Florida commission: Disney discriminated against autistic visitors

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
There are going to be individuals in every group including the disabled and the families of the disabled who will abuse any system Disney offers unfortunately.
That's like saying "there are always going to be drugs, so let's not bother arresting the guy selling crack outside the high school."

Yeah, any system is going to be abused, but let's try and cut that down by 1) making it more difficult to abuse, and 2) limiting the incentive to abuse.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
That's all fine and well, but it's also EXTREMELY specific to your particular situation. The fact is, whatever system is in place is the same system for someone with Asperger's disorder, Heller's syndrome, plantar fasciitis, a broken ankle, and a guest who just says "I need that." Each condition, and each specific individual within each type of condition, has unique needs that would best accommodate them. There's no system on earth that will accommodate every particular individual in exactly the perfect way.
All true but not relevant to the point I was making. The poster said my process would work fine with or without GAC and I was responding to that comment.

I am in favor of DAS as a compromise. Always have been. But to say that the loss of GAC doesn't hurt some who legitimately needed it would be untrue.
 
Last edited:

arko

Well-Known Member
That's all fine and well, but it's also EXTREMELY specific to your particular situation. The fact is, whatever system is in place is the same system for someone with Asperger's disorder, Heller's syndrome, plantar fasciitis, a broken ankle, and a guest who just says "I need that." Each condition, and each specific individual within each type of condition, has unique needs that would best accommodate them. There's no system on earth that will accommodate every particular individual in exactly the perfect way.

The GAC was a lot more general and so it covered a lot more situations. Its general fast access is also what made it such a target of abuse. It's why these parents are so upset, the GAC wasn't removed because the majority of the disabled abused the system, it was removed because for the most part those with no disabilty abused the system.
But most even those who preferred the GAC agree that once the cat was out of the bag so to speak Disney was left with little choice but to downgrade the system to what we have today.
So saying all that I can sympathise but doubt they have much of a case, other than Disney not following through on the following statement
Special Accommodations for Specific Circumstances The DAS card, with its virtual wait, will accommodate many of our Guests with disabilities. We recognize, however, that our Guests with disabilities have varying needs, and we will continue to work individually with our Guests to provide assistance. In unique situations, our Guest Relations staff will discuss special accommodations for persons who are concerned the DAS Card doesn't meet their needs (e.g., for those whose disability limits the duration of their visit to the park or limits their choice of attractions). All accommodations will be made in person, on site at Guest Relations. We are unable to provide accommodations in advance of a Guest visit.
 

arko

Well-Known Member
That's like saying "there are always going to be drugs, so let's not bother arresting the guy selling crack outside the high school."

Yeah, any system is going to be abused, but let's try and cut that down by 1) making it more difficult to abuse, and 2) limiting the incentive to abuse.
thats true but current ADA language limits what Disney can do, and the DAS is about the limit without breaking the law, and that is being challenged in the courts right now.
Even the DAS is subject to abuse as was evidenced at DLR, where people were getting more than one per family and basically using it as unlimited FP return tickets. The fact that WDW did not have to implement changes to combat this shows how much it was an AP issue there vs WDW.
 

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
So if there is a meltdown because of a loud noise, is getting on a ride quicker going to solve this problem?
Solve? No. There is no "solution" for autism. But I'm sure you know, having worked with autistic kids, that once a meltdown has happened, it takes much less to trigger another meltdown, at least for a little while. Of course, that's true of neurotypical kids as well -- it's just that the meltdowns are more likely/frequent for autistic children.

I'll give two examples where GAC would have avoided a meltdown by my (hyperlexic) child, but DAS might or might not have. Note that we never used GAC or DAS, feeling that 1) it was meant for people with more serious issues that our son, and 2) he really prefers to do things like everybody else, except when he can't.

1. We had FPs for Space Mountain, and started heading there from Adventureland, only to be caught by the parade. Bad planning on our part. He lost it, thinking that we wouldn't be able to ride. He was inconsolable for about 3-4 minutes. Then we were able to explain to him that it would be fine, and he was fine. Wouldn't have happened with GAC as we wouldn't have a FP time to ride -- we'd just go and ride. DAS, by requiring us to leave and come back, could result in the same thing happening.

2. Went to get FPs for Test Track. He wanted to ride right away, but we showed him the FPs, and he grudgingly agreed that he could wait. By FP time, the ride had gone 101 and was down the rest of the time we were in the park. While everybody who wanted to ride was disappointed, our boy melted down because we were there when it was open but didn't ride, and lost our chance because we decided to come back. That one took about 20 minutes to get over. Again, GAC would've "solved" it because we'd have ridden when we first showed up. DAS wouldn't necessarily, because we'd still have to leave and come back (I have no idea how long it was after we got FPs that ride went 101).

