Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[Emm]

First I want to applaud those who have shared stories of family and friends with disability issues. I think it has given a better understanding to many of the readers. I am all for the Disney parks having a way to help out families with disabled members. I agree with the post that have talked about tying the program in with the MBs and fp+. Maybe to allow unlimited fp+ to them to create more rigid schedules and possibly even set it up ahead of time with some sort of documentation sent to disney of the disability so thst there is not the wait at guest relations.

 

[lazyboy97o]

First I want to applaud those who have shared stories of family and friends with disability issues. I think it has given a better understanding to many of the readers. I am all for the Disney parks having a way to help out families with disabled members. I agree with the post that have talked about tying the program in with the MBs and fp+. Maybe to allow unlimited fp+ to them to create more rigid schedules and possibly even set it up ahead of time with some sort of documentation sent to disney of the disability so thst there is not the wait at guest relations.

The problem with something like unlimited FastPass+ is you create a strong incentive for abuse. Too many people without a genuine need for the access removes the assistance provided to those with a genuine need.

 

[Gomer]

The problem with something like unlimited FastPass+ is you create a strong incentive for abuse. Too many people without a genuine need for the access removes the assistance provided to those with a genuine need.

This is always the problem. It all comes down to vetting those using the program. I know I’m in the minority of those in the disability community, but I’d have no problem going through a registration process that would verify my son’s eligibility for the program in exchange for semi-permanent access to an expanded FP+ system. I’m thinking along the lines of submitting a doctor generated diagnosis and a brief face to face meeting with a GR member in exchange for a photo ID and access to expanded FP+ through MDE for 2-3 years.

FP+ would limit looping due to the window sizes. Photo Id and diagnosis would prevent abuse. The tradeoff being a workable system that I could make extensive plans to regiment the entire trip, while only going through the more rigorous application process every few years.

I know some see it as a violation of privacy to require those things, but I don’t see an issue with sharing my son’s diagnosis with Disney. Its no different than any other service we would apply him for. We’re not talking government registration here. It’s a permit for a theme park perk, not a step towards internment camps for the disabled.

 

[Weather_Lady]

From a legal perspective, the only pertinent question is whether the accommodation Disney is offering is "reasonable" within the meaning of the ADA -- and if it is not, whether a more "reasonable" accommodation would force Disney to change the nature of its business. In other words, is allowing persons with disabilities that make it difficult for them to endure waits to be excused from waiting in line (but not necessarily excused from waiting for an attraction altogether) a reasonable accommodation for their disability? If there is a more reasonable accommodation available (e.g., giving every person who says they "can't wait" a front-of-the-line-pass for every attraction they desire), then would Disney be required to alter the nature of its business in order to give that accommodation to disabled guests?

As I see it, the present accommodation is reasonable. Is it ideal for those with disabilities that require instant gratification in order to avoid becoming agitated, or whose disability deprives them of the stamina typically required for park touring? Of course not, and no one should question or downplay the legitimacy of those needs, but giving "waiting-disabled" guests the accommodation of a "deferred Fastpass" for every single attraction so that they may spend their "wait time" resting or amusing themselves elsewhere is reasonable. To provide more (that is, to provide instant front-of-the-line or Fastpass-queue access on demand) would require Disney, a theme park business operating on a "first come, first served" basis intended to provide maximum opportunity for every guest, to "fundamentally alter the nature of its business." One of the legal definitions of a "fundamental alteration" is the requirement that a business offer a different "product" to disabled customers than it offers to non-disabled customers. (In a world where guests at many theme parks pay extra to gain front-of-the-line or Fastpass-style access, clearly that level of access is a "product" of measurable value.) Thus, to compel Disney to offer little-or-no-wait access to disabled customers but not non-disabled customers would result in a "fundamental alteration" of its business for purposes of the ADA. As such, it's something Disney cannot be required to do.

Consider for a moment the logical consequences if a court were to hold otherwise. If, in fact, the court overseeing this current lawsuit concluded as a matter of law that the only reasonable accommodation Disney could make would be to offer instant, little-or-no-wait attraction access to anyone who claimed an inability to wait, and that requiring Disney to do so would not alter the nature of its business, then that legal precedent would mean that all places of public accommodation that typically offer services on a "first come, first served" basis -- every fast food restaurant, every movie theater, every grocery and department store checkout counter, every concert ticket vendor, every airport taxi service, etc. -- would be required to provide instant, front-of-the-line access to any person claiming an inability to wait for service because of a disability. We see the absurdity of that -- there is no reason to compel a different result when we're talking about theme park attractions.

I sympathize with the plaintiffs here -- they had a system that was more friendly to them, a system that went far above and beyond what the law required, and it's been taken away -- but there is nothing unlawful about what Disney did.

 

[flynnibus]

They made some good and valid points in their claim, but they also went to the extreme on a several occasions, seemingly trying to make a point.

This just comes with the territory in civil suits seeking damages for emotional distress, etc. It is WAY over the top, melodramatic, exaggerated, and generally makes you nauseous to read. Remember, their opening salvo is to establish how great the burden and distress the plantiff has been subjected too. Its listed under 'facts' but don't expect it to be objective

 

[flynnibus]

I know some see it as a violation of privacy to require those things, but I don’t see an issue with sharing my son’s diagnosis with Disney. Its no different than any other service we would apply him for. We’re not talking government registration here. It’s a permit for a theme park perk, not a step towards internment camps for the disabled.

It's not about violation of privacy - but requiring a specific registration to gain normal access to a public accomodation can be construed as discrimination and hence why you can't do it. Disney's photo and name system skirts very close to this boundary... Disney can argue it's simply to enable the users.. but its very close to the edge and another lawsuit could still challenge that. These clowns don't tho because they simply want the GAC back.

 

[flynnibus]

It is a touchy subject and Disney could very well use the argument that if it gives the benefits to someone with a disability, they are discriminating against those that are not disabled. Both arguments are fair and valid.

But the law does not protect the able from being discriminated against by the disabled. What you personally see as 'fair' is not a requirement in the law. So it's moot except for the points about Disney arguing it alterning the business/services. They can't argue they can't do it because it's not fair to other people... that just isn't how the law is defined.

If they have done that and they can empirically show that their focus groups agree the new system is the best way, I don't see a judge ruling against them, IF they took the focus group approach.

Doesn't work that way... it's not what the general audience needs, it's what each individual needs. The law is biased towards ensuring each INDIVIDUAL is not excluded or discriminated against. There are general standards defined to ensure a minimum definition, but meeting that minimum does not mean you are done. That's why businesses always need to allow for individualized accommodations. For most instance it's pretty easy to just be flexible... Disney's problem is doing it at SCALE and combined with the problem that the accommodations are just too tempting for people to lie to get.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's not about violation of privacy - but requiring a specific registration to gain normal access to a public accomodation can be construed as discrimination and hence why you can't do it. Disney's photo and name system skirts very close to this boundary... Disney can argue it's simply to enable the users.. but its very close to the edge and another lawsuit could still challenge that. These clowns don't tho because they simply want the GAC back.

The photo is mentioned in this suit and I think it's safer at Disneyland because it is required on admission to prevent transferring.

 

[flynnibus]

The photo is mentioned in this suit and I think it's safer at Disneyland because it is required on admission to prevent transferring.

The photo is, but not the idea you need to 'register' at all. In the general sense, a person should be able to walk up to an attraction and just ask for accomodation there without any registration process before. That's the intent of the law.

But in the GAC, Disney had setup a system to centralize the process of evaluating what accommodation was necessary. Disney can argue this system is advantageous as it avoids having to do that evaluation at each ride, ensures the properly trained staff are utilized, and expedites the need for the customer. But the output of this process was simply a token which noted WHICH accomodations employees should provide.. there was no registration, being submitted to retained logging/photos/etc. The process was setup simply to consolidate the 'need -> accommodation' transaction.

The new model tho could be interpreted as a registration system, where customers are required to submit their personal details to be stored electronically as a requirement for Disney to provide the accommodation.. in addition to the previous 'consolidation' aspect. It is VERY much on the edge.

The suit doesn't really focus on this aspect tho, yes photos are mentioned, but the focus is on what accommodations are provided, and having to WAIT at Guest Services.. not so much that they had to goto Guest Services at all.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

First I want to applaud those who have shared stories of family and friends with disability issues. I think it has given a better understanding to many of the readers. I am all for the Disney parks having a way to help out families with disabled members. I agree with the post that have talked about tying the program in with the MBs and fp+. Maybe to allow unlimited fp+ to them to create more rigid schedules and possibly even set it up ahead of time with some sort of documentation sent to disney of the disability so thst there is not the wait at guest relations.

But even allowing unlimited fp+ would put Disney right back where GAC did. I believe it was stated 1/5 of all riders were using GAC. Imagine Disney basically withholding 1/5 of all fp+ for each attraction and on top of that, allowing people using DAS to book more than one fp+ for a ride... Then once again, the system becomes a problem. It may accommodate DAS users but has a huge impact on guest not using DAS.
I really wonder if there is a happy medium... how do they address the needs of families who have disorders that don't allow them to wait or approach an attraction while not negatively impacting other guest?

 

[flynnibus]

I really wonder if there is a happy medium... how do they address the needs of families who have disorders that don't allow them to wait or approach an attraction while not negatively impacting other guest?

It's important to note... 'without negatively impacting other guests' is NOT something the law cares about and is not grounds for not doing something. There are protections to ensure the business - but providing the accommodations without impacting others in itself is not a grounds for defense.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

It's important to note... 'without negatively impacting other guests' is NOT something the law cares about and is not grounds for not doing something. There are protections to ensure the business - but providing the accommodations without impacting others in itself is not a grounds for defense.

Understood, however, that same law states that If making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations that Disney may be have an argument.

Allowing unlimited fp+ for 1/5 of guest would easily create problems for the services that Disney provides to other guest.

I think they'll figure out something... just not sure what.

 

[flynnibus]

Understood, however, that same law states that If making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations that Disney may be have an argument.

Yes, those are the protections I am referring too... but that is what needs to be argued, not simply 'its not fair to everyone else that they get something we don't' or 'their presence makes my experience less'

 

[dstrawn9889]

Understood, however, that same law states that If making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations that Disney may be have an argument.

Allowing unlimited fp+ for 1/5 of guest would easily create problems for the services that Disney provides to other guest.

I think they'll figure out something... just not sure what.

yeah, it is called DAS and was implemented just 6 months ago. people will no matter what disney does or does not do. as for this suit... really, who has the cojones to go against disney legal? this is destined to be tossed out, because i assure you before they changed systems they had legal tear it apart for loopholes and lawsuit-worthiness, just as any good company does with policy changes.

 

[Pixie VaVoom]

If Disney implemented a way for DAS guests to pre-schedule their access to attractions, then I feel a lot of these problems would be solved. That would mean that parents would not have to walk up to the attraction with their child and then have to walk away. Even the ability to go through the process of scheduling a return time at, let's say, guest relations would diminish that problem.

Disney has actually implemented a system whereby ALL of their guests can schedule a return time...it is called FASTPASS +.


I have family members whose disabilities are so severe that WDW is never even thought of - do they SUE Disney because their child can't go?? They accept the childs limitations and try to make as many good days as APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES will allow.

 

[diznyboyz]

I have an autistic child. I miss the GAC, but the DAS is workable, especially combined with FP+. It was much more difficult before FP+, but I knew that things would get easier for us when FP+ comes online fully, so I just waited it out. I have an older and now more easygoing child though. Five years ago the change would have been a real problem.

However, I really do not think they have a leg to stand on, especially when I read this: "They said offering a return time is equivalent to a wait, and there is no guarantee of immediate access to attractions at the return time." I don't remember ever having immediate access to attractions even with the GAC. SSE and TT come to mind, as well as the Astro Orbiter and even TSMM, you could wait as long as 15 to 20 minutes for any of those. And there was not one ride that you flashed a GAC for and were immediately whisked onto the ride. It always depended on the fastpass line at the time. I do not believe that one can interpret the ADA to say that autistic children should never have to wait for anything. And this is from someone who used the heck out of our GAC.

I am hoping that we can start using our MBs to reserve DAS times in the near future. That would be about as good as it can be for us.

Hmmm, now I am wondering, since the Be Our Guest restaurant has a fast pass, can I use my DAS for it? Or what about Illuminations? I wonder?

I also have an autistic 17 year old son. I agree with every word! We have been going since my son was 8!

 

[WDWLover#1]

If I see this I'm always a bit ehhh. In my knowledge Disney is excellent at catering for guests with disabilities.

 

[The Mom]

Let's keep on topic - and keep it civil. Thanks.

 

[Gomer]

It's not about violation of privacy - but requiring a specific registration to gain normal access to a public accomodation can be construed as discrimination and hence why you can't do it. Disney's photo and name system skirts very close to this boundary... Disney can argue it's simply to enable the users.. but its very close to the edge and another lawsuit could still challenge that. These clowns don't tho because they simply want the GAC back.

Understood. I wasn’t necessarily thinking from a legal standpoint, although I suppose I should have been considering the topic. In one of the previous 173 GAC related threads some people mentioned that they wouldn’t feel comfortable bringing a diagnosis with them. They felt that would be an invasion of their privacy to submit medical information like that. I was more referring to those sentiments in saying that I wouldn’t mind it from my end.

I understand your point, however, that Disney may not want to go down that road either as it puts their entire system at risk of being overruled in a suit. Either way, it’s too bad, as a system used responsibly by only those who actually need it wouldn’t have any of these problems. But it would be naïve of me to think that could ever actually happen in reality.

 

[arko]

I'm a pretty understanding person but I was trying to rationalize it. I asked a few questions to better understand the situation but you didn't even answer them in your defensive response lol. I can post about whatever I want, I wasn't hurting anyone's feelings or being rude. I would suggest the same course of action. The question remains: why would a person that's not physically handicapped have a hard time standing in a line for a ride? Parents of autistic children argue that their kids are just like other kids.

If my child were just like other kids he wouldn't be autistic. Autism is a complex neural disorder that manifests itself in each person differently, but many children have issues with social interactions and with social contact. Spending a long time in a confined line often creates a huge stress and can result in what is often referred to as a meltdown.
Understand this is not a hissy fit or a spoiled child having a tantrum, this is an uncontrolled outburst of emotion and the child can injure himself or others. It stems from a lack of ability to communicate what is affecting them, and the more verbal an autistic child is usually the chance of a meltdown is lessened.
Sometimes the child can simply be overwhelmed and seeks to leave the stressor but can't because many of the lines have no real exit point.
So in summary not all disabilities are physical and are just as debilitating.