New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[Chi84]

My understanding is, it might not currently be covered under ADA policy but that’s only because of lack of precedent.

I think that at a minimum Disney would want to be very very careful about mentioning any kind of paid product because if it’s mentioned as necessary for the person, Disney could potentially be required to provide it for free. Or worse, accused of directing people who need accommodations to use their paid product in place of Disney providing accommodations.

It’s unsettled territory but it may well end up in court and I can’t imagine Disney isn’t keenly aware of that.

ADA policy is set out in the actual Act and supplemented by the Department of Justice regulations. There is nothing about line accommodations in either. The best way to get such accommodations would be groups lobbying lawmakers to do so.

Precedent refers to court decisions, which deal with the facts in particular cases. Court decisions don’t make rules, they rule on whether a plaintiff’s rights under the ADA were violated.

DAS is Disney’s own program. The question in a court case would not be whether a person was entitled to DAS but whether Disney refused to extend a reasonable accommodation to a disabled person, considering the impact on Disney’s business.

I’m fairly certain court challenges will take place, but I think Disney feels pretty sure about its position.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I’m fairly certain court challenges will take place, but I think Disney feels pretty sure about its position.

In general maybe, but on the specific topic of telling someone to use Genie+ to manage a disability? There’s just no way. I don’t have a legal background but I know that much from being in the workplace. You never imply that something is both needed to manage a disability and that the disabled person is responsible for paying. Especially if it’s a product you’re actively selling. It’s not guaranteed a company would lose in court in that case, but as a preventative / risk management measure, I think any legal team would say just don’t go there. Say Genie+ is strictly for fun, period.

 

[wbostic12]

Quick housekeeping note/question, shouldn’t this thread have the rumor tag removed?

 

[Chi84]

In general maybe, but on the specific topic of telling someone to use Genie+ to manage a disability? There’s just no way. I don’t have a legal background but I know that much from being in the workplace. You never imply that something is both needed to manage a disability and that the disabled person is responsible for paying. Especially if it’s a product you’re actively selling. It’s not guaranteed a company would lose in court in that case, but as a preventative / risk management measure, I think any legal team would say just don’t go there. Say Genie+ is strictly for fun, period.

Oh I agree that Disney wouldn’t tell a person with a disability that they should buy Genie+ instead of offering a reasonable accommodation.

But there are people who will not qualify for DAS. What I said earlier was there would be no need to mention Genie+ because it’s widely advertised.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Oh I agree that Disney wouldn’t tell a person with a disability that they should buy Genie+ instead of offering a reasonable accommodation.

Sorry if that was unclear, I’m uncertain of the details in the situation ditzee mentioned. It sounded to me like the CM was saying to use Genie+ because only certain disabilities qualify for DAS. If the customer asked “Is there any way a person visiting Disney doesn’t have to wait in a physical line?” though, then in that case mentioning Genie+ would just be an honest answer to the question.

 

[lazyboy97o]

DAS was previously extended to people with disabilities other than autism or similar. Now Disney is no longer extending the program to those people.

Only after trying to essentially make it an autism only pass.

 

[ditzee]

What part of the ADA are you citing? Telling someone they don’t qualify for a Disney program not mandated by the ADA just means they don’t qualify. If they don’t qualify for the program, there is nothing stopping them from buying Genie+.

I'm saying the CM suggesting Genie+ as an accommodation is a no no.

 

[Splash4eva]

If there’s an implication that they’re saying Genie+ is a needed accommodation, it would look bad in court. They could be accused of telling a disabled person to pay for needed accommodations, which is illegal.

Genie+ is supposed to be for convenience and fun. I assume Disney’s legal team wants CMs to stay far far away from mentioning it as a way to manage a disability at the parks.

All im saying is if someone is denied DAS access & they suggest Genie which is no major secret i dont see any issues especially if they are offering this magical return to queue option… seriously tho i really dont see any major issues

 

[Splash4eva]

If a CM told a disabled guest they weren’t allowed to park in the handicap lot but they could pay for premium parking if they didn’t want to walk… that would certainly be an issue.

Of course, in that example, the car will have a handicap tag or not - it’s not up to CM’s to decide. Which is part of the issue with all of this.

But its already been established das is gonna be limited going forward…. Listen dont ge me wrong Disney completely botched this imo but suggesting other alternatives along with the ones they claim will be new versions to help those now denied is not a legal nightmare imo

 

[Chi84]

I'm saying the CM suggesting Genie+ as an accommodation is a no no.

