GAC to Become DAS

[flynnibus]

Trust me I am sure there was a legal review to see if they could indeed ask, and I am sure Disney has access to some pretty good lawyers. The fact that even after the changes they are not asking means they determined based on current ADA regulations they can't.

That is a misquote - that's specific to service animals and their use. fosse's position is also out of context because he's using the rules about employment (title I)and believes 'by extension' that also applies to public accomodation (title III).. which is an improper leap. But we've gone down that path already

Public accommodations are ALLOWED to ask what your disability is... what they are not allowed to do is require proof of them before providing the accommodation. There are limited exceptions to that, but the general principle is the person is protected against being burdened to receive the accommodation they are entitled to by the law. Companies are conditioned to stay away from interrogating people or putting up requirements because they set themselves up to potential reject someone. And if that someone were actually entitled to the accommodation and proves it in court... the company would be liable. So companies are coached to not even attempt to validate things.. because 'proof' is not required by the customer. Reject them, and you open yourself to lawsuits.

 

[Gomer]

The new system will see just as much abuse, I think, its just that its effect will be limited by the virtue of the limit on how fast you can repeat rides.
It will be interesting to see just how many less people there will be in the FP lanes with both FP+ and the DAS combined, and just how much faster will the standby lines move.

I'd wager you might be correct when it comes to MK and Epcot. But, I'd be interested to monitor how lines are affected at AK on DHS. If they really do stick to forcing a new visit to GR every morning to stand in line and get a photo ID, I'd bet the the level of abuse at the parks with few attractions would dip significantly. As someone who uses the GAC appropriately, I'm already pretty sure I won't bother in those two parks when I can get to the rides I need to using FP alone and save myself the hassle in the morning.

It might, in turn, serve as a good experiment to see the proportional reduction in wait times at those parks vs. a park like MK where the lure of cheating the system will likely still be worth the hassle for most abusers.

 

[flynnibus]

My guess is the current regulations are in place for protection of privacy concerns, and in the United States those kinds of obstacles are hard to overcome

Nothing to do with privacy - but the top level goal of the ADA - to stop the discrimination that people with disabilities faced in their normal lives. The principle is repeated throughout the law and standards... the disabled are not to be the ones burdened with forcing people to accept them.. it is to be the NORM.

Read the opening paragraph of the ADA law and you get the pretense for what the law was written to address:

(a) Findings

The Congress finds that

(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right to fully participate in all aspects of society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination; others who have a record of a disability or are regarded as having a disability also have been subjected to discrimination;

(2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem;

(3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services;

(4) unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such discrimination;

(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities;

(6) census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally;

(7) the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; and

(8) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity.

 

[arko]

That is a misquote - that's specific to service animals and their use. fosse's position is also out of context because he's using the rules about employment (title I)and believes 'by extension' that also applies to public accomodation (title III).. which is an improper leap. But we've gone down that path already

Public accommodations are ALLOWED to ask what your disability is... what they are not allowed to do is require proof of them before providing the accommodation. There are limited exceptions to that, but the general principle is the person is protected against being burdened to receive the accommodation they are entitled to by the law. Companies are conditioned to stay away from interrogating people or putting up requirements because they set themselves up to potential reject someone. And if that someone were actually entitled to the accommodation and proves it in court... the company would be liable. So companies are coached to not even attempt to validate things.. because 'proof' is not required by the customer. Reject them, and you open yourself to lawsuits.

Agreed, and while the act cites specific examples for wheelchairs and service animals, any decent lawyer or judge can make the leap to a GAC, and Disneys well paid lawyers know that.

Employment and housing rules are different, because there is often a cost associated with making accommodations, ie having to hire someone to translate sign language or, just the cost of a special chair for someone with serious back related issues.

 

[arko]

Nothing to do with privacy - but the top level goal of the ADA - to stop the discrimination that people with disabilities faced in their normal lives. The principle is repeated throughout the law and standards... the disabled are not to be the ones burdened with forcing people to accept them.. it is to be the NORM.

