Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[Club34]

Some people are using the system now. I am one of them and I am fine with it as is. I had absolutely no issues and find it to be fine for what my son needs. But the fact that it works for my son isn’t proof that it should work for all. Its only proof that it works for him at this time. Autism unfortunately isn’t a disease with easily definable symptoms that can be accommodated in broad strokes. Each individual is unique as are their requirements, so a one size fits all approach will never work for everyone.

So is the legal question [I didn't read the pdf or every page of this thread] does disney have some legal obligation to make available accommodations for every unique set of circumstances? I don't want to sound insensitive but that seems a bit unreasonable. Frankly, I say don't fight it. Let them all have a front of line pass. If it gives them a taste of magic, fun, or freedom, what is the harm? The number of people being ushered past you is still beyond minimal so why fight each other about it. What's waiting for one more boat or car when I have been blessed to not be challenged as some of these children/families and have my health and mobility? I am going to run out of that park, hop on a bus, and click my heels as I am jumping into the pool for a nightswim [y'all love the disney nightswim right?] all before these kids and families struggle to just get out of the park and back to their rooms because of the extra accommodations needed for their loved ones. I just try to keep in mind the luxuries and freedoms that I have that others don't. Until you've lived it, you really can't say.

 

[bubbles1812]

So is the legal question [I didn't read the pdf or every page of this thread] does disney have some legal obligation to make available accommodations for every unique set of circumstances?

No. And that is not what the ADA requires either. Only "reasonable" accommadations, which is an admittedly vague term. Their argument is that Disney is not fulfilling this.

I don't want to sound insensitive but that seems a bit unreasonable. Frankly, I say don't fight it. Let them all have a front of line pass. If it gives them a taste of magic, fun, or freedom, what is the harm? The number of people being ushered past you is still beyond minimal so why fight each other about it.

Who exactly is "them all" though? The person who says they have a disability but is lying? The family that hired a disabled person so they could get around and have front of the line access? If you could tell exactly who has a true disability ie with a doctor's note, then it might be feasible to give that front of the line pass, and people might not have a problem with it. But under the ADA, a doctor's note or proof is not something that can be asked for...or is at least not Disney's policy. That is why the GAC caused so many problems. You say why fight it... but are you willing to continue saying that if your wait time is extended by minutes, an hour, several hours? And that minimal number of people might become a lot (including many who really don't need it) because it offers such an advantage over the average guest experience. This was again, the problem with the GAC. Disney has to balance all these considerations. Or no one ends up happy.

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

Pretty good discussion so far. I wanted to jump back in and post a few thoughts. Let's forget about the lawsuit for a minute and talk about a possible solution. I agree with a few of the posters that the ideal system would be more flexible to accommodate everyone. The question I have is would a more flexible system actually violate ADA? I was under the impression that you cannot require proof of disability. I would think an ideal system would start with DAS as it is, but allow guests with more severe issues to present a doctor's note stating additional accommodations are needed. Disney CMs aren't trained to diagnose conditions or determine who can and cannot wait in line. I am not the parent of an autistic child, but I would imagine most would probably check with their doctor before taking their child to a place like WDW. I think a doctor's note would be a simple solution which is unfortunately not legal. I guess they could just rely on the guests and take their word, but that's what caused all the issues with GAC abuse. The trick is getting the benefits to those that need it without allowing the masses to abuse it.

One thing that I think would be better than the current system is to stop going to the ride for the DAS return time. There are FPP kiosks in each land now, and wait times are available on Disney's app and website. So DAS users could very easily go to a kiosk, get a CM to look up the wait time of a ride, fill out the DAS- all without the DAS user having to go to the ride. I know the parent can go for a child, but what if you are a single parent on a trip with your kid? Beneficial to DAS users who have mobility or stamina issues too, not just autism. This I think would be very easy to alter because everything needed is already in place- kiosks are up and running and CMs are already staffed there.

Edited to add: I think I said this in an earlier post, and it know several others have mentioned it as well.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So is the legal question [I didn't read the pdf or every page of this thread] does disney have some legal obligation to make available accommodations for every unique set of circumstances? I don't want to sound insensitive but that seems a bit unreasonable.

You said the magic word and asked the million dollar question ... the law says Disney must provide "reasonable" accommodations for disabled patrons. What constitutes "reasonable"? Whatever the judge says it is.

 

[Gomer]

So how do you manage if they get an issue with things you can't bypass a wait for?

Not sure if you mean at WDW or in real life, but generally the answer would be...we don't do it.

In life, we have made many accommodations. I'm lucky enough to be in the minority of parents of children with ASD that aren't divorced, so my wife and I take turns going to the store and things like that a lot of the time. We moved to a less densely populated area to make crowds and lines less of an issue. We don't really go out because its near impossible to find a babysitter. If I take my son to the movies or a baseball game, I'll take a day off and do it on a weekday to have lower crowds. And then there are some things we just don't do. We rarely eat out. We don't really go to parties or events with a lot of people. We most definitely never get a night away without the kids.

Its pretty much the same in WDW. Don't misunderstand my criticism of the language being used for approval of the lawsuit. I rarely use DAS/GAC. Maybe once or twice a trip and only as a reward for my son if he was being good about waiting for other rides. I've been through this at length elsewhere, but the short version is that we started off using GAC frequently and then used it to repetitively ingrain the patterns of waiting and reward in my son's mind to train him (for lack of a better term) for the rigors of a theme park environment so that we could use the therapeutic benefits he sees in WDW as a way to teach him to wait in these situations. My son's autism is moderate, so this was possible, but wouldn't be for all. Through those efforts we have him down to a couple of DAS uses at his favorite ride (Pooh) that we save as rewards for things that were particularly stressful for him. But we would have never gotten to that point without GAC, so I do still feel a need to defend its existence. And mostly defend against misinformation regarding what some claim as exaggeration and abuse of a disability for something as meaningless as shorter lines on a theme park ride.

But, I digress. In WDW, we travel at off peak season, only hit the park before lunch and after dinner, and use FP+ to get my son secured rides on his favorites at each park when we visit so that we can promise him a certain amount of payoff for being tolerant of the crowds and waits. But there are still times when things go sour and we will have to leave the park, or leave a show. Its part of the package and we are used to that and accept it. DAS/GAC to me isn't about getting everything we want all the time, its about easing the efforts when the stars align and we have a moment where it is useful. Because sometimes when that moment comes its fleeting and can't guarantee that my son will still be content and calm enough to enjoy it 90 minutes later. Like I said, we have built to where that is rare, but others cannot do the same, so I feel for them and how difficult it must be to have those moments come so infrequently and with no predictable consistency.

 

[GoofGoof]

One thing that I think would be better than the current system is to stop going to the ride for the DAS return time. There are FPP kiosks in each land now, and wait times are available on Disney's app and website. So DAS users could very easily go to a kiosk, get a CM to look up the wait time of a ride, fill out the DAS- all without the DAS user having to go to the ride. I know the parent can go for a child, but what if you are a single parent on a trip with your kid? Beneficial to DAS users who have mobility or stamina issues too, not just autism. This I think would be very easy to alter because everything needed is already in place- kiosks are up and running and CMs are already staffed there.

Edited to add: I think I said this in an earlier post, and it know several others have mentioned it as well.

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.

 

[arko]

Pretty good discussion so far. I wanted to jump back in and post a few thoughts. Let's forget about the lawsuit for a minute and talk about a possible solution. I agree with a few of the posters that the ideal system would be more flexible to accommodate everyone. The question I have is would a more flexible system actually violate ADA? I was under the impression that you cannot require proof of disability. I would think an ideal system would start with DAS as it is, but allow guests with more severe issues to present a doctor's note stating additional accommodations are needed. Disney CMs aren't trained to diagnose conditions or determine who can and cannot wait in line. I am not the parent of an autistic child, but I would imagine most would probably check with their doctor before taking their child to a place like WDW. I think a doctor's note would be a simple solution which is unfortunately not legal. I guess they could just rely on the guests and take their word, but that's what caused all the issues with GAC abuse. The trick is getting the benefits to those that need it without allowing the masses to abuse it.

