New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[Chi84]

BBB is for guests 3-12 but that doesn't stop many from trying to get an exception for someone too young or too old. Party tickets are non-refundable but people still ask for a refund. MagicBands are non-transferrable but people still ask to swap an extra one to a family member who didn't travel with them before. Yet DAS is "intended to accommodate those Guests who, due to a developmental disability like autism or similar" and suddenly everyone takes that as gospel. Which is it? People expect and request exceptions all the time? or people always believe everything they read on the internet?

I