Read the opening paragraph of the ADA law and you get the pretense for what the law was written to address:

Agreed

 

[arko]

Here is an example of the Federal Government objecting to a settlement by Disney to a class action lawsuit by people wanting Disney to allow people to use Segways as a wheelchair

http://www.ada.gov/briefs/disneyclassobjectionsbr.pdf

Its a very dry read but interesting in that it argues the following

Example 1: Although people who do not have mobility disabilities are prohibited from operating EPAMDs at a theme park, the public accommodation has developed a policy allowing people with disabilities to use EPAMDs as their mobility device at the theme park. The policy states that EPAMDs are allowed in all areas of the theme park that are open to pedestrians as a reasonable modification to its general policy on EPAMDs. The public accommodation determined that the venue provides adequate space for a larger device such as an EPAMD and that it does not fundamentally alter the nature of the theme park’s goods and services. The theme park’s policies do, however, require that EPAMDs be operated at a safe speed limit. A theme park employee may inquire at the ticket gate whether the device is needed due to the user’s disability and also inform an individual with a disability using an EPAMD that the theme park’s policy requires that it be operated at or below the designated speed limit.

 

[WDWLOVER1957]

And it *is* an advantage. One that literally has a financial benefit derived from it. If I can experience 20 attractions in the Mk without the GAC, but 30-40 with, your park ticket with the GAC has at least a 50% greater value than mine.

As you chose to put a financial spin on this what about people who cant transfer, they cant do as many rides as say you can so should they get a discount

 

[flynnibus]

Here is an example of the Federal Government objecting to a settlement by Disney to a class action lawsuit by people wanting Disney to allow people to use Segways as a wheelchair

The problem with this example is it's a very specific exclusion in the ADA and hence only confuses the issue when people are talking about general coverage for things like mental issues, biology, etc. The whole segway thing fall under the 'safety' exclusions for accommodation in the original law which have since been flushed out to very specific requirements for personal powered mobility vehicles.

The same over arching principles in the law have been applied to other areas without specific exclusions like people demanding to use ATVs or golfcarts, etc in areas where they are prohibited normally.

 

[flynnibus]

Agreed, and while the act cites specific examples for wheelchairs and service animals, any decent lawyer or judge can make the leap to a GAC, and Disneys well paid lawyers know that.

Not really, because these are not spelled out as 'examples' - they are explicit situations carved out with explicit rules for that scenario. A lawyer can try to argue new presedent citing these actions of the government to infer support for their position... but it's nothing like citing case law and previous interpretations to show your position has merit. They still gotta build a bridge/extrapolate and there is plenty of case law and publications from the DOJ establishing something else. Regardless... it's information being misapplied. Qualifying service dogs doesn't counter the general principles anyway. You are allowed to ask what accommodation is necessary.. and in the case of service dogs that means asking what services the dog provides.

Employment and housing rules are different, because there is often a cost associated with making accommodations, ie having to hire someone to translate sign language or, just the cost of a special chair for someone with serious back related issues.

They are different because the relationship between the parties is different. 'Public Accommodations' are about passing interactions without pretense or direct coupling. Title I (Employment) is very different from that. Title II (Public Transit) has different expectations based on government provided transportation services and the expectation that transit should be open to all.

The interactions and expectations are very different... so they are qualified in different terms to satisfy the overall pretense the law was drafted to address. Stopping intentional, or even unintentional, discrimination against the disabled.

 

[WDWLOVER1957]

How?

Asking the question shows the lack of understanding that many people have on this subject

 

[arko]

As you chose to put a financial spin on this what about people who cant transfer, they cant do as many rides as say you can so should they get a discount

I wish I could do 20 rides we usually barely get in 8 and we are done.

 

[Goofyernmost]

One thing that has to be understood is that for those that legitimately deserve access to a GAC, the unknowns of the DAS cause them to worry, especially those that have trips planned that will be affected by the changes in ways that could potentially drastically change everything that they have spent months planning. We need to be mindful of the fear and frustration that these folks are feeling, like life isn't hard enough for them to begin with.

For those that claim that a GAC provided an advantage vs equality, I disagree. That GAC may have meant the difference in experiencing 6 attractions in a day instead of 3, 2, or none. Having traveled with folks with a legitimate GAC need, it was a vacation saver. Had there been no GAC, we might as well have never left the room. With the GAC, we got my then MIL in and out of attractions quickly and when her stamina pooped out after 3 hours of park time, or less, we had still managed to have given her experiences that she enjoyed and remembered fondly. Had we not had a GAC, we would have never managed to squeeze that much magic out of our experience, because her health was failing so badly. I am forever grateful that we had that time with her at Disney. We chose Disney because they did make things easier by offering the GAC. We chose Disney because it was a family destination. Honestly, if the clock was rolled back again to when we were in the Year of A Million Dreams and this DAS thing was happening, I would probably need a straight jacket right about now worrying about if we should cancel or if the DAS was going to work. It was bad enough trying to get my MIL to agree to getting the GAC, but I somehow doubt that she would have ever let her pride take the hit by submitting to a photo linked ID. Just thinking about it puts knots in my belly. Ugh.

Then why aren't you ed at those that abused and will continue to abuse. As the number increases it will only hinder those that need it the most. Your memories are of a system that worked because the abuse was at a minimum. I don't believe that the same thing can be said anymore. Since the law doesn't allow for a more detail way of determining need there is no other way then to make it a little less worthwhile for those without real disabilities. If that can bring it back to a situation that allows for quicker access to the rides that need quicker access that will leave more time to use and enjoy the ones that do not need quicker access. There is no reason to think that the numbers of attractions will necessarily diminish, it just means that the headliners will have to be a little more carefully planned. And that puts it all on the same plain as everyone that does not use a GAC card.

 

[mickeysaver]

Then why aren't you ed at those that abused and will continue to abuse. As the number increases it will only hinder those that need it the most. Your memories are of a system that worked because the abuse was at a minimum. I don't believe that the same thing can be said anymore. Since the law doesn't allow for a more detail way of determining need there is no other way then to make it a little less worthwhile for those without real disabilities. If that can bring it back to a situation that allows for quicker access to the rides that need quicker access that will leave more time to use and enjoy the ones that do not need quicker access. There is no reason to think that the numbers of attractions will necessarily diminish, it just means that the headliners will have to be a little more carefully planned. And that puts it all on the same plain as everyone that does not use a GAC card.

Why must every post to this thread be about the abuse? Oiy.

Yes, GAC abuse happens. Yes, GAC abuse stinks. Yes, there needs to be a change to the status quo. Do I think that what we have heard about DAS is going to be helpful? I simply don't know and neither does anyone else here. However, the unknowns are difficult to contemplate for those that are going to be most affected. I just hope that Disney doesn't become a place where all families are not welcome and accommodated to the best of the parks' abilities, much like they offer now.

 

[WDWLOVER1957]

I have to agree with this, as some of those that had a gac would get their group in and then the gac person would not even get on the ride, but would wait outside the ride. I like that Disney now requires that the person actually has to get on the ride. And I am fine with that, after all wasn't that the purpose of the gac? If not, then why would you need a gac, if your not going to ride?

So now 2 people in that party will get a DAS not one, simples

 

[Goofyernmost]

Why must every post to this thread be about the abuse? Oiy.

Yes, GAC abuse happens. Yes, GAC abuse stinks. Yes, there needs to be a change to the status quo. Do I think that what we have heard about DAS is going to be helpful? I simply don't know and neither does anyone else here. However, the unknowns are difficult to contemplate for those that are going to be most affected. I just hope that Disney doesn't become a place where all families are not welcome and accommodated to the best of the parks' abilities, much like they offer now.

Only because that is why the change is happening. The post that I replied to seemed to be saying that there was no need to change anything. I'm saying because of selfish, uncaring people (not companies) there is a need to alter it to hopefully make it work better. The only thing that will change in my mind is that it will help to discourage people without a need from plugging up the lines. I sincerely doubt that those with a real need will feel any real difference other then doing a little something to help them enjoy their experience more. There will still be abusers but, the number will probably diminish because it will be less handy therefore maybe not worth the deceit to participate. Wouldn't it be a pleasure for those with problems to be able to just go to an attractions and not have everyone making a judgment as to their worthiness. I agree that it shouldn't be that way, however, until a law can be made to alter the thought patterns of people, it will continue.

 

[arko]

Not really, because these are not spelled out as 'examples' - they are explicit situations carved out with explicit rules for that scenario. A lawyer can try to argue new presedent citing these actions of the government to infer support for their position... but it's nothing like citing case law and previous interpretations to show your position has merit. They still gotta build a bridge/extrapolate and there is plenty of case law and publications from the DOJ establishing something else. Regardless... it's information being misapplied. Qualifying service dogs doesn't counter the general principles anyway. You are allowed to ask what accommodation is necessary.. and in the case of service dogs that means asking what services the dog provides.



They are different because the relationship between the parties is different. 'Public Accommodations' are about passing interactions without pretense or direct coupling. Title I (Employment) is very different from that. Title II (Public Transit) has different expectations based on government provided transportation services and the expectation that transit should be open to all.

The interactions and expectations are very different... so they are qualified in different terms to satisfy the overall pretense the law was drafted to address. Stopping intentional, or even unintentional, discrimination against the disabled.

So I just had an interesting conversation with an ADA specialist from the ADA on the question of Guest Assistance passes, and while obviously her opinion is not legally binding or anything, her interpretation was if the pass is giving access above and beyond ADA requirements they have the right to ask for some kind of proof.

Basically if they are going above and beyond the reasonable accomodations, they are implementing a system that is not subject to the more stringent rules of providing basic accomodations such as wheelchair ramps.

 

[MichWolv]

So I just had an interesting conversation with an ADA specialist from the ADA on the question of Guest Assistance passes, and while obviously her opinion is not legally binding or anything, her interpretation was if the pass is giving access above and beyond ADA requirements they have the right to ask for some kind of proof.

Basically if they are going above and beyond the reasonable accomodations, they are implementing a system that is not subject to the more stringent rules of providing basic accomodations such as wheelchair ramps.

That's probably correct, but you'd still need a version, in that case, that provided only basic accommodations and did not require proof. That would require that Disney develop two systems -- DAS for those who can verify or prove their eligibility, and another one for those who couldn't meet the proof requirements for a DAS. Too much of a pain, I suspect, unless Disney believe that its parks already meet the "basic accommodations" requirement without additional help.

 

[flynnibus]

So I just had an interesting conversation with an ADA specialist from the ADA on the question of Guest Assistance passes, and while obviously her opinion is not legally binding or anything, her interpretation was if the pass is giving access above and beyond ADA requirements they have the right to ask for some kind of proof.

Basically they are saying accomodations provided by THEIR merit, not the law, they can decide how the system works. Certainly true, but would be a nightmare in both customer service and legality. It opens them up to the notion that 'if the better perk is available, it should be a reasonable accomodation as well'... so by excluding someone from that 'better' system... they've basically just screamed to be sued under ADA provisions.

In that same grain... by 'reducing' accessibility to a degree Disney has exposed themselves to the same risk here. But there is alot of things Disney could do to argue why the old system was not sustainable. If you offer two systems... its a lot harder to argue one is not viable if you are doing it every day

I'm also curious who you called.. since there is no 'ADA' entity in itself. Just people in the DOJ and local jurisdictions responsible for interpreting the ADA and publishing things.

 

[Sped2424]

Sharpen your knives everyone, I've got an opinion.
I don't care if there is abuse in this system. I don't care if it makes me wait longer. I will happily stand in line longer, even while undeserving people weasel ahead of me, if it means that people whose daily life is a struggle can have a "magical" time at the parks. Their life is a struggle every single day, their family's life is harder than mine will ever be, if they get special treatment at the Disney parks, GOOD.
Would I like the system to be tightened up to limit the abuse while providing access to those in need, yes, and I think that this change is likely in the right direction.

Hey you are making way to much sense dude. but that was the point I was trying to make!

 

[MichWolv]

Only because that is why the change is happening. The post that I replied to seemed to be saying that there was no need to change anything. I'm saying because of selfish, uncaring people (not companies) there is a need to alter it to hopefully make it work better. The only thing that will change in my mind is that it will help to discourage people without a need from plugging up the lines. I sincerely doubt that those with a real need will feel any real difference other then doing a little something to help them enjoy their experience more. There will still be abusers but, the number will probably diminish because it will be less handy therefore maybe not worth the deceit to participate. Wouldn't it be a pleasure for those with problems to be able to just go to an attractions and not have everyone making a judgment as to their worthiness. I agree that it shouldn't be that way, however, until a law can be made to alter the thought patterns of people, it will continue.

I generally agree. I do worry about the "carefully planned" point. The disability I'm most familiar with is autism, because my older boy has mild symptoms. While we've never gotten a GAC, I know of others whose symptoms are certainly significant enough to warrant one. However, "planning" is exactly what they cannot do, because a meltdown can happen at any moment and last for any amount of time (sometimes requiring leaving the park for hours). It would be a shame if the DAS wound up being too restrictive to help such children. These are the families that actually need to be able to ride during the times the child is calm and happy and would have troubling planning ahead effectively.