Florida commission: Disney discriminated against autistic visitors

[Horizons '83]

This is a difficult situation. I can't imagine the day to day struggle of having a disability or caring for one with a disability and I feel Disney should do all it can to accommodate those visitors ( and it looks as if they have). If that means I have to wait a little longer or have an attraction stop to accommodate those visitors then that's what should be continued to be done.

My only issue is with this suit is if there is ground to stand on. How can they prove Disney hasn't done everything in reason to accommodate guests with disabilities, specifically autism?

 

[MichWolv]

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.

Agreed. The only thing the old system is relevant in regards to is proof that there are stronger accommodations that are possible and reasonable. And I don't think "others will lie and take advantage of it" is an argument against the GAC being possible and reasonable to implement. But Disney doesn't have to offer the best accommodations possible, as long as what is offered is sufficient.

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."

As happens commonly, the law defines the word differently than the dictionary.

 

[PhotoDave219]

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.

So what's the answer?

Example… A guest goes up to guest relations to get the guest assistance card for the trial. Claims they are autistic. Disney may not question that. They go through the park and get on every ride really quick because they are gaming the system.

Meanwhile you have legitimate special needs people who are getting I guess penalized because there are pieces of detritus out there that are essentially morally reprehensible for abusing the system.

I don't know what Disney can do operationally that would not result in absolute chaos. As you said, the law says they must accommodate special needs. Well if that accommodation is back dooring the guests then everybody's going to claim they are special needs and it's just going to devolve into chaos.Disney can't ask the guests to prove they are disabled. That's against the law too.

 

[PhotoDave219]

And to reiterate, if you abuse the guest assistance card, you really are a morally reprehensible case of detritus.

 

[MichWolv]

How can they prove Disney hasn't done everything in reason to accommodate guests with disabilities?

Actually, they can prove this because the GAC system provided more accommodations than DAS. So Disney isn't doing "everything". And the difficulties with GAC were with abuse from non-disabled people, which is not (legally) an argument that it isn't reasonable to allow disabled people to use GAC.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Actually, they can prove this because the GAC system provided more accommodations than DAS. So Disney isn't doing "everything". And the difficulties with GAC were with abuse from non-disabled people, which is not (legally) an argument that it isn't reasonable to allow disabled people to use GAC.

But the GAC was never legally mandatory. Yes, Disney had to do SOMETHING, but they didn't have to do it in that particular way. The law is much more general and talks about reasonable accommodations. It's this group of bureaucrat yahoos trying to define the form and function that such "reasonable accommodations" must take that's making people angry.

 

[MichWolv]

So what's the answer?

Example… A guest goes up to guest relations to get the guest assistance card for the trial. Claims they are autistic. Disney may not question that. They go through the park and get on every ride really quick because they are gaming the system.

Meanwhile you have legitimate special needs people who are getting I guess penalized because there are pieces of detritus out there that are essentially morally reprehensible for abusing the system.

I don't know what Disney can do operationally that would not result in absolute chaos. As you said, the law says they must accommodate special needs. Well if that accommodation is back dooring the guests then everybody's going to claim they are special needs and it's just going to devolve into chaos.Disney can't ask the guests to prove they are disabled. That's against the law too.

And that's the problem. There is no good answer. I think Disney has struck a reasonable balance. The courts will eventually decide whether the balance Disney has struck is in accordance with the law.

I continue to believe that the most likely outcome of this is tying DAS into FP+, with a provision allowing DAS users to schedule FPs one a time, with return time equal to the standby wait time when they schedule, coupled with a card or something that can be shown at non-FP attractions once an hour (or something like that) for immediate boarding. The only thing that I could reasonably see Disney trying to eliminate is the requirement to go to the attraction to get a time, and then go away and come back. I have met some autistic kids who could have a melt-down at such a situation. By allowing the reservation to be made via smartphone or kiosk, you avoid the "go away and come back" part.

 

[Horizons '83]

I really hate the politics and lawyering that goes on with large corp's...

 

[MichWolv]

But the GAC was never legally mandatory. Yes, Disney had to do SOMETHING, but they didn't have to do it in that particular way. The law is much more general and talks about reasonable accommodations. It's this group of bureaucrat yahoos trying to define the form and function that such "reasonable accommodations" must take that's making people angry.

I agree with you. I was just responding to the comment that they can't prove that Disney isn't doing "everything possible". Disney isn't doing "everything possible", but they don't have to, either.