I’m not sure why a CM would ever suggest Genie+ as an alternative to a reasonable accommodation.

My question was based on your statement that a CM would be violating the ADA by suggesting that a person who previously got DAS but didn’t get it in the future could get Genie +.

I don’t think a CM would do that because it would sound pretty unsympathetic and probably wouldn’t be well-received.

 

[DisneyHead123]

All im saying is if someone is denied DAS access & they suggest Genie which is no major secret i dont see any issues especially if they are offering this magical return to queue option… seriously tho i really dont see any major issues

The issue is that anyone with a disability is supposed to be offered reasonable accommodations at no cost. It is illegal to charge money for a reasonable accommodation.

The thing is that what "disability" and "reasonable accommodation" mean are up for debate. And my understanding is that often, no one really knows until somebody decides to take a case to court and a judge weighs in. Until then, everyone is kinda guessing about what the courts would hypothetically say but don't know for sure.

If a CM tells a guest who has panic attacks that they should just buy Genie+ in order to skip lines, they are rolling the dice. If it goes to court and the ability to bypass a physical theme park line is not considered a "reasonable accommodation" in the case of panic attacks - well ok. If it goes to court and the ability to bypass a physical theme park line is considered a reasonable accommodation - well then, Disney has been asking people to pay for their accommodations, which is illegal.

 

[Chi84]

The issue is that anyone with a disability is supposed to be offered reasonable accommodations at no cost. It is illegal to charge money for a reasonable accommodation.

The thing is that what "disability" and "reasonable accommodation" mean are up for debate. And my understanding is that often, no one really knows until somebody decides to take a case to court and a judge weighs in. Until then, everyone is kinda guessing about what the courts would hypothetically say but don't know for sure.

If a CM tells a guest who has panic attacks that they should just buy Genie+ in order to skip lines, they are rolling the dice. If it goes to court and the ability to bypass a physical theme park line is not considered a "reasonable accommodation" in the case of panic attacks - well ok. If it goes to court and the ability to bypass a physical theme park line is considered a reasonable accommodation - well then, Disney has been asking people to pay for their accommodations, which is illegal.

Wouldn’t the result be exactly the same whether or not the CM tells the person to buy Genie+? It would be the denial of a reasonable accommodation that would violate the ADA.

It seems some confusion is being generated by the fact that Disney is now charging for what was previously a free system for all. It’s not as though they are charging a disabled person for a service not available to others - like charging extra for wheelchair seats in a theater.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Wouldn’t the result be exactly the same whether or not the CM tells the person to buy Genie+? It would be the denial of a reasonable accommodation that would violate the ADA.

It seems some confusion is being generated by the fact that Disney is now charging for what was previously a free system for all. It’s not as though they are charging a disabled person for an accommodation not available to others - like charging extra for wheelchair seats in a theater.

Steering people towards paid services that act as accommodations is also problematic. It would be like if a theater had obstructed view basic level accessible seats and then made sure to point out that the premium accessible seats do not have an obstructed view.

 

[Splash4eva]

The issue is that anyone with a disability is supposed to be offered reasonable accommodations at no cost. It is illegal to charge money for a reasonable accommodation.

The thing is that what "disability" and "reasonable accommodation" mean are up for debate. And my understanding is that often, no one really knows until somebody decides to take a case to court and a judge weighs in. Until then, everyone is kinda guessing about what the courts would hypothetically say but don't know for sure.

If a CM tells a guest who has panic attacks that they should just buy Genie+ in order to skip lines, they are rolling the dice. If it goes to court and the ability to bypass a physical theme park line is not considered a "reasonable accommodation" in the case of panic attacks - well ok. If it goes to court and the ability to bypass a physical theme park line is considered a reasonable accommodation - well then, Disney has been asking people to pay for their accommodations, which is illegal.

Listen i get they cant charge and im on the side where i feel the % of people getting DAS is NOT high.. 8% especially when Disney is very generous in who they allow access to… the problem arises from how this group is taking up a huge proportion of capacity which i honestly dont believe the high high numbers reported but either way tthat lies in their policy of guest size pre books etc which they are addressing as well but by eliminating any group going forward with potentially no realistic alternative is going to be a nightmare all to make more money

 

[Chi84]

Steering people towards paid services that act as accommodations is also problematic. It would be like if a theater had obstructed view basic level accessible seats and then made sure to point out that the premium accessible seats do not have an obstructed view.

That’s not at all comparable.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Wouldn’t the result be exactly the same whether or not the CM tells the person to buy Genie+? It would be the denial of a reasonable accommodation that would violate the ADA.

I think at a minimum park goers who paid for Genie+ could ask to be reimbursed for it, although as it's not that expensive maybe that's not a huge deal to Disney. But beyond that, I think it could look very bad in court - disabled theme park goers made to pay for their own accommodations. What the legal implications of that are I don't know, but I assume it's the type of scenario Disney would want to avoid.

It seems some confusion is being generated by the fact that Disney is now charging for what was previously a free system for all. It’s not as though they are charging a disabled person for an accommodation not available to others - like charging extra for wheelchair seats in a theater.

What many have said is that when FastPass+ was free they could use that as an accommodation without needing an "official" accommodation. That was great so long as it lasted, but now that it's gone, people are reporting that it's created a need for accommodations. I say reporting because I don't claim to know how many of those people genuinely need accommodations and how many are the dreaded TikTok Fakers. It's almost certainly a mix of both. But for at least some percentage of people, the loss of FastPass+ genuinely created a need.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Listen i get they cant charge and im on the side where i feel the % of people getting DAS is NOT high.. 8% especially when Disney is very generous in who they allow access to… the problem arises from how this group is taking up a huge proportion of capacity which i honestly dont believe the high high numbers reported but either way tthat lies in their policy of guest size pre books etc which they are addressing as well but by eliminating any group going forward with potentially no realistic alternative is going to be a nightmare all to make more money

I was just responding to why CMs can't mention Genie+ as an alternative to DAS. In terms of the big picture of how Disney solves this in the long run - I don't know. In a perfect world, they ramp up capacity so much that it's not a big issue. In the real world, who knows?

 

[Chi84]

I think at a minimum park goers who paid for Genie+ could ask to be reimbursed for it, although as it's not that expensive maybe that's not a huge deal to Disney. But beyond that, I think it could look very bad in court - disabled theme park goers made to pay for their own accommodations. What the legal implications of that are I don't know, but I assume it's the type of scenario Disney would want to avoid.


What many have said is that when FastPass+ was free they could use that as an accommodation without needing an "official" accommodation. That was great so long as it lasted, but now that it's gone, people are reporting that it's created a need for accommodations. I say reporting because I don't claim to know how many of those people genuinely need accommodations and how many are the dreaded TikTok Fakers. It's almost certainly a mix of both. But for at least some percentage of people, the loss of FastPass+ genuinely created a need.

This type of accommodation is different from most. In most cases, non-disabled guests are not paying extra for the accommodation given to a disabled guest. Systems that allow a person to avoid standing in a physical line have quite a bit of value. I can see why Disney wants to limit DAS to people whose disability by its very nature prevents them from standing in line.

I don’t know what courts may have to say about the need for line accommodations and what implications such rulings could have in settings other than theme parks.

 

[ditzee]

What is wrong with a CM suggesting buying Genie+ if they are no longer qualified for DAS?

What about planes? Would it bother you if because of your disability, your accommodation requires you to upgrade to Business Class or First Class or a hotel said you have to pay more money in order to have an accessible bathroom?

 

[DisneyHead123]

This type of accommodation is different from most. In most cases, non-disabled guests are not paying extra for the accommodation given to a disabled guest. Systems that allow a person to avoid standing in a physical line have quite a bit of value. I can see why Disney wants to limit DAS to people whose disability by its very nature prevents them from standing in line.

To the bolded - I feel like that’s an issue of Disney’s creation and it’s up to them to solve it. I don’t think they can say “We decided to monetize this random thing, ergo it would be detrimental to our business model to give it away for free.” That’s like saying they don’t have to provide handicapped parking because they decided to charge for Premium Parking Spaces, therefore handicapped spots eat into their revenue. No one made them monetize line times. If they decide to do that, ok - see what the market will bear I guess. But they can’t self-create an excuse not to provide accommodations.

I don’t know what courts may have to say about the need for line accommodations and what implications such rulings could have in settings other than theme parks.

I have a feeling we’ll find out relatively soon. My guess is that Disney figures the cost of the likely upcoming lawsuits are less than the potential loss of profit from curbing Genie+.