Florida commission: Disney discriminated against autistic visitors

[gmajew]

You hate to say it but some people are just horrible human being s that will fake an illness or disability to get special treatment in parks. Those people deserve the hell they get.

I have an aunt that was disabled bound to a wheelchair her entire life and she loved disney. She hated the fact that she got to go to the front of the lines and had to have the ride held as my dad or uncles life's her in the cars and people had to wait for this to happen. But she loved going and always was so happy being their. Disney made her feel special!

I know have a full autistic nephew that is 12 years old cannot talk at all but is the most special kid I have ever met. I took him to disney and he loved it. We stood in line when he was doing good like everyone else and cast members asked us to go ahead and we said no he is good but thank you. Then when he was not doing good and you know it when they are not we used the card and got our special time.

The kid was in heaven smiled all the time never wanted to get off the rides but he was an angel all day and I feel it was purely because of the way disney took care of him and his visit.

They don't discriminate if anything they always try to go above and beyond for those that really need it. It is those horrible people that try to cheat the system that deserve to be sued.

 

[danlb_2000]

I am ecstatic by the Commission's findings and this is what Disney gets for tossing the truly disabled to the wayside and kowtowing to the group who abused the GAC into oblivion in the first place. HA, HA, HA, HA!!! KARMA.

It is only a matter of time before Disney realizes that they made a "deal with the devil" and will redeem themselves by giving this pass back to those it was originally intended.

So you show two people in wheelchairs, how is the new policy unfair to people in wheel chairs?

 

[doctornick]

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.

That's the question. Is what is currently offered "sufficient" (or "reasonable")? Unfortunately, the ruling as linked doesn't to me clarify in what specific way it is not sufficient. I think the devil is in the details and depending on why this commission feels Disney's accommodation is not "sufficient" might mean they need a slight tweak -- or it might mean the system needs to be blown up and started anew.

 

[danlb_2000]

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.

I know they cannot question a disability but couldn't they require proof from a doctor? That proof wouldn't need to say what the disability is, just what limitations the person has due to the disability.

 

[BuzzKillington]

This is why we can't have intelligent conversations without threads getting locked. People come in with ridiculous emotional posts and hyperbole.

What is ridiculous about my post? The GAC was doing just fine until those with invisible disabilities bullied their way into the mix. The ADA is going to have to lighten-up and require those with invisible disabilities to produce a letter from a doctor well in advance of being approved for a GAC. This will eliminate a lot of abuse particularly by those who have mild sensory disorders that could benefit long-term from having to manage a queue. I am sick and tired of these so-called parents milking the system with their kid's slight sensory disorders.

 

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

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.”

All other "patrons" wait in lines for a long period of time to experience a ride.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What is ridiculous about my post? The GAC was doing just fine until those with invisible disabilities bullied their way into the mix. The ADA is going to have to lighten-up and require those with invisible disabilities to produce a letter from a doctor well in advance of being approved for a GAC. This will eliminate a lot of abuse particularly by those who have mild sensory disorders that could benefit long-term from having to manage a queue. I am sick and tired of these so-called parents milking the system with their kid's slight sensory disorders.

Now this I agree with. My problem was with your ridiculous "deal with the devil" analogy. It seemed to be your implication that Disney was somehow screwing over those in the pictures you attached.

 

[flynnibus]

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?

To be clear, no lawyer -- but well read, extremely logical and detail oriented To make an informed statement on that, one would probably look at how this entity's findings have been cited before successfully... research I'll never do What I would say off the top of my head sitting in this hotel after being up for nearly 35hrs.. is the fed doesn't define themselves by the states. I would imagine its would be seen more like other expert testimony and not seen like other comparable findings in other superior courts with precedence. There is hierarchy when it comes to citings of other decisions.

The lawyer will want to present opinions to support their juxtaposition.. and this apparently does just that. And of course needs to be another charge Disney would have to cater a response to.

Sounds like a significant win for the plantiff IMO.

 

[flynnibus]

I know they cannot question a disability but couldn't they require proof from a doctor? That proof wouldn't need to say what the disability is, just what limitations the person has due to the disability.

No, the law is written with the intent that the disabled should be able to experience the public just like everyone else. If they ask for help, they should get it, and not have to PROVE they need the help. The constraints come in on how far someone must EXTEND that help - hence 'reasonable accommodation'.

To have to prove your needs or limitations is seen as an additional burden on those who the law is trying to mainstream.

 

[BuzzKillington]

So you show two people in wheelchairs, how is the new policy unfair to people in wheel chairs?

If there is one group who is clearly being discriminated against by the new system, it is those who are wheelchair bound. Not only do they have to wait in the standard queue due to not being eligible for DAS but then they have to wait another 5 to 15 minutes for a wheelchair accessible ride vehicle to come around. Fair?

 

[EOD K9]

I have a question, if the plaintiffs want front of the line passes, what happens when they are directed to the FP line which has a small wait. Do they have a front of the front of the line pass? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. How much/many accommodations can be made?

 

[arko]

What is ridiculous about my post? The GAC was doing just fine until those with invisible disabilities bullied their way into the mix. The ADA is going to have to lighten-up and require those with invisible disabilities to produce a letter from a doctor well in advance of being approved for a GAC. This will eliminate a lot of abuse particularly by those who have mild sensory disorders that could benefit long-term from having to manage a queue. I am sick and tired of these so-called parents milking the system with their kid's slight sensory disorders.

The GAc was doing just fine until people with no disabilities started using it to game the system. Those with invisible disabilities are still disabled, as much as you would like to seperate them from your personal definition of who is and who is not deserving. I mean using your argument, why should someone in a wheelchair get a DAS, I mean they are already sitting down wherever they are(Understand this is not my view just showing the poster how his view can be turned around). Pleas stop generalising those with autism as having mild sensory issues, as those issues vary from person to person and can be very severe.

We used the GAC starting in 2004 for our now teenage son, and it helped tremendously, it allowed us to slowly build up his tolerance to waiting in line when he was in a receptive mood and to move in and out when he was not. Now that he is older we are able to manage using FP+ and maybe the dAS once or twice a day, but we generally are still limited to maybe 4 hours max on any given day before he has had enough. Like some others in a meltdown situation he woudl flee from the stressor, but now htat he is 6 feet tall, he could accidentally hurt someone while trying to flee.
The GAC worked fine for years with very little backlash. It was when it started to be abused by those who discovered its benefits and found out you could get one no questions asked that it became a real problem. The internet made it easy for to spread this info around. If you look at many of the complaints people were indicating that the most popular rides had serious GAC related issues. The simple fact is most autisic kids woudl not go near rides like Space Mountain or thrill rides in general. Even today my son has tried BTMRR once and kept his eyes closed the whole time and it was enough for him. The only real loser in the switch to the DAS was those whom the GAC benefitted the most. But Disney really had no choice other than to ask for proof which it is unwilling to do because it believes it would be breaking the law.

That being said, the only real possible part of the DAS that Disney may get hit on is the line that reads the following

• What will Disney Parks do if a Guest is concerned the DAS Card doesn’t meet their needs?
  Disney Parks have long recognized and accommodated guests with varying needs and will continue to work individually with guests with disabilities to provide assistance that is responsive to their unique circumstances. Guests should visit Guest Relations to discuss their individual needs.

There are many indications that this was happening right after the change to the DAS, but stopped soon after the lawsuit was filed. This finding will help the federal case on that point alone I think. Meaning Disney will have to up their game on what they will do beyond the DAS for those who ask.

 

[sshindel]

In 2013, Disney ended its previous program, the Guest Assistance Card, because the older program was abused by wealthy people who hired guests with disabilities to take them to the front of a line.

I dunno, I stopped reading at the bolded statement. I thought it was pretty much pointed out that the program was modified because of general, overall abuse, not just the class-warfare-esque small handful of "wealthy" people hiring disabled tour guides. Might be a small thing to quibble about, I know, but it sets an odd tone for the rest of the piece when it gets the reason for the change incorrect within the first few paragraphs.