 

[Hakunamatata]

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

.

I guess my point is that there are any number of times that people with autistic kids are required to wait. Even if you are given priority boarding status, there still is a waiting time for the plane to arrive.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I really hate the politics and lawyering that goes on with large corp's...

Yes. I hate that they have to lawyer up to protect themselves as well.

 

[flynnibus]

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

Because their argument is simply the accommodation doesn't address their covered disability.. not that getting a pass in itself is discriminatory. The discrimination comes from their exclusion.. resulting from the lack of accommodation for their specific need. It all boils down to if the accommodation fits their disability's needs.

 

[Katie G]

Disney can't ask the guests to prove they are disabled. That's against the law too.

this

 

[flynnibus]

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

Yes, but they still had to get there early enough for their baggage, security, etc.. which means lots of waiting

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Because their argument is simply the accommodation doesn't address their covered disability.. not that getting a pass in itself is discriminatory. The discrimination comes from their exclusion.. resulting from the lack of accommodation for their specific need. It all boils down to if the accommodation fits their disability's needs.

Please don't use the "quote" feature to make it look like I said something that I did not say.

 

[Katie G]

I wonder if they could give a booklet of some kind to those that specifically request it for autistic children (since that kind of disability is different than someone who is in a wheelchair and has no problem waiting) that has x number of fastpass slips in it for your party up to 4+the disabled person or whatever the current limit is. That way they can guarantee their kid gets on the magical number of rides a regular guest gets on, but they don't have all day access to front of the line like they got with GAC. They give those slips of paper out to guests when a ride gets shut down when you are already in line, so they already have them available by park. Seems like a quick easy fix.

To be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with the DAS as it works today. But if you had to add an accommodation for those individuals that think the DAS isn't working, this might be a quick & relatively easy fix. Still would have issues with Fraud since Disney can't ask for proof of your disability.

 

[flynnibus]

Please don't use the "quote" feature to make it look like I said something that I did not say.

Simple editing/typo - fixed

 

[LondonGopher]

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.

Not that I would ever suggest that the nanny state mentality here in England has anything to teach America......BUT in England, France and much of the EU, if you want a special accommodation - you have to provide a bit of proof.

When I go to one of the Merlin parks (they own LEGOLAND, Chessington, Alton Towers) with a friend who has a child on the autistic spectrum - she MUST bring said proof to Customer Service before any special accommodation can be approved. It is done discreetly and respectfully. I have also been through the same process at DLP. Again, discreet and quick.

***I understand that ADA specifically forbids asking for proof but for invisible disabilities like autism...things might just have to change. This may be a battle Disney will have to fight.***

I am specifically thinking about the rampant GAC abuse at DL/DCA (somebody posted the percentages for Radiator Springs Racers...was it something like 20% of rides done on a GAC during a surveyed period? Help me out if you remember the post!). This is the massage that Disney needs to get out there...over and over.

MOST people are generally happy to wait a few minutes for special needs kids, but MOST people also hate being made to feel like chumps. The perception of injustice shortens many fuses.

The feeling I am left with after reading the original post...no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[flynnibus]

***I understand that ADA specifically forbids asking for proof but for invisible disabilities like autism...things might just have to change

I'm of the same camp to some degree. The original law was written much narrower in terms of what was covered. Later revisions to the law explictly expanded the law to include these VERY broad ranges of life impacts that effectively created these problems where businesses can never win.

A good example of 'old' vs 'new' thinking when it comes to looking at physical impairments is how we looked at epilepsy. Old thinking said "hey, we need to WARN people so they can protect themselves and make smart choices". 'new' thinking says "hey, you can't include those things in your shows incase someone has epilepsy'

 

[PhotoDave219]

I'm of the same camp to some degree. The original law was written much narrower in terms of what was covered. Later revisions to the law explictly expanded the law to include these VERY broad ranges of life impacts that effectively created these problems where businesses can never win.

A good example of 'old' vs 'new' thinking when it comes to looking at physical impairments is how we looked at epilepsy. Old thinking said "hey, we need to WARN people so they can protect themselves and make smart choices". 'new' thinking says "hey, you can't include those things in your shows incase someone has epilepsy'

This is why venues with light shows like House of Blues (for example) have those warnings. I'm much more old school in that people need to take responsibility as so they are properly warned.

I'm interested to see where the courts will rule with this new decision. Youre the resident lawyer, any thoughts on how this affects the lawsuits as a whole?