So lets look at 2 items that keep popping up in some comments, first the GAC was never instant access to anything, it was at best instant access to the FP line if the ride had one. The GAc everyone wanted was one that stated "Alternate Entrance", in most cases that was determined to be the FP line, in some cases like POTC and SSE, you sat and waited until a CM was available to take you via a backstage route. In either case you could actually wait longer.
Second based on my conversation with someone from the department of justice during the last debate, the GAC was considered beyond a reasonable accommodation, and Disney had every right to ask for proof if they so chose. For whatever reason Disney has chosen not to pursue this, and the reason is fairly obvious, it can be a slippery slope, plus it requires CM's to make decisions based on medical diagnosis'. The DAS is simple, say you need one, you get it. In return it offers less than the GAC did and Disney can say they did something about the abuse.

 

[arko]

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.

This was how the system was originally presented ahead of its deployment, somewhere along the way Disney decided the kiosks were unnecessary. But as you have pointed out the FP+ have been implemented and they have all the tools to do the job.

 

[bubbles1812]

So lets look at 2 items that keep popping up in some comments, first the GAC was never instant access to anything, it was at best instant access to the FP line if the ride had one. The GAc everyone wanted was one that stated "Alternate Entrance", in most cases that was determined to be the FP line, in some cases like POTC and SSE, you sat and waited until a CM was available to take you via a backstage route. In either case you could actually wait longer.

All you just said is true, though in practice, it often ended up being a front of the line pass. And certainly at the very least, your wait was most likely reduced significantly. Again, not saying this was always the case, but it sure as heck wouldn't have been abused the way it was if it didn't offer significant advantages quite a bit of the time.

Second based on my conversation with someone from the department of justice during the last debate, the GAC was considered beyond a reasonable accommodation, and Disney had every right to ask for proof if they so chose.

Curious as to why you claim this. As I understand it, ADA prohibits this no matter what, even for private companies like Disney. Perhaps I'm wrong. Either way, Disney would have gotten a fair number of lawsuits if they had asked.

 

[arko]

All you just said is true, though in practice, it often ended up being a front of the line pass. And certainly at the very least, your wait was most likely reduced significantly. Again, not saying this was always the case.
Curious as to why you claim this. As I understand it, ADA prohibits this no matter what, even for private companies like Disney. Perhaps I'm wrong. Either way, Disney would have gotten a fair number of lawsuits if they had asked.

Actually there are many instances where someone can ask for proof.

 

[GoofGoof]

So lets look at 2 items that keep popping up in some comments, first the GAC was never instant access to anything, it was at best instant access to the FP line if the ride had one. The GAc everyone wanted was one that stated "Alternate Entrance", in most cases that was determined to be the FP line, in some cases like POTC and SSE, you sat and waited until a CM was available to take you via a backstage route. In either case you could actually wait longer.
Second based on my conversation with someone from the department of justice during the last debate, the GAC was considered beyond a reasonable accommodation, and Disney had every right to ask for proof if they so chose. For whatever reason Disney has chosen not to pursue this, and the reason is fairly obvious, it can be a slippery slope, plus it requires CM's to make decisions based on medical diagnosis'. The DAS is simple, say you need one, you get it. In return it offers less than the GAC did and Disney can say they did something about the abuse.

Seems to me that having a basic minimum system available by request (DAS) and then requiring a doctor's note for accommodations above that level would help solve most of the issues if that is allowed under the law. I think someone earlier posted that Six Flags has something similar to this. A basic system available to anyone who says they need it and a more accommodating system that requires some additional proof.

 

[GoofGoof]

Actually there are many instances where someone can ask for proof.

This may be true. I know when it comes to hiring you cannot ask about medical conditions or ask for proof of conditions. It's considered discrimination. This is a different section of the ADA so it may not apply here.

