Florida commission: Disney discriminated against autistic visitors

[JohnD]

"The commission determination found that the DAS program would not allow a disabled visitor “to enjoy the park as it was intended to be enjoyed by all other patrons.”

Really? Do they want their clients in a two hour standby line? That would be the same as enjoyed by all other patrons.

Or what about guests with FP+? The new disability policy is comparable to that. I would argue it's better than FP+ because you get to come right up and request immediately a time to come back. With FP+ you have to schedule your attraction time. If you wait too long, you may not even get a FP+ for it all.

I don't claim to understand autism and I feel for families who have loved ones with it. But giving into impatience is hardly a solution to the problem. What happen if an elevator doesn't come when you want it. Or not get seated immediately at a restaurant?

I can also see this ruling is ripe for fraud. How many families are all of a sudden going to have loved ones with autism just to get to the front of the line.

All this will do is force Disney to cancel the program so as not to deal with the aggravations. The only winners in all of this will be the lawyers ($$$$).

 

[MichWolv]

No one has to visit to Walt Disney World. It's not a requirement to live; it's nothing more than a luxury.

This is not relevant to the legalities. The laws require those who sell goods and services to provide reasonable accommodations. While the goods and services are a necessity, a luxury, or a complete waste of money is not relevant to the legal issue.

Disney has made very reasonable accommodations with the implementation of DAS, while cutting down on fraud.

I agree, based on what I know. However, I also know enough about disabilities to know that I can't always figure out what will and won't be difficult for people facing them.

I can not understand how anyone can claim it's unreasonable to wait for a ride when they don't have to wait in line. It is my understanding that DAS allows guests to make a reservation for a ride, wait anywhere for that time to come, and then get immediate access to the ride. The only difference is that they don't get immediate access to every single ride they want, they have to wait somewhere until their reservation. How on earth could this be unreasonable?

It does not seem unreasonable to me either. I believe the best argument one could make is that an autistic child may only be able to reasonably handle, let's say, 4 hours in a park, vs the 8 that a child without such difficulties can handle. The argument would then go that Disney should be required, if it is reasonable possible to do so, to allow the autistic child to accomplish as much in 4 hours as the neurotypical child can accomplish in 8. Because Disney isn't doing that, and could reasonable do so, the argument would then be that Disney isn't in compliance.

So I'm wondering how in the world people who can't stand in line due to kids with autism managed to queue up to board the plane to get to Florida.

Actually, airlines allow families with autistic children to board first, unless there is a security issue.

People have sadly abused the system to the point where it is nearly impossible to provide comfortable conditions to all guest with actual disabilities

And this is part of the argument as well. It wasn't the autistic children or their families who abused the system, so it isn't reasonable to "punish" them. Said differently, the argument is that if it is necessary to tolerate some abuse in order to accommodate, then that is what Disney must/should do.

 

[KaliRiver2015]

Some people just don't understand. I have a disability and it's hard for me to stand for a long time. But, I do it and wait patiently when I meet a character. Speaking of which. If the Angelina Maleficent character comes back out. I would wait four hours to meet her. Because Maleficent is my favorite Disney Character.

You don't have to stand. You go off and do your thing until your scheduled time.

 

[Magenta Panther]

So, is Disney now going to have to make POTC, or any other ride, wheelchair accessible if Johnny or Suzie who have autism and are wheelchair bound and want to ride 25 times in a row? Where will it end?

The Haunted Mansion is barely worth riding anymore when the park is crowded. It gets stopped multiple times so that people in wheelchairs can get on and off. It wasn't built to accommodate that kind of thing. I agree, where will it end?

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, and they should sit at the back of the bus and use separate drinking fountains...GET OFF. Disney has bent over backwards to accommodate people and children with issues, and then, when the system got abused, it amended it. Now there's a flurry of allegations and lawsuits, and it's ridiculous. If a child can't handle the realities of a theme park - the crowds, the lines, the noise, whatever - then maybe he/she shouldn't be taken to one. There are other places a child can be taken - camping, movies (theaters can be booked for special groups - at least, they can in my area) and so on. Courtesy works both ways. This commission's findings are ludicrous. Again, I hope Disney ignores them.

The challenge is finding the middle and balancing ability with accessible. The stupidity is when people start out with positions like you did of 'you don't deserve to goto amusement parks' -- that is the kind of discrimination the law started out to squash from the start.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The challenge is finding the middle and balancing ability with accessible. The stupidity is when people start out with positions like you did of 'you don't deserve to goto amusement parks' -- that is the kind of discrimination the law started out to squash from the start.

His (her) point is that NOBODY "deserves" amusement parks because amusement parks are not a thing to be "deserved."

 

[MichWolv]

The Haunted Mansion is barely worth riding anymore when the park is crowded. It gets stopped multiple times so that people in wheelchairs can get on and off. It wasn't built to accommodate that kind of thing. I agree, where will it end?

Surely you aren't upset a making accommodations for people who actually need wheelchairs, are you?

 

[MichWolv]

His (her) point is that NOBODY "deserves" amusement parks because amusement parks are not a thing to be "deserved."

Which is not relevant to the legal issue.

 

[KaliRiver2015]

It would fall under discrimination due to medical conditions not being able to be met. People with autism can't handle crowded places as in a line. As dreamfinder pointed out there was a person with autism that would re-ride Snow White numerous times in a day. He knew every person on the ride and they all knew him. It was extremely soothing and fun for him to do it. I believe they don't even visit the park anymore after they changes was done to the GAC pass.

They aren't standing in line- they receive their scheduled time and come back. I went to WDW with my severely autistic nephew in December. We would get our time, and then go on rides with no or little wait, or get a snack or see a show untilit was his time to ride.

 

[Magenta Panther]

The challenge is finding the middle and balancing ability with accessible. The stupidity is when people start out with positions like you did of 'you don't deserve to goto amusement parks' -- that is the kind of discrimination the law started out to squash from the start.

Where did I say "don't deserve"? I said that children with issues who can't handle theme park realities should perhaps be taken elsewhere, as it's likely they wouldn't enjoy the experience anyway. You can stop trying to make me sound like I have a problem with the children themselves. I don't. I may have issues with the parents of those kids who bring their children into situations that seem prime for upsetting them, and then the parents get mad at everyone but themselves if the child has a breakdown. That's hardly responsible or intelligent parenting IMO.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Which is not relevant to the legal issue.

It doesn't speak to the legality of how it ought to be ruled, but it absolutely speaks to the entitlement mentality that led to the lawsuit being brought in the first place.

 

[flynnibus]

What Disney should actually be doing is forming a collition of popular spots and lobby the DOJ and congress to tighten up the ADA. But politically that is a very difficult tightrope and given our society's eagerness to paint people in a negative light.. almost impossible to 'win'.

Even something like when things exceed a certain threshold of usage, they are allowed to implement some more levels of screening, etc to ensure capacity/accommodations are available for those truly in need, etc. Or even approach the topic validating needs, through doctors, etc.

 

[HunterJ]

As the father of a non-verbal autistic son, I am proud to say this is utter BS.

When at WDW last October, we were treated fairly and more often then not, allowed to go straight to the ride.

Shame on people using their child's condition in this way.

Well this is a bunch of crap. What is autistic Jimmy going to do when he comes of age and enters the real world? ? What is Trust Fund Jenny going to do when she comes of age and enters the real world?

Probably the same thing, "I'm entitled, gimme gimme gimme"

And sorry, but that is quite rude. More than likely my son will never be able to live alone in the 'real world', and many of those that are truly on the spectrum may not be able to be on their own.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Surely you aren't upset a making accommodations for people who actually need wheelchairs, are you?

I'm using the Mansion as an example of overcompensation in that regard. If the ride gets continually disrupted, NOBODY gets the full experience. So nobody wins. Yay!

 

[flynnibus]

Where did I say "don't deserve"? I said that children with issues who can't handle theme park realities should perhaps be taken elsewhere, as it's likely they wouldn't enjoy the experience anyway

No, you contrasted it with things necessary to LIVE and hence decided (for them) these things need not be accessible. Imagine if Disney started excluding YOU from the parks and said 'well you dn't need it to live, so why are you complaining??'

I know what you are saying about their ability - the problem is with the broad brush you paint and honestly the insulting statements you make trying to articulate your belief.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I've seen this card in action as I have gone around the Disney parks with disabled friends before. You show the card to be the guy/gal working the front of the fast pass queue. You get your time to come back. And you come back in you get an abbreviated wait. It's very simple and very straightforward.

I do not understand how that system discriminates against anybody. Everyone is treated equally.

 

[ILOVEDISNEY]

Bottom line what these parents want is is the right to go on any ride or attraction, or meet any character, without any wait whatsoever, which will be the final decision by the courts since the big election is coming up next year. Pity Disney if they have to close a ride or attraction and an autistic child or adult is upset once this ruling takes effect. Disney might as well close all the theme parks right now.

 

[doctornick]

I've seen this card in action as I have gone around the Disney parks with disabled friends before. You show the card to be the guy/gal working the front of the fast pass queue. You get your time to come back. And you come back in you get an abbreviated wait. It's very simple and very straightforward.

I do not understand how that system discriminates against anybody. Everyone is treated equally.

Yes, I'm really curious how the commission determines that "reasonable accommodate" was not met. More specifically, what exactly is "unreasonable" about Disney's current system towards these guests.

I'm not saying it's perfect or ideal for those guests -- but no accommodation can be. And I realize that "reasonable" is kinda squishy when it comes to a definition, but saying that autistic people cannot "enjoy the park as it was intended to be enjoyed by all other patrons" seems pretty loaded without specific examples of this being the case. Immediate and unlimited front of the line access pretty much leaps well beyond "enjoying the park as it was intended to be enjoyed by all other patrons".

 

[MichWolv]

I've seen this card in action as I have gone around the Disney parks with disabled friends before. You show the card to be the guy/gal working the front of the fast pass queue. You get your time to come back. And you come back in you get an abbreviated wait. It's very simple and very straightforward.

I do not understand how that system discriminates against anybody. Everyone is treated equally.

That's not what the law says. The law requires that you treat those with disabilities DIFFERENTLY to give them as close to the same experience as others. And it requires, if necessary and reasonable, differing special treatment for different disabilities. Disney does the first, but, according to the complaint, doesn't do the second, and should be required to do so.

I don't see the DAS process as being a problem, but I have no doubt that some do have trouble with it. And some others are just trying to take advantage.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That's not what the law says. The law requires that you treat those with disabilities DIFFERENTLY to give them as close to the same experience as others. And it requires, if necessary and reasonable, differing special treatment for different disabilities. Disney does the first, but, according to the complaint, doesn't do the second, and should be required to do so.

I don't see the DAS process as being a problem, but I have no doubt that some do have trouble with it. And some others are just trying to take advantage.

I see two major problems with the ruling.

1. They're using the "old system" of accommodating GWDs as evidence that the "new system" is discriminatory. The fact that the policy isn't "as good" as the old policy doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it. It's like if the law says you need to have two handicapped parking spaces at a restaurant and you sue because there USED to be three so now that there are only two it's discriminatory.

2. The ruling (and the ADA generally) misuses the very word "discrimination." The issues at hand are not "discrimination" by the common sense English definition of the word. At worst, they're "failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act," which is not the same as "discrimination."