problems in the other direction. It is nice to want, it is OK to ask, but, not everything can be granted or should be. I, from experience, know that Disney does everything it can to accommodate all problems, but, it is asking to much to think that they will be able to flex for everyone individual desire or perceived need. Multiple riding, for example, is a perceived need not anything that is or should be expected when there are thousands of other people, including disabled people, that might be inconvenienced or even not able to enjoy an experience because someone else has decided that the Have to ride something over and over. It is an unreasonable request, autism related or not.

I'm aware that this lawsuit isn't representative of the majority of people with needs, but, it does represent the most vocal and angry of them and if they win, then it all becomes another cluster, there must be some control and limitations. It was more liberal before and look what happened.

 

[GoofGoof]

Show me a situation where they don't do just that... much more then most any other place you care to name. However, just because someones situation is unique doesn't mean that it can be accommodated without having more problems in the other direction. It is nice to want, it is OK to ask, but, not everything can be granted or should be. I, from experience, know that Disney does everything it can to accommodate all problems, but, it is asking to much to think that they will be able to flex for everyone individual desire or perceived need. Multiple riding, for example, is a perceived need not anything that is or should be expected when there are thousands of other people, including disabled people, that might be inconvenienced or even not able to enjoy an experience because someone else has decided that the Have to ride something over and over. It is an unreasonable request, autism related or not.

I'm aware that this lawsuit isn't representative of the majority of people with needs, but, it does represent the most vocal and angry of them and if they win, then it all becomes another cluster, there must be some control and limitations. It was more liberal before and look what happened.

I don't disagree. It seems to me that the new system is fair but still very accommodating. The other thing that is overlooked is that GAC was never intended to be a skip all the lines VIP pass. It unfortunately turned into that over time. The ideal would be a system which meets the need of disabled guests but has no appeal to those looking to abuse the system and beat lines. I'm not sure if thats even possible, but DAS looks to be a lot closer to ideal than GAC ever was. Hopefully over time the system can be tweaked to make it even more effective, but you will never please every last person.