 

[bubbles1812]

Actually there are many instances where someone can ask for proof.

Can you elaborate? I would really like to understand the law better. Though I still maintain if they started asking guests for proof it would be lawsuit city.

 

[arko]

This may be true. I know when it comes to hiring you cannot ask about medical conditions or ask for proof of conditions. It's considered discrimination. This is a different section of the ADA so it may not apply here.

Yes they cannot ask as part of hiring, but when someoene asks for an accommodation once hired, they can ask for proof if the disability is not visable, same with a landlord.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes they cannot ask as part of hiring, but when someoene asks for an accommodation once hired, they can ask for proof if the disability is not visable, same with a landlord.

The rules for places of public accommodation are different than the rules for employment (they are actually entirely different parts of the law). Housing is not covered by the ADA but under other laws.

As to why places of public accommodation don't ask for proof... see this post
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/...er-policy-on-lines.882628/page-9#post-6038033

Imagine if someone needed to provide proof they needed assistance carrying something before a store clerk would help them. The law set out to ensure disabled people should not be subjected to greater scrutiny or exclusion (discrimination)... so the law does not require them to go around 'proving' they are disabled when out in public.

 

[rct247]

Here are some things I think DAS can improve upon. First off, DAS has become pretty restrictive and rigid. I'll give you that it does need some flexibility.

It does need to be link to the FP+/MyMagic+ system. And plans were that it will eventually anyways, but it needs to come sooner. All DAS cards come through a FP+ line anyways and those that don't can have mobile touchpoints like an iPod with a reader. The app, kiosk, or website would allow to get a return time without showing up to the attraction and would be based on the current wait which the app also displays and is drawn straight from the source. That alone would do wonder for guests. No having to go to the attraction. More convenience for where you are at, what you are doing, etc. No paper to keep up with, and on the cast members end, no need to have to write anything down, cross anything off, do math, or even worry if someone faked their wait time.

The other thing that I think might be beneficial is similar to what some guests are offered under certain circumstances. Basically, if a guest with a disability has a fixation on a specific ride or rides, I feel like it would be reasonable to allow them to visit that attraction up to 3 times without waiting or getting a return time. It can be in a row or spread out. The guest would have to specify which attraction and it would only be limited to that, but I feel like that is going above and beyond being accommodating and taking in to consideration an exception for a specific fixation. Sure, many will argue that people will simply pick the big name popular attractions or that who's to say that 3 is enough for them. This idea needs to be thought out a lot more, but something to consider. Maybe it just comes down to a guest getting up to 3 extra FP that don't need to be picked or reserved. All they need to do is walk up and scan for them to turn green.

I can also see the 10 mins or less part changing too. I think subtracting 10 mins off the wait time to accommodate for any wait experienced in the FP line is still good, but I think that it is honestly hard for people to find attractions that are 10mins or less in wait time to get "instant access" to where no return time is needed. On a busy day in the park, getting a return time for more than an hour later leaves you scrambling to either use FP+ to get on another attraction with no wait or find something to do in the mean time. Even on a busy day, you are going to find that some typically "low wait" attractions have waits. Sometimes Hall of Presidents, Peoplemover, Carousel of Progress, Tiki Room, Swiss Family Treehouse, & Stitch's Great Escape don't cut it. I do feel bad for people trying to make DAS work for them, but are finding it incredibly hard when it is so crowded at the park. DAS on a busy day really can be a nightmare. I understand that. So, how can things change to take into account park attendance for which attractions allow "instant access" to.

What if DAS was only used at attractions with low capacity, high wait times, or huge popularity? Would it be helpful to say that in the Magic Kingdom you had to get a return time for Buzz, Space, Pooh, Mermaid, Barnstormer, Pan, Mansion, Thunder, Splash, Pirates, and Jungle Cruise? Everything else would give you what you had with GAC. Almost similar to how ticket books were long ago, booklets had few e-tickets which also cost more, but there were also lots of freebies in the park. Each land would have a guaranteed selection to choose from without having to grab return times to help pass time while waiting for those you did have to get a return time for.

Other than the MyMagic+ integrations, the other ideas are extra accommodations that would provide flexibility, but nonetheless, they are still going beyond what they are required to do and treating those with a disability with preferential treatment which really does discriminate against the average park guest. These idea would also be open to abuse and scams as well.

My opinions still rest that while autism is a spectrum disorder, some waiting will have to be done at one of the busiest destinations on the entire planet. Preparing your child prior to arriving can be a key to a successful visit. I don't think it is rude to say that there are some things you just can't do with a given disability. If you can't wait, then maybe a busy theme park full of lines isn't the best choice for a vacation is just as acceptable to say as a person with epilepsy probably should not attend rock concerts with heavy strobe light usage. Same goes for a person who has a heart condition and can't ride Space Mountain. It's just not meant for them. In those cases, as much as it does suck to say it, but you just have to deal with it. It's really tough, but in the end I just really think that Disney will come out on top in this lawsuit, and I really feel like that are very accommodating for guests.

 

[arko]

The rules for places of public accommodation are different than the rules for employment (they are actually entirely different parts of the law). Housing is not covered by the ADA but under other laws.

As to why places of public accommodation don't ask for proof... see this post
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/...er-policy-on-lines.882628/page-9#post-6038033

Imagine if someone needed to provide proof they needed assistance carrying something before a store clerk would help them. The law set out to ensure disabled people should not be subjected to greater scrutiny or exclusion (discrimination)... so the law does not require them to go around 'proving' they are disabled when out in public.

Actually the law is very vague on this part and does not cover it within the basic statements about a public accommodation. The only instances where inquiries are actually spelled out are covered under service animals and mobility devices, and in the case of non standard mobility devices its actually spelled out that they can ask for proof of mobility plates or license. In the case of ticketing it is specific to accessible seating being reserved, and ironically lets the public accommodation investigate the potential misuse of accessible seating where there is good cause to believe that such seating has been purchased fraudulently. Which would require an investigation that would entail proving or disproving the disability.

As I indicated during the previous discussion back when this first being debated, I contacted the ADA hotline at the Justice Department and the rep who seemed very familiar with the GAC and what it offered stated that the GAC itself went beyond reasonable accommodation and therefore they could ask as it was an additional benefit and not a reasonable accommodation. Basically in the eyes of the ADA a reasonable accommodation for people unable to stand in lines for both mental and physical reasons would have been adequately covered by simply offering a sheltered place to wait, The FP line is considered an additional benefit and by offering unlimited access to it, it was considered a benefit not a reasonable accommodation. Even the DAS goes beyond reasonable accommodation in that you can go and return at your convenience once your marked return time has been met and it gives you access to the FP line.
Given the sometimes and specific and other times contradictory language, Disney chose to play it safe, its also possible they could have consulted the Justice Department and received different guidance than I did.

Subpart B – General Requirements
§ 36.201 General.

• (a) Prohibition of discrimination. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any private entity who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
• (b) Landlord and tenant responsibilities. Both the landlord who owns the building that houses a place of public accommodation and the tenant who owns or operates the place of public accommodation are public accommodations subject to the requirements of this part. As between the parties, allocation of responsibility for complying with the obligations of this part may be determined by lease or other contract.

§ 36.202 Activities.

• (a) Denial of participation. A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.
• (b) Participation in unequal benefit. A public accommodation shall not afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.
• (c) Separate benefit. A public accommodation shall not provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others.
• (d) Individual or class of individuals. For purposes of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, the term "individual or class of individuals" refers to the clients or customers of the public accommodation that enters into the contractual, licensing, or other arrangement.

Service Animals

• (6) Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person´s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person´s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).