For us, neither of those situations were too horrible, as our boy got over it with only a little time lost. But for some, the meltdowns are more serious, so I understand why they'd want Disney to offer them the most flexible assistance at avoiding the triggers. Whether Disney is legally obligated to do so, I don't know. And whether these plaintiffs are just trying to take advantage, I don't know.
 

MarthaMartha1

New Member
I'll give two examples where GAC would have avoided a meltdown by my (hyperlexic) child, but DAS might or might not have. . . .

I'd like to thank you and Gomer for giving specific examples of why the GAC could help in ways that the DAS might not. It still seems to me that DAS is reasonable, but I have a much better understanding of how the GAC helped families of autistic kids now.
 

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
I'd like to thank you and Gomer for giving specific examples of why the GAC could help in ways that the DAS might not. It still seems to me that DAS is reasonable, but I have a much better understanding of how the GAC helped families of autistic kids now.
You're welcome. I too think that DAS is quite reasonable and should work in just about every situation, but, I suspect, not all. Like @Gomer, I think DAS is a reasonable accommodation, but I can see legitimate reasons why, for some, GAC worked and DAS doesn't.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
But for some, the meltdowns are more serious, so I understand why they'd want Disney to offer them the most flexible assistance at avoiding the triggers.

This is exactly the issue. for some a meltdown can be stopped and forgotten in a half hour. For others it can last a lifetime. When my son was 3 he fell down and skinned his knee in a blockbuster video. Had probably one of the worst meltdowns of his life. For his entire life after that he would be inconsolable anytime he saw a Blockbuster video. He would freak out and scream and beg not to go there. He also gets upset anytime we go into a Subway (who doesn't) because there happened to be one next to that blockbuster and the entire video store reeked of their bread. The blockbuster logo and scent of Subway's bread are burned into his brain and cause immediate issues.

Now luckily for me, Netflix put blockbuster out of business, and I can't stand subway. So, these are not critical issues for me. But if this were to happen to WDW, that would be problematic on many levels. We would lose the behavioral and educational benefits he draws from it as well as keeping the rest of the family from enjoying their favorite vacation destination. A GAC used at an opportune time aided us in never allowing a WDW based meltdown to get to that "blockbuster" level so that he could have the time and opportunity to learn to cope.

This is not to say I expect WDW to be meltdown-free. We always have at least one of one intensity or another. But the key is in limiting the extent, violence, and intensity of the meltdown so that he does not turn away from WDW forever. Through that process he learned to cope better and now enjoys WDW so much that its the easiest place in his life to pull him back from that precipice. When we're in WDW, he is almost typical in his ability to handle his emotions.
 

gljvd

Active Member
If Disney has to bring back the old way then I will vista the world less often. The constant stopping and starting of rides was quite annoying and while I understand people have needs when it takes 25 minutes to go through the haunted mansion as an example then there is certainly a problem.

The new format works very well, I have an aunt who needs new lungs and she can't stand for long periods but with the ability to come back after a waiting time and get right in with fast pass she was able to do the whole park in a single day without any problems.

I also have to complain about fake service dogs. I work retail and I'm highly allergic to dogs but we've had people bring in service dogs and they would get upset and complain to my bosses when I could not help the. Apparently break out into hives and sneezing like crazy isn't enough for them. I actually got taken to court by one of them and it turned out that she bought a vest for the dog online .
 

gljvd

Active Member
She was a crazy lady that's all I could make of it. She was recently divorced and was given a dog and got very attached and treated it kinda like her kid. She bought vests for it online that said service dog and would take it to movies and what not.

Before the judge would see us , we went to mediation and the mediator asked me why I wouldn't help her. I explained that I'm highly allergic to dogs . I even took the time to go to the Dr and get a test done for allergic reactions. The the mediator started to ask the lady why she had the dog and how she got it and where her paper work was. Apparently like with Disabilities you can't actually ask to see proof that its a real service dog but the court could. She couldn't provide any and so everything got dropped and I took out a restraining order.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
This ADA lawsuit has come up a few times on these threads, generating a great deal of debate each time. For those of you who might be interested in the less emotional aspects of the lawsuit, I decided to put together the following.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 and strengthened in 2008. It passed with near-unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans. The two parties might be partisan on most issues, but ADA is not one of them.

ADA protects those with physical or mental disabilities from discrimination. ADA specifies that discrimination occurs when there is “a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations”.

ADA applies to private companies such as Disney that sell goods or services to the public. Amusement parks are specifically cited in ADA. By law, WDW must comply with ADA.

ADA requires Disney to take proactive steps to eliminate discrimination due to disability at its theme parks.

For those with mobility issues, Disney must build ramps, provide accessible buses, and alter hotel rooms. Disney must provide braille menus or alternatives for the blind. Disney must assist those with hearing disabilities. Disney has spent tens-of-millions of dollars in order to comply with this aspect of ADA.

Disney also must do something for those with mental disabilities, which is why it created the Disability Access Service (DAS). To be clear, Disney did not create DAS because it is being magnanimous. It created DAS because Disney is legally obligated to create something like it.

ADA has limitations. It uses terms such as “reasonable modifications” and “fundamentally alter” to define those limits. (I’ll explain these in a bit.) Above all, ADA places safety first. Safety trumps the rest of ADA. Companies sometimes try to stretch the definition of safety because they know if they win this argument, they’ll win the case.

Some ADA cases have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a relatively well-known case, a PGA golfer with a physical disability wanted to use a golf cart during tournament play. The PGA fought him and lost.

One of the footnotes in this PGA v. Martin ruling outlines the basic legal principles the Courts consider when making an ADA ruling:

As we have noted, the statute contemplates three inquiries: whether the requested modification is "reasonable," whether it is "necessary" for the disabled individual, and whether it would "fundamentally alter the nature of" the competition.​

For the plaintiffs in the Disney lawsuit to win their case, they must prevail on all 3 points.

Necessary Modification

The plaintiffs must show that what is being requested is a “necessary modification”.

This is where I believe the plaintiffs’ case is weakest.

A necessary modification means the modification is required in order to accommodate the disability. In most successful ADA lawsuits, the plaintiffs’ need for the modification was obvious. Often it was uncontested.

In the Disney lawsuit, neither side disputes that some modification is necessary. However, the two sides disagree on how much of a modification is needed.

Disney has offered the plaintiffs DAS, a fair modification. The plaintiffs claim that DAS is insufficient.

For this point, the plaintiffs need to show that the modifications they seek are necessary, which is made more difficult given Disney’s willingness to provide them with something that's fair.

Prior rulings suggest that it’s insufficient for the plaintiffs to get on the stand and claim, “I need this modification”. A statement of need is not proof of need, and the Courts generally have not showed much sympathy for this tactic. Usually, it requires corroborative evidence to support the claim. Autism is a well-established mental disability but getting on the stand and crying about “my child’s life challenges” is not going to win the case in court.

IMO, the plaintiffs need to present expert medical testimony to support their claim. If they don’t, then prior rulings suggest Disney will win.

Even if the plaintiffs present expert testimony, Disney can counter with its own experts. It could come down to a judge deciding whose testimony is more persuasive.

One thing to keep in mind is that Autism is a spectrum disorder. What works for one person with Autism might not work for another. Thus, today’s finding that Disney discriminated wasn’t because Disney failed to provide a modification; it was because DAS was a “blanket accommodation that did not take into account the nuances between various disabilities”.

Reasonable Modification

Prior rulings suggest that the Courts do not define a “reasonable modification” to be one that’s ‘fair’ or ‘equal’ to those without disabilities. The Courts don’t seem to be applying the “reasonable person” standard to this. Instead, the Courts have ruled that it’s perfectly acceptable to provide those with disabilities with preferential treatment, if this preferential treatment is needed in order to accommodate the disability.

Taking this one step further, the Supreme Court ruled that an “accommodation is not reasonable if it imposes undue financial and administrative burdens”. Thus, it appears that the correct interpretation of an “unreasonable modification” is one that creates an excessive burden for the defendant (i.e. Disney).

Given Disney’s considerable financial resources, I don’t see how Disney wins this point.

Fundamental Alteration

Unlike the first two points, the burden of proving that something is a “fundamental alteration” is on the defendant (i.e. Disney).

Generally, the Courts have used a high standard when determining whether something is a fundamental alteration. An alteration does not make it a fundamental alteration. The use of the qualifier “fundamental” explains why the Courts have used this high standard.

Based on the reasoning applied in PGA v. Martin, it appears that if an entity has a way to easily modify its rules in order to accommodate a disability, then it does not rise to the standard of a fundamental alteration.

Disney already offers FP and FP+, which offer limited express line access to all Guests. Furthermore, front line supervisors have the authority to distribute additional complementary FP/FP+ for numerous reasons. Providing additional complementary FP/FP+ in order to accommodate a legally protected disability certainly would not seem to constitute a fundamental alteration.

As with "reasonable modification", don’t confuse “fundamental alteration” with ‘fair’. You and I might think it’s unfair for someone with a disability to receive preferential treatment. However, this does not fundamentally alter the nature of an attraction, especially since Disney already offers an express line for most attractions. The allotment of FP+ is a rule that Disney easily could modify to accommodate someone with a disability.

What would I consider to be a fundamental alteration?

IMO, requiring a roller coaster to operate at (for example) 5 MPH to accommodate a person’s disability would be a fundamental alteration. By its very nature, a roller coaster is fast and bumpy. Slowing it down to 5 MPH would be a fundamental alteration. It would alter its essence.

What does it mean?

According to today’s article, Disney “Argued that the complaints failed to prove that the Disability Access Service program hasn’t accommodated their disability”. I believe this is in response to the “necessary modification” inquiry. IMO, this is Disney’s best line of attack. I don't place much weight in the commission's finding since I suspect they were more sympathetic than the Courts might be.

The article doesn’t mention anything about “fundamental alteration” or “reasonable modification”. It would be interesting to learn if these points were raised at all to the commission.

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?
 

MarthaMartha1

New Member
She was a crazy lady that's all I could make of it. She was recently divorced and was given a dog and got very attached and treated it kinda like her kid. She bought vests for it online that said service dog and would take it to movies and what not.

Before the judge would see us , we went to mediation and the mediator asked me why I wouldn't help her. I explained that I'm highly allergic to dogs . I even took the time to go to the Dr and get a test done for allergic reactions. The the mediator started to ask the lady why she had the dog and how she got it and where her paper work was. Apparently like with Disabilities you can't actually ask to see proof that its a real service dog but the court could. She couldn't provide any and so everything got dropped and I took out a restraining order.
That experience must have been very stressful for you! I'm so sorry to hear that a crazy lady put you through all that.
 

MarthaMartha1

New Member
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?
Answering though I'm not parentsof4 . . . Personally, I'm not sure. On one hand, maybe it weakens Disney's position because having a more permissive policy in the past proves that a more permissive policy is possible. On the other hand, maybe it strengthens their position because all the fraud proves that a more permissive policy doesn't work.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Answering though I'm not parentsof4 . . . Personally, I'm not sure. On one hand, maybe it weakens Disney's position because having a more permissive policy in the past proves that a more permissive policy is possible. On the other hand, maybe it strengthens their position because all the fraud proves that a more permissive policy doesn't work.

Which brings up another question, have they ever given any indication as to how wide spread the fraud was?
 

MarthaMartha1

New Member
Which brings up another question, have they ever given any indication as to how wide spread the fraud was?
That I don't know. I imagine they might supply evidence in court, plus maybe they have evidence that the GAS caused longer waits or interrupted rides too much or whatever. But I haven't seen anything other than anecdote. Maybe someone else has?
 

SoupBone

Well-Known Member
I am honestly ed. I cannot wait until the rampant abuse gets worse if Disney actually loses in federal court. When everyone starts abusing the hell out of the system and even the "skip every line" crowds end up waiting in lines because of it, I'm going to laugh my head off at them. Disney has gone above and beyond with accommodations, and the entitlement crowd still wants more.

Just so I'm clear too about laughing at the long lines this will create in the "no line" section, I'm talking about how this will backfire laughingly because of this suit. The idiots that abuse the system are going to create havoc for those that truly need the GAC.
 
Last edited:

SoupBone

Well-Known Member
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, wait in line for a restroom or make it through the line at check out at the grocery store.

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.
 
Last edited:

ILOVEDISNEY

Active Member
Have you noticed that 'Handicap' spots tend to have expensive cars in them... At least up here they do, Rarely do you see a handicap car with adaptive equipment but you do see the Escalades, BMW's and Acuras with the 'Windy Brae Country Club' membership decals proudly displayed along with the HCAP plate or hang tag...

Really?
 

photomatt

Well-Known Member
Solve? No. There is no "solution" for autism.
For us, neither of those situations were too horrible, as our boy got over it with only a little time lost. But for some, the meltdowns are more serious, so I understand why they'd want Disney to offer them the most flexible assistance at avoiding the triggers. Whether Disney is legally obligated to do so, I don't know. And whether these plaintiffs are just trying to take advantage, I don't know.

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:
Special Accommodations for Specific Circumstances The DAS card, with its virtual wait, will accommodate many of our Guests with disabilities. We recognize, however, that our Guests with disabilities have varying needs, and we will continue to work individually with our Guests to provide assistance. In unique situations, our Guest Relations staff will discuss special accommodations for persons who are concerned the DAS Card doesn't meet their needs (e.g., for those whose disability limits the duration of their visit to the park or limits their choice of attractions). All accommodations will be made in person, on site at Guest Relations. We are unable to provide accommodations in advance of a Guest visit.

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.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom