New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[flynnibus]

I’m not going anywhere - I asked a question. You made a statement and I asked you to clarify that statement.

It is not legally allowed to have a limit, no. At least that’s my understanding of the law.

They are allowed to limit it - like all accomodations there is a standard of avoiding undue burden or fundamentally altering their business. They aren't obligated to give you a personal sign interpretor everywhere you go for instance. They can offer other accommodations like simply letting you communicate through written forms... or... providing alternatives like closed captioning.

The things that actually need live interpretors is very limited and can usually be addressed with other forms of accommodation.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

They aren't obligated to give you a personal sign interpretor everywhere you go for instance.

No, your quote mentioned live performances- that’s what I was referring to. Sorry about that.

 

[Chi84]

What you highlight is why the policy is not that effective - not that it's not a good/relevant comparison.


Don't agree - Tickets at venues for high demand events are very much something that have strong demand and enough 'to gain' for people to try to exploit the tickets set aside for the handicap accessible seating. I mean, it's exactly why it got added to the DOJ guidelines years later... because it was a problematic area



The tickets to taylor swift are a valuable product The tickets on the main level vs the nose bleeds are a valuable product. The handicap parking spots at a baseball stadium are way more attractive than the other spots, etc.

I know what you are trying to say with regard to the accommodation being more 'lucrative' in this situation of line skipping at Disney/theme parks.. but it's not really unique. It was just so easily and commonly exploited because of the lack of consequences or guardrails.

It’s unique because it’s essentially unlimited in nature. If the accessible seating or parking spots are gone they’re gone and the business has no liability to the next disabled person who comes along and asks for them, no matter how much the person needs them.

If the DOJ wants to come in and fix this for Disney, then I’ll concede it’s a good comparison.

 

[NotTheOne]

I’m not going anywhere - I asked a question. You made a statement and I asked you to clarify that statement.

It is not legally allowed to have a limit, no. At least that’s my understanding of the law.

Businesses don't have to provide sign language interpreters just because someone asks for them. At least that seems to be Disneyland's take, since they the "may" provide them with advance notice.

 

[flynnibus]

It’s unique because it’s essentially unlimited in nature. If the accessible seating or parking spots are gone they’re gone and the business has no liability to the next disabled person who comes along and asks for them, no matter how much the person needs them.

If the DOJ wants to come in and fix this for Disney, then I’ll concede it’s a good comparison.

Disney already argued that attraction access (as a capacity) is not unlimited in the GAC lawsuit. Attraction access is a finite resource, just like parking, seating, etc. Disney argued that treating it as unlimited would negatively impair their services. They have already established in at least one court it's a finite resource they were right to limit or throttle access to.

This discussion now is simply a question of concurrency...

Disney could address it a different way too. Imagine if instead of # of DAS passes per park, they could do something like 'There are 200 DAS passes available for this attraction an hour' and it's based on the attraction's capacity.

This would have a different impact in that guests wouldn't know if they would get access... potentially many times a day.. which is not very nice. But maybe they do if they come back during another hour... etc.

It's a different formula, but the premise/challenge of 'you can't limit usage' is fundamentally the same.. and the reasoning for why it would likely be allowed would be the same. Disney has a finite capacity, they aren't obligated to let accommodations usage destroy normal usage of that capacity for all customers.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Businesses don't have to provide sign language interpreters just because someone asks for them. At least that seems to be Disneyland's take, since they the "may" provide them with advance notice.

“Covered entities are required to provide aids and services unless doing so would result in an “undue burden,” which is defined as significant difficulty or expense.”

“in determining whether a particular aid or service would result in an undue burden, a title III entity should take into consideration the nature and cost of the aid or service relative to their size, overall financial resources, and overall expenses. In general, a business or nonprofit with greater resources is expected to do more to ensure effective communication than one with fewer resources. If the entity has a parent company, the administrative and financial relationship, as well as the size, resources, and expenses of the parent company, would also be considered.”

My guess is the “may” is in the wording in case there is a scheduling conflict with currently hired and trained interpreters. Not sure how many are on staff at the parks.

- note - this is specific to live entertainment. Fully recorded shows like philharmonic could offer devices / written script.

 

[Chi84]

Disney already argued that attraction access (as a capacity) is not unlimited in the GAC lawsuit. Attraction access is a finite resource, just like parking, seating, etc. Disney argued that treating it as unlimited would negatively impair their services. They have already established in at least one court it's a finite resource they were right to limit or throttle access to.

This discussion now is simply a question of concurrency...

Disney could address it a different way too. Imagine if instead of # of DAS passes per park, they could do something like 'There are 200 DAS passes available for this attraction an hour' and it's based on the attraction's capacity.

This would have a different impact in that guests wouldn't know if they would get access... potentially many times a day.. which is not very nice. But maybe they do if they come back during another hour... etc.

It's a different formula, but the premise/challenge of 'you can't limit usage' is fundamentally the same.. and the reasoning for why it would likely be allowed would be the same. Disney has a finite capacity, they aren't obligated to let accommodations usage destroy normal usage of that capacity for all customers.

You’re more familiar with the ADA/DOJ provisions. How does a business determine how many accessible seats, parking spots, elevators, etc. it needs to comply with the ADA?

 

[NotTheOne]

“Covered entities are required to provide aids and services unless doing so would result in an “undue burden,” which is defined as significant difficulty or expense.”

“in determining whether a particular aid or service would result in an undue burden, a title III entity should take into consideration the nature and cost of the aid or service relative to their size, overall financial resources, and overall expenses. In general, a business or nonprofit with greater resources is expected to do more to ensure effective communication than one with fewer resources. If the entity has a parent company, the administrative and financial relationship, as well as the size, resources, and expenses of the parent company, would also be considered.”

My guess is the “may” is in the wording in case there is a scheduling conflict with currently hired and trained interpreters. Not sure how many are on staff at the parks.

- note - this is specific to live entertainment. Fully recorded shows like philharmonic could offer devices / written script.

Agreed, but the point remains, it's not a guarantee that someone will get a sign language interpreter just because they request one.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

How does a business determine how many accessible seats,

For theatres-

At least 5 % of aisle seats must have retractable or folding armrests.

Wheelchair spaces -
Auditoriums with 501 to 5,000 seats must have six spaces, plus an additional one for every 150 (or fraction of 150) seats over 501. So, an auditorium that seats 3,200 people would be required to have 24 wheelchair spaces.

Every wheelchair space must have a companion seat adjacent to it.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

For theatres-

At least 5 % of aisle seats must have retractable or folding armrests.

Wheelchair spaces -
Auditoriums with 501 to 5,000 seats must have six spaces, plus an additional one for every 150 (or fraction of 150) seats over 501. So, an auditorium that seats 3,200 people would be required to have 24 wheelchair spaces.

Every wheelchair space must have a companion seat adjacent to it.

Researching this I found it interesting that they actually revised it in 2010 and LOWERED the amount of seats required from the previous requirements established in 1991

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA-ADA-TipSheet-v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj56-zXjeuGAxUlF1kFHe7dBK8QFnoECDIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw25VmdUqqloIEe-Zz-OomPO

 

[flynnibus]

You’re more familiar with the ADA/DOJ provisions. How does a business determine how many accessible seats, parking spots, elevators, etc. it needs to comply with the ADA?

For some topics (like parking, hearing assistance, entrances, etc) there are already design guidelines in the accessibility guide for them that define the minimums based on the facility scenarios.

There can also be state/local regulations and then the building codes. They would have to meet the most stringent of the intersection of those requirements.

For areas not defined, now you're at the ADA or state equivalents of accessibility law. For ADA, you're going to be stuck in interpretation land. And it's likely to be driven by notions like "as much as you can offer, without fundamentally altering your business" -- which isn't very helpful. In court you would argue why your capacity is sufficient given the expected normal usages, or the max you can sustain within the reason accommodation language.

This is why I challenged matt's initial proposition of garunteeing on-site guests access - to do so would in effect be saying you have capacity to support that number (with some ratio of expected use)... that would set precedent of what is reasonable for your entity. It would be very hard to exclude people from the services if that capacity is not in actual use at the time.

 

[MintCity]

Exactly and that’s an example of an accommodation that’s needed all the time but not offered all the time. People that utilize it work through the schedule.

Surprisingly - sign language interpretation is only available on specific days in each park.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't think anyone is suddenly arguing for that necessarily. Someone posed the question.

There are examples where access is limited. A movie theater doesn't have unlimited wheelchair spots. You may have to book ahead and make your plans based on what times those seats haven't been sold.

So, given that reality, could Disney implement such policies from both a legal and moral perspective? It's certainly a potentially problematic policy with the caveat that it could help those with the most severe disabilities.

Think of a slow loading low capacity attraction. We know that LL lines can get quite long. DAS might be pointless for some people if it's a 30 minute wait for Peter Pan regardless. Do limits help alleviate that possibility and is more advance planning the trade off for a better experience?

There isn’t some sort of transitive property that lets you say “Because this accommodation is fixed then this one can be as well.” The design guidelines are generally written for open accommodation with a few very select ones have a defined minimum that also function as a maximum. You can limit a hotel elevator to those with room keys but not just to those with an accessible room key.

Even if there was a legal allowance, what would this dedicated number of admissions be based on? A movie theater has a fix number of seats that is always available. A theme park does not have the same sort of static maximum occupant load. The capacity of each of the parks is a number made up by Disney. A number that is much higher than daily attendance, meaning you’d often be way over allocating access causing the very problems that are supposed to be solved.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Exactly and that’s an example of an accommodation that’s needed all the time but not offered all the time. People that utilize it work through the schedule.

One of my co-workers years and years ago had a grandson who was deaf - they loved going to Disney and she always mentioned how helpful Disney was with making sure they had reserved seats and an interpreter for the parades.

I wonder if they used to provide it all the time? This was back in like 2005-2008 era.

 

[Chi84]

For some topics (like parking, hearing assistance, entrances, etc) there are already design guidelines in the accessibility guide for them that define the minimums based on the facility scenarios.

There can also be state/local regulations and then the building codes. They would have to meet the most stringent of the intersection of those requirements.

For areas not defined, now you're at the ADA or state equivalents of accessibility law. For ADA, you're going to be stuck in interpretation land. And it's likely to be driven by notions like "as much as you can offer, without fundamentally altering your business" -- which isn't very helpful. In court you would argue why your capacity is sufficient given the expected normal usages, or the max you can sustain within the reason accommodation language.

This is why I challenged matt's initial proposition of garunteeing on-site guests access - to do so would in effect be saying you have capacity to support that number (with some ratio of expected use)... that would set precedent of what is reasonable for your entity. It would be very hard to exclude people from the services if that capacity is not in actual use at the time.

I don't believe Disney is required to provide "DAS," in and of itself, to anyone. DAS is Disney's own program and may be limited if it fundamentally alters the nature of the services offered. That's what Disney is doing, while still attempting to provide alternative accommodations for everyone who needs them.

The subject matter being raised now is why Disney can't just limit the number of DAS passes based on its own calculations of its business need and then say "sorry" to the next guest, no matter how great the need.

As you stated earlier, the DOJ sets out regulations regarding defined accommodations such as number of accessible seats, entrances, etc. Presumably, they did not pull these numbers out of their collective ***, but based them on information as to what would be reasonable to accommodate the anticipated number of disabled persons in each circumstance. Because it's a government entity, we have given them authority (through a whole number of processes) to make those determinations and impose them on businesses.

The DOJ works through transparent processes, and if they do a bad job (there are numerous disabled persons being denied accommodations in hotels, etc.,) the DOJ takes the heat for it and the business is off the hook for not providing an accessible room to someone who clearly needs it. The regulations may need to be amended, but the business does not have to worry about picking and choosing who gets the accessible rooms as long as they make sure the guests in the rooms asserted they needed it.

It's different where a business is "stuck in interpretation land," yet required to provide accommodations. In that case, arbitrarily denying an accommodation based on its own numbers rather than the need of the individual is going to result in a lawsuit against the business, not a clamor for DOJ amendments. Plus, Disney would have to deal with the optics of denying a severely disabled child simply on the basis that their own numbers convinced them they were on the right side of the law.

If there is a lawsuit, Disney would much rather face a plaintiff who was denied DAS according to their own process and nevertheless claims no other accommodation would work than face a severely disabled child where there is no question regarding need

I'm under no illusion about how many people will read this post.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I don't believe Disney is required to provide "DAS," in and of itself, to anyone.

*please don’t read this as argumentative - it’s not meant that way.*

But if that is the case, then no guests need DAS in order to access and experience the attraction the same way as other, non-disabled guests.

 

[NotTheOne]

*please don’t read this as argumentative - it’s not meant that way.*

But if that is the case, then no guests need DAS in order to access and experience the attraction the same way as other, non-disabled guests.

I think that's probably true, although I certainly wouldn't be in favor of them getting rid of DAS altogether.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't believe Disney is required to provide "DAS," in and of itself, to anyone. DAS is Disney's own program and may be limited if it fundamentally alters the nature of the services offered. That's what Disney is doing, while still attempting to provide alternative accommodations for everyone who needs them.

The subject matter being raised now is why Disney can't just limit the number of DAS passes based on its own calculations of its business need and then say "sorry" to the next guest, no matter how great the need.

Well let's not dance around terms here... We were both saying 'accommodations' - and that's what matters. DAS in this context of number of tickets/admissions/whatever you want to label is just an extension of a person consuming the accommodation in question here (which was defined to be the previously used DAS model of return times to the LL lane).

So for all intents we are talking about the accomodation of someone using return times to the LL as structured by the prior DAS model. That was the proposed 'solution'.

As you stated earlier, the DOJ sets out regulations regarding defined accommodations such as number of accessible seats, entrances, etc. Presumably, they did not pull these numbers out of their collective ***, but based them on information as to what would be reasonable to accommodate the anticipated number of disabled persons in each circumstance. Because it's a government entity, we have given them authority (through a whole number of processes) to make those determinations and impose them on businesses.

The DOJ works through transparent processes, and if they do a bad job (there are numerous disabled persons being denied accommodations in hotels, etc.,) the DOJ takes the heat for it and the business is off the hook for not providing an accessible room to someone who clearly needs it. The regulations may need to be amended, but the business does not have to worry about picking and choosing who gets the accessible rooms as long as they make sure the guests in the rooms asserted they needed it.

I think you give way too much credit to the government process It's a process that can't possibly be right for all - it just sets expectations for those who win the lobbying cause. Unlike a politician, the DOJ has no direct accountability to the public. You could sue them... but now you're really swimming upstream with lead shoes They don't take heat.. they sit in an ivory tower until a president or congress pesters them enough.

We're talking about law that is decades old... with concepts that aren't new... and they still are not codified. The law is setup to allow the civil courts to decide the standard. The law did not limit the scope of possible accommodations to what the DOJ has put into accessibility standards. It's a 'good intention' law that is very loose vs tightly defined. That has consequences.

It's different where a business is "stuck in interpretation land," yet required to provide accommodations. In that case, arbitrarily denying an accommodation based on its own numbers rather than the need of the individual is going to result in a lawsuit against the business, not a clamor for DOJ amendments. Plus, Disney would have to deal with the optics of denying a severely disabled child simply on the basis that their own numbers convinced them they were on the right side of the law.

Obviously such a story would gain eyeballs because it is Disney... but having to make judgement calls outside of the accessibility guidelines is something everyone has to do all the time. They can't simply NOT do it because it's not in the accessibility guidelines. They are making such interpretations NOW and defended them in court. They are damned if they do.. damned if they don't.

The only difference here will be is how likable the person's claims are to the mob public.

Maybe it's what it takes to be the bad guy... to get the issue actually addressed by the DOJ as part of a accessibility standard.

 

[Chi84]

*please don’t read this as argumentative - it’s not meant that way.*

But if that is the case, then no guests need DAS in order to access and experience the attraction the same way as other, non-disabled guests.

No I meant DAS the way it’s currently set up, which includes re-rides, no expiration, etc. I meant to distinguish it from any other program that might allow not waiting in a conventional line.

 

[Chi84]

Well let's not dance around terms here... We were both saying 'accommodations' - and that's what matters. DAS in this context of number of tickets/admissions/whatever you want to label is just an extension of a person consuming the accommodation in question here (which was defined to be the previously used DAS model of return times to the LL lane).

So for all intents we are talking about the accomodation of someone using return times to the LL as structured by the prior DAS model. That was the proposed 'solution'.


I think you give way too much credit to the government process It's a process that can't possibly be right for all - it just sets expectations for those who win the lobbying cause. Unlike a politician, the DOJ has no direct accountability to the public. You could sue them... but now you're really swimming upstream with lead shoes They don't take heat.. they sit in an ivory tower until a president or congress pesters them enough.

We're talking about law that is decades old... with concepts that aren't new... and they still are not codified. The law is setup to allow the civil courts to decide the standard. The law did not limit the scope of possible accommodations to what the DOJ has put into accessibility standards. It's a 'good intention' law that is very loose vs tightly defined. That has consequences.


Obviously such a story would gain eyeballs because it is Disney... but having to make judgement calls outside of the accessibility guidelines is something everyone has to do all the time. They can't simply NOT do it because it's not in the accessibility guidelines. They are making such interpretations NOW and defended them in court. They are damned if they do.. damned if they don't.

The only difference here will be is how likable the person's claims are to the mob public.

Maybe it's what it takes to be the bad guy... to get the issue actually addressed by the DOJ as part of an accessibility standard.

I’m perfectly fine with the system they’ve decided to adopt, since they’re the ones who will have to defend it.

I was addressing the proposal of an arbitrary limit on the number of DAS passes without basing the determination on need.