Florida commission: Disney discriminated against autistic visitors

[ILOVEDISNEY]

I would like to know why my post stating that life is not fair was deleted?

 

[peter11435]

I would like to know why my post stating that life is not fair was deleted?

Because life isn't fair.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Do you think it weakens Disney's position any that they did have a more permissive policy but changed it to a less permissive one?

Technically, GAC was not an unlimited FP system but Disney allowed it to be used like one for years. I want to believe that Disney let the system operate that way because it was being sympathetic to those with special needs, not because it was taking the easy road by not enforcing its own written policy. I would hate to see Disney lose now because it was being generous then.

I read the Florida Commission on Human Relations' notice of determination and saw no mention of Disney contesting on grounds of safety, reasonable modification, or fundamental alteration. At least for now, it seems that Disney has acknowledged through its silence that the old GAC system demonstrated that what that plaintiffs seek is safe, is a reasonable modification, and is not a fundamental alteration. Disney really should have contested these points if it felt otherwise. It could be that these points are beyond the scope of the commission, although their website mentions ADA in several places.

So, to answer your question, yes, it appears that Disney's many years of operating GAC has weakened its position since it shows that what the plaintiffs seek fits within the limitations specified in ADA.

Let's put aside the distractions and get to the point of why Disney made this change, which is buried in Disney's response in the notice:

"However, the GAC program resulted in abuse and fraudulent misuse, which was widespread and continuing."​

In a nutshell, this is the only reason Disney made the change.

Anyone who follows Disney's theme parks closely knows that the new DAS system already has been subject to the kind of fraud Disney was trying to prevent by eliminating GAC. It appears Disney is trying to combat that fraud by making DAS even more restrictive. Where is it going to end?

Ultimately, I'd like to see the case decided by the law. As I described earlier on this thread, I believe the case hinges on the plaintiffs proving that the modifications they seek are necessary. Disney is contesting this point, as stated in the notice:

"Complainant has failed to show that the DAS card program has not accommodated their disability. It reasonably accommodates guests with disabilities who are not able to wait in a conventional queue environment and provides the level of accommodation required by law."​

To me, it seems as if the commission simply accepted the plaintiffs' word that modifications beyond DAS were needed. I don't think the Courts will be so 'understanding'.

P.S. If you are unfamiliar with some of the terms I used, please read my earlier post on the subject, which I link to here.

 

[ILOVEDISNEY]

Because life isn't fair.

Touché!

 

[ILOVEDISNEY]

Technically, GAC was not an unlimited FP system but Disney allowed it to be used like one for years. I want to believe that Disney let the system operate that way because it was being sympathetic to those with special needs, not because it was taking the easy road by not enforcing its own written policy. I would hate to see Disney lose now because it was being generous then.

I read the Florida Commission on Human Relations' notice of determination and saw no mention of Disney contesting on grounds of safety, reasonable modification, or fundamental alteration. At least for now, it seems that Disney has acknowledged through its silence that the old GAC system demonstrated that what that plaintiffs seek is safe, is a reasonable modification, and is not a fundamental alteration. Disney really should have contested these points if it felt otherwise. It could be that these points are beyond the scope of the commission, although their website mentions ADA in several places.

So, to answer your question, yes, it appears that Disney's many years of operating GAC has weakened its position since it shows that what the plaintiffs seek fits within the limitations specified in ADA.

Let's put aside the distractions and get to the point of why Disney made this change, which is buried in Disney's response in the notice:

"However, the GAC program resulted in abuse and fraudulent misuse, which was widespread and continuing."​

In a nutshell, this is the only reason Disney made the change.

Anyone who follows Disney's theme parks closely knows that the new DAS system already has been subject to the kind of fraud Disney was trying to prevent by eliminating GAC. It appears Disney is trying to combat that fraud by making DAS even more restrictive. Where is it going to end?

Ultimately, I'd like to see the case decided by the law. As I described earlier on this thread, I believe the case hinges on the plaintiffs proving that the modifications they seek are necessary. Disney is contesting this point, as stated in the notice:

"Complainant has failed to show that the DAS card program has not accommodated their disability. It reasonably accommodates guests with disabilities who are not able to wait in a conventional queue environment and provides the level of accommodation required by law."​

To me, it seems as if the commission simply accepted the plaintiffs' word that modifications beyond DAS were needed. I don't think the Courts will be so 'understanding'.

P.S. If you are unfamiliar with some of the terms I used here, please read my earlier post on the subject, which I link to here.

So, you are saying no good deed goes unpunished?

 

[MichWolv]

Please forgive my ignorance, and I hope this question does not offend. Do you have any documentation to prove your child has the issues you describe? Do parents of autistic children have documentation of their issues? I honestly don't know, which is why I am asking. My point is that if parents of children with special needs can provide this information, then Disney should accept it and offer something similar to the old GAC.

Here is my logic for this. Here is a quote from a previous post:

Guests should try the new DAS, but if it does not work for them, then the guest should voluntarily be willing to provide official, medically-based proof that it does not work for them. Disney should accept this and then do whatever it takes to accommodate the special needs guest. This seems totally reasonable, and it would minimize abuse. Disney would provide DAS to anyone who asks for it, without asking for any proof of a special need. If DAS does not work, then the guest would have the option of proving it does not work for them, and then Disney would make whatever changes need to be made. Disney would never ask for this proof, the guest would voluntarily provide it. I would support this completely. It would allow those who need it to have access to a system that works for them, and it would reduce fraud.

If the problem remains that Disney can't ask for proof of a special need, or even accept it if it's given voluntarily, then this is what needs to change.

I think Disney should do whatever it takes to accommodate those with special needs when the DAS has been tried and it does not work. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask families to be willing to provide this proof when they want to be provided something different than the DAS.

I realize that this might be a little contradictory to some of the things I said at the beginning of this thread. The fact is that my anger is directed at those who abuse the system, and those that choose to litigate in court rather than seek other solutions. Disney wastes millions on unnecessary litigation and this is one example of that.

No need to apologize at all. As for documentation, it's hard to figure out what would be convincing. Sure, I have official documents indicating "Autism" for my son, but that's about as specific as having documentation of "pain". Unless you know the severity of the symptoms, you have know idea what accommodations are needed. And no doctor is going to write a "prescription" for GAC-like treatment. And we are talking about unexpected unusual things that may or may not trigger meltdowns.

I believe part of the complaints that some have is that Disney isn't actually working wi those who say they need more, despite Disneys policy saying they will do so.

 

[Goofnut1980]

I have RLS (Restless Leg Syndrome) and I cannot stand in line for a period of time. Does that qualify me for program so I don't have to wait?

 

[StarWarsGirl]

I have RLS (Restless Leg Syndrome) and I cannot stand in line for a period of time. Does that qualify me for program so I don't have to wait?

Restless Leg Syndrome, correct me if I'm wrong, is primarily classified as a sleeping disorder and affects people when they are getting ready to rest, not when they are standing up or moving.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

I would like to know why my post stating that life is not fair was deleted?

You would do best, if you are confused after going over the terms of service, to send a message to a moderator inquiring about the post as opposed to asking here.

 

[Gomer]

Or you know, all of life's lines. There are so many hundreds of examples of this. Restaurants, grocery store, airlines, etc. LIFE is full of LINES.

EDIT: Also, I have an autistic cousin and niece, one who is functional at an intermediate to high level, and one that is more on the intermediate to low range, so I'm fully aware of how an autistic child can act.

This same question has been addressed multiple times in this thread and others.

Quick version. Not all lines are created equal. Environment and expectations play a big role. The end result of a grocery store line or airline security is inconsequential to many with autism. Standing in that line may be no different than sitting on a couch in their living room because they likely have no care for the end state. So these lines are easier to handle. (Like asking someone to wait an hour for dinner. If its steak you might be mad. If its brussel sprouts you might not care as much) Waiting for a ride sets expectations of the reward at the end of that line. And as people with autism have trouble with understanding the passage of time, a 15 minute wait could feel like a year. (Example: if you've ever seen your autistic relative ask for the same thing over and over and over even though only seconds have passed and its on its way. This is them losing their focus on linear time and not understanding how long they've been waiting)

Add in the agitating factors of a WDW line (sweaty smelly people, loud noises, strong smells, close quarters, hot temperatures) and you have lines that can be more problematic to someone with autism.

And even with those factors, this is not to say non WDW are a walk in the park either. I spend a great deal of my life finding ways to avoid lines with my son where possible. We don't do restaurants...only takeout really. We shop at off hours. Take days off from work to do various activities with my son when there are lower crowds, etc...

This is not to say that I think all people with autism should be exempt from all lines (before people start jumping down my throat) but to fall back on the same tired argument about "lines throughout life" is reductive and misunderstands the underlying problems that create an issue with waits in the first place.

 

[SoupBone]

This same question has been addressed multiple times in this thread and others.

Quick version. Not all lines are created equal. Environment and expectations play a big role. The end result of a grocery store line or airline security is inconsequential to many with autism. Standing in that line may be no different than sitting on a couch in their living room because they likely have no care for the end state. So these lines are easier to handle. (Like asking someone to wait an hour for dinner. If its steak you might be mad. If its brussel sprouts you might not care as much) Waiting for a ride sets expectations of the reward at the end of that line. And as people with autism have trouble with understanding the passage of time, a 15 minute wait could feel like a year. (Example: if you've ever seen your autistic relative ask for the same thing over and over and over even though only seconds have passed and its on its way. This is them losing their focus on linear time and not understanding how long they've been waiting)

Add in the agitating factors of a WDW line (sweaty smelly people, loud noises, strong smells, close quarters, hot temperatures) and you have lines that can be more problematic to someone with autism.

And even with those factors, this is not to say non WDW are a walk in the park either. I spend a great deal of my life finding ways to avoid lines with my son where possible. We don't do restaurants...only takeout really. We shop at off hours. Take days off from work to do various activities with my son when there are lower crowds, etc...

This is not to say that I think all people with autism should be exempt from all lines (before people start jumping down my throat) but to fall back on the same tired argument about "lines throughout life" is reductive and misunderstands the underlying problems that create an issue with waits in the first place.

I understand that, and also have experience with this as I posted. It's not a tired argument because it's a perfectly valid one. I've also been very vocal about the fact that Disney must find a way to balance helping people that need it and booting the abusing that forced the removal of the GAC. I wish it were as easy as perma-banning the idiots that pay disabled people to guide them through the parks, but it isn't.

I also understand that the environment of WDW itself escalates a child with autism due to the excitement factor. So Disney resolves the issues of lines altogether (in most cases) by creating a way to fastpass the lines by scheduling and returning at a certain time. This still isn't good enough for the entitled group. Notice I'm not saying the autistic families? There's a difference between the people I'm calling out and those that feel they are entitled to the unlimited fastpasses. I truly feel for those that need the GAC and unlimited fastpasses because ultimately, they are going to suffer if Disney loses and the entitlement crew goes crazy in the parks abusing it worse than before.

 

[ford91exploder]

Really?

Yes in MY state that is generally the case, Local TV stations have done a bunch of investigative reports to no avail.

 

[ford91exploder]

I understand that, and also have experience with this as I posted. It's not a tired argument because it's a perfectly valid one. I've also been very vocal about the fact that Disney must find a way to balance helping people that need it and booting the abusing ***** that forced the removal of the GAC. I wish it were as easy as perma-banning the idiots that pay disabled people to guide them through the parks, but it isn't.

I also understand that the environment of WDW itself escalates a child with autism due to the excitement factor. So Disney resolves the issues of lines altogether (in most cases) by creating a way to fastpass the lines by scheduling and returning at a certain time. This still isn't good enough for the entitled group. Notice I'm not saying the autistic families? There's a difference between the people I'm calling out and those that feel they are entitled to the unlimited fastpasses. I truly feel for those that need the GAC and unlimited fastpasses because ultimately, they are going to suffer if Disney loses and the entitlement crew goes crazy in the parks abusing it worse than before.

I think as many have stated before a physicians note sent preferably directly to Disney would fix many of the issues and make the card valid for say 1-2 years to lighten the load on both physicians and parents. In my opinion the card should carry the picture of the holder as well to simplify things.

Then you could go back to a system like the OLD GAC without much of the abuse, there still will be SOME but you will never root out ALL the abuse.

 

[Gomer]

I understand that, and also have experience with this as I posted. It's not a tired argument because it's a perfectly valid one. I've also been very vocal about the fact that Disney must find a way to balance helping people that need it and booting the abusing ***** that forced the removal of the GAC. I wish it were as easy as perma-banning the idiots that pay disabled people to guide them through the parks, but it isn't.

I also understand that the environment of WDW itself escalates a child with autism due to the excitement factor. So Disney resolves the issues of lines altogether (in most cases) by creating a way to fastpass the lines by scheduling and returning at a certain time. This still isn't good enough for the entitled group. Notice I'm not saying the autistic families? There's a difference between the people I'm calling out and those that feel they are entitled to the unlimited fastpasses. I truly feel for those that need the GAC and unlimited fastpasses because ultimately, they are going to suffer if Disney loses and the entitlement crew goes crazy in the parks abusing it worse than before.

The arguments in this post are valid and I completely agree. But it is the previous post I take issue with. That one is not so much an argument as it is a zinger or applause line that pops up every 5 pages or so by people who have either not read previous explanations, people who choose to ignore the nuance of the issue, or those who just desperately want to make this issue black and white.

The part that bothers me most about those repeated assertions is that they are tainted with the implication (although I don't think intended in your case) that all GAC users are liars. Everyone goes to grocery stores right? So, obviously they must wait on lines. So clearly this is not something they need. Therefore, if that argument istrue...all GAC users are abusing the system. Unfortunately that argument reduces the issue to the least common denominator and ignores all nuance and facts about the causes of waiting issues and differences in queuing situations.

Doesn't matter though. People will continue to pop in every few pages and make the same statements ignoring all past explanation. Its the nature of these threads. I think I'm just getting tired of writing the same explanation over and over and over again to seemingly make absolutely no progress in understanding of the issue.

 

[TheInquisitor]

I'm not seeing how having a previously superior (to the plaintiffs) system would work against Disney. As long as the new system is in line with the law, they should be well within their rights to change anything.

I also don't think abuse is the only factor, but the sheer amount of people requesting the GAC. It shouldn't be that hard to prove that the FP lines were much longer than they are now with the DAS. And the program mimics programs used by other related companies.

I don't think requiring proof to get the old GAC would even work, honestly. It seems like everyone thinks their kids are severe enough to qualify for that, and how would Disney even decide who is severe enough and who isn't? Having doctors notes sent over would require another department to review them and create some kind of account for them.

 

[rct247]

Most people really don't mind the DAS. It's a select few that raise a stink. Of those, a tiny fraction have good reason while the majority of those against are comfortable with the past, don't like change, and are out to prove it doesn't work. Big difference, these folks automatically come up frustrated to you and complain and you look down to see a blank card. They put on a good show too usually. Occasionally you'll find a parent truly struggling and in most cases, I've seen exceptions made by cast, but you know... seeing thousands of people daily, they get pretty good at figuring out what's authentic and what is an exaggeration.

 

[flynnibus]

There's no system on earth that will accommodate every particular individual in exactly the perfect way.

Actually - that's part of Disney's problem - trying to solve everything with a uniform system. Instead of doing what the law set out for people to do.. which is listen to a specific need, and address it.

 

[flynnibus]

Guests should try the new DAS, but if it does not work for them, then the guest should voluntarily be willing to provide official, medically-based proof that it does not work for them. Disney should accept this and then do whatever it takes to accommodate the special needs guest

If you 'volunteer' the info doesn't matter at all. Because if Disney were not NOT grant the accomodation to someone who didn't 'volunteer' the info... that is the same thing as REQUIRING the info

If DAS does not work, then the guest would have the option of proving it does not work for them, and then Disney would make whatever changes need to be made. Disney would never ask for this proof, the guest would voluntarily provide it. I would support this completely. It would allow those who need it to have access to a system that works for them, and it would reduce fraud.

Except it has two flaws. Disney is obligated by law to give the second tier you describe, and they are obligated by law to give it those who describe their limitations. Disney can't make providing info a condition of getting that service if the point of the service is to accomodate a covered disability. Simply calling it 'voluntarily' doesn't change the meaning. If it's necessary to get something, its no longer 'voluntarily'.

This is why I highlighted earlier in the thread of how the DOJ has considered 'proof' in subject matters where safety and abuse were matters of concern. There is precedent - just not actual standing guidance and acceptance from the DOJ on needing to qualify disabilities like these.

 

[MarthaMartha1]

Yes in MY state that is generally the case, Local TV stations have done a bunch of investigative reports to no avail.

I know this is off topic but . . . what difference does it make what kind of cars are parked in disabled spaces? Disability doesn't afflict only the poor. Most disabilities that require a hangtag don't require a car with adaptive equipment. I don't understand why any tv station would bother investigating.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Actually - that's part of Disney's problem - trying to solve everything with a uniform system. Instead of doing what the law set out for people to do.. which is listen to a specific need, and address it.

But it also makes that very thing illegal. Disney must address specific needs but they're not allowed to ASK about specific needs.