Mobility Devices

• (1) Inquiry about disability. A public accommodation shall not ask an individual using a wheelchair or other power-driven mobility device questions about the nature and extent of the individual´s disability.
• (2) Inquiry into use of other power-driven mobility device. A public accommodation may ask a person using an other power-driven mobility device to provide a credible assurance that the mobility device is required because of the person´s disability. A public accommodation that permits the use of an other power-driven mobility device by an individual with a mobility disability shall accept the presentation of a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card, or State-issued proof of disability, as a credible assurance that the use of the other power-driven mobility device is for the individual´s mobility disability. In lieu of a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card, or State-issued proof of disability, a public accommodation shall accept as a credible assurance a verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact, that the other power-driven mobility device is being used for a mobility disability. A "valid" disability placard or card is one that is presented by the individual to whom it was issued and is otherwise in compliance with the State of issuance´s requirements for disability placards or cards

Ticketing

8) Prevention of fraud in purchase of tickets for accessible seating. A public accommodation may not require proof of disability, including, for example, a doctor´s note, before selling tickets for accessible seating.

(i) Single-event tickets. For the sale of single-event tickets, it is permissible to inquire whether the individual purchasing the tickets for accessible seating has a mobility disability or a disability that requires the use of the accessible features that are provided in accessible seating, or is purchasing the tickets for an individual who has a mobility disability or a disability that requires the use of the accessible features that are provided in the accessible seating.

(ii) Series-of-events tickets. For series-of-events tickets, it is permissible to ask the individual purchasing the tickets for accessible seating to attest in writing that the accessible seating is for a person who has a mobility disability or a disability that requires the use of the accessible features that are provided in the accessible seating.

(iii) Investigation of fraud. A public accommodation may investigate the potential misuse of accessible seating where there is good cause to believe that such seating has been purchased fraudulently.

 

[flynnibus]

Actually the law is very vague on this part and does not cover it within the basic statements about a public accommodation.

It is disallowed through the provisions I quoted. Additional exceptions are granted in certain cases where safety is involved(because safety is its own broad exception to being required to provide accommodation) and other SPECIFIC exceptions.

When the law makes broad strokes of what behavior is not allow and then spells out specific situations with their own rules... That does not change the rules for everything else.

Even in the ticketing case, they can not require proof - only require the person elaborate and put it in writing.

And like we said before... A phone reps opinion means nothing. There is no published finding on it and the only opinion that actually counts is the judge's

 

[arko]

It is disallowed through the provisions I quoted. Additional exceptions are granted in certain cases where safety is involved(because safety is its own broad exception to being required to provide accommodation) and other SPECIFIC exceptions.

When the law makes broad strokes of what behavior is not allow and then spells out specific situations with their own rules... That does not change the rules for everything else.

Even in the ticketing case, they can not require proof - only require the person elaborate and put it in writing.

And like we said before... A phone reps opinion means nothing. There is no published finding on it and the only opinion that actually counts is the judge's

We can argue the point all day, but in this case a judge will not be ruling on it, because they are not suing because Disney is asking for proof, they are suing because they think its not a reasonable accommodation.

The argument will come down to whether giving a return time is considered a reasonable accommodation or not, and whether the inability to wait requires them to have an additional accommodation. And its a very narrow definition, because its not inability to wait in lines, the DAS covers this by giving access to the shortest line possible in exactly the same way the GAC did, its whether a child being required to wait till a certain time to enter that line is a reasonable accommodation.
It will come down to whether the judge considers the GAC unrestricted access to the FP line a benefit or a base reasonable accommodation, and whether the DAS meets that requirement.

Disney can argue this many ways including stating that unrestricted access fundamentally changed the nature of the ride by unbalancing the wait times for guests using standby.

This should go Disney's way, but I could see a judge granting some of the more reasonable requests like kiosk access.

 

[snowflake33771]

I haven't read the entire suit yet, but part of it seems to hinge on the following:

6. 42 U.S.C. §12182(a) provides as follows:

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or
leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. ​

Now, as far as I understand it, Disney hasn't discriminated in any way. Could somebody show otherwise?

I think it's because of people with Disabilities bodys [ Central Nervous System , Organs & Blood Pressure just to name a few ] can't handle standing in line or being in the sun and heat too long or they get sick or worse . The equality would be able to still use the venues etc as anyone else who is not Disabled in a Respectful manner as a person .