 

[arko]

I have a question, if the plaintiffs want front of the line passes, what happens when they are directed to the FP line which has a small wait. Do they have a front of the front of the line pass? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. How much/many accommodations can be made?

They do not want front of the line passes, they want what they had before, which is essentially FP unlimited. The GAC never provided front of the line access, and in some cases on rides that did not have FP, you could actually wait longer. But on the rides with FP, the benefits were tangible and in the age of the internet became abused by those who had no disabilities.

 

[arko]

I dunno, I stopped reading at the bolded statement. I thought it was pretty much pointed out that the program was modified because of general, overall abuse, not just the class-warfare-esque small handful of "wealthy" people hiring disabled tour guides. Might be a small thing to quibble about, I know, but it sets an odd tone for the rest of the piece when it gets the reason for the change incorrect within the first few paragraphs.

the rich guest issue was the one that was widely reported in the media because it was the most sensational example of abuse, and its easy to dislike the rich for behaving poorly.Understand it was probably as a percentage a very small amount of the abuse as it is quite expensive. The worst cases were not even at WDW they were at DLR where AP holders would come every weekend and flood the place with GAC users who had no disability.

 

[sshindel]

the rich guest issue was the one that was widely reported in the media because it was the most sensational example of abuse, and its easy to dislike the rich for behaving poorly.Understand it was probably as a percentage a very small amount of the abuse as it is quite expensive. The worst cases were not even at WDW they were at DLR where AP holders would come every weekend and flood the place with GAC users who had no disability.

Right. It did get more media attention than general abuse did, but that lasted for a couple days and disappeared in the 24 hour news cycle. It was not the reason they changed the GAC program. The article didn't need that sentence to make it's point, and IMO lessened the impact of the rest of the article when they had an incorrect statement at the very top of the article.

 

[arko]

If there is one group who is clearly being discriminated against by the new system, it is those who are wheelchair bound. Not only do they have to wait in the standard queue due to not being eligible for DAS but then they have to wait another 5 to 15 minutes for a wheelchair accessible ride vehicle to come around. Fair?

I am going to use your logic, so why exactly should someone in a wheelchair get a DAS if the regular line can accomodate their chair. As per ADA they are getting fair and equal access the same as everyone else. Understand there are many reasons why someone in a wheelchair shoudl have a DAS, but none of them have anything to do with the simple act of having to be in a wheelchair itself.

 

[arko]

Right. It did get more media attention than general abuse did, but that lasted for a couple days and disappeared in the 24 hour news cycle. It was not the reason they changed the GAC program. The article didn't need that sentence to make it's point, and IMO lessened the impact of the rest of the article when they had an incorrect statement at the very top of the article.

agreed but the real reasons were more boring than a rich person behaving badly, so the writer of the article went with the easy out.

 

[EOD K9]

They do not want front of the line passes, they want what they had before, which is essentially FP unlimited. The GAC never provided front of the line access, and in some cases on rides that did not have FP, you could actually wait longer. But on the rides with FP, the benefits were tangible and in the age of the internet became abused by those who had no disabilities.

Ok, so while GAC never was intended to have FOTL access, it was at times treated as such. So, are the plaintiffs then ok with a ten minute FP wait, then go around and do another ten minute wait? Is that how I understand that? Thanks for your previous clarification.

 

[wm49rs]

What is ridiculous about my post? The GAC was doing just fine until those with invisible disabilities bullied their way into the mix. The ADA is going to have to lighten-up and require those with invisible disabilities to produce a letter from a doctor well in advance of being approved for a GAC. This will eliminate a lot of abuse particularly by those who have mild sensory disorders that could benefit long-term from having to manage a queue. I am sick and tired of these so-called parents milking the system with their kid's slight sensory disorders.

Disorders that you of course can simply sense. Or, not, and you're just piling on the same load of prattle you've always done. Under this account or numerous others....