Chi84
Premium Member
The fundamental nature aspect was decided in the GAC to DAS case. Significantly increasing wait times for non disabled guests, which led to a decrease in guest satisfaction, was held to be a fundamental alteration.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024
- Thread starter AEfx
- Start date
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
those that still qualify in some instances won't be able to make such a tight time window for various reasons
Vacationeer
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
The major ADA cases seem to all involve workplace. I’ve tried many different searches to find real examples of business/customer and the results are all either workplace or serial plaintiff related.
For 70% of LL capacity the overall impact depends on the LL/standby ratio being used at a ride’s merge point.
If LL is given 60% and standby 40%, that ‘70% use of LL capacity’ turns out to be 42% of Total Capacity.
But most merges do at least 70/30 LL/standby, which equals 49% of Total Capacity.
80/20 merge is common, that’s where CMs let 20 LL guests through for every 5 people standby.
70% of LL capacity used at an attraction with 80/20 merge uses 56% of Total Capacity.
90/10 has been reported, those results:
70% of LL capacity used at an attraction with 90/10 merge is being given 63% of that ride’s Total Capacity.
For 70% of LL capacity the overall impact depends on the LL/standby ratio being used at a ride’s merge point.
If LL is given 60% and standby 40%, that ‘70% use of LL capacity’ turns out to be 42% of Total Capacity.
But most merges do at least 70/30 LL/standby, which equals 49% of Total Capacity.
80/20 merge is common, that’s where CMs let 20 LL guests through for every 5 people standby.
70% of LL capacity used at an attraction with 80/20 merge uses 56% of Total Capacity.
90/10 has been reported, those results:
70% of LL capacity used at an attraction with 90/10 merge is being given 63% of that ride’s Total Capacity.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
There’s one for Marriott that revolves around accessible rooms being available for guests booking with points and on 3-rd party sites. Quite a bit of requirements along with a $50k fine. It’s on the DOJ site I think.
Chi84
Premium Member
You’re not going to find much on the need to avoid waiting in line.
If someone sues on the grounds that they can’t wait in line in a wheelchair Disney will introduce evidence that they had to wait in line 30 minutes to get an open spot in an accessible bus to the park. And courts don’t entertain “what if” or “could be possible.” A plaintiff would need expert testimony.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Just trying to clear something up - are you of the mindset that nobody should be given a DAS type pass?
Chi84
Premium Member
I agree with Disney’s attempt to give DAS to people with cognitive disabilities which by their nature make standing in lines extremely challenging. Even then AQR or rider switch might work.
My posts are more about what is required by current ADA law. No court is going to hold it’s required. The best outcome would be a DOJ regulation but there would have to be a significant lobbying effort.
This is A.L. v. Disney - related to the switch from GAC to DAS...it also references a California case where the plaintiff was claiming that everyone with anxiety needed a DAS...didn't happen.
I don't think that no one should be given a DAS pass, but I believe it should be extremely limited, which is what Disney seems to be doing.
However, I can certainly see a situation where if someone sues because they don't get DAS anymore, Disney pressing that rather than trying to figure out should get it, we'll just stop giving DAS altogether and everyone can utilize AQR or rider switch if they can't wait in the standby line for the full time.
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
Rider switch would be at best very difficult for those requiring more than one carer logistically and switch has a somewhat tight timeline as you have to be able to switch off
Chi84
Premium Member
That’s the lower court decision. It was affirmed on appeal.
A. L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., No. 20-12720 (11th Cir. 2022)
A.L. is an adult male diagnosed with autism. A.L. is in his late twenties, but his developmental age is “five-to-seven years old.” A.L.’s case is one of over forty actions filed by plaintiffs with disabilities against Disney in Florida and California federal courts, asserting that Disney failed...
law.justia.com
YesThat’s the lower court decision. It was affirmed on appeal.
A. L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., No. 20-12720 (11th Cir. 2022)
A.L. is an adult male diagnosed with autism. A.L. is in his late twenties, but his developmental age is “five-to-seven years old.” A.L.’s case is one of over forty actions filed by plaintiffs with disabilities against Disney in Florida and California federal courts, asserting that Disney failed...
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
gotcha - was trying to understand your position.
I think my thinking on the ADA law is how it is being decided who gets accommodated and who doesn’t.
That’s where it gets tricky. If you provide the accommodation but tell someone with a disability they aren’t disabled enough where does that fall? And I don’t know - I’m not a lawyer thankfully! Haha
I get what you're saying, but at the same time, no one from Disney is saying "You're not disabled enough for DAS". They're telling them that there are different accommodations for their particular need, people don't like that, and they're just making stuff up about what Disney is saying.
And to be clear, no one with a disability is not being accommodated, they're just being accommodated with something different than DAS. They want DAS because it's far superior to other accommodations (hell, it's far superior to the paid Genie+ service), but fortunately Disney has no legal obligation to provide the preferred accommodation.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
My guess is a lawsuit is extremely unlikely to go anywhere, the only way this is going to change is if Disney sees a further decline in attendance.
Unfortunately modern Disney would probably counter more decline with more price increases, removing more perks, cutting more staff, and finding more ways to nickel and dime their remaining guests rather than addressing the capacity issues actually causing the problems.
Unfortunately modern Disney would probably counter more decline with more price increases, removing more perks, cutting more staff, and finding more ways to nickel and dime their remaining guests rather than addressing the capacity issues actually causing the problems.
dreamfinder912
Well-Known Member
Not specifically, no. But they do know how many das return times have been requested. I imagine there's data on the average return timeframe. Everyone likely wants to return as soon as they're able, able might not be right away it may be several hours for some, but the data would be available. So they'd see okay x users have return windows starting at noon and y% come back in the first 2 hours. It's not perfect but it's at least predictable on average.
Chi84
Premium Member
They aren’t saying you aren’t disabled enough. They’re saying your need for the service isn’t great enough.
ADA law suggests that businesses not inquire into the nature or extent of a disability. So Disney would not be able to determine who is more “disabled.”
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Yes, the point is, when asking for an accommodation that Disney DOES provide, they are being denied that accommodation.
Sorry for repeating but it’s equivalent of asking for an interpreter at a show and having to interview in order for Disney to establish that you are deaf enough to get an interpreter.
In the GAC case, they were asking for an accommodation that Disney doesn’t provide anyone, that’s different.
Not even close to a valid comparison.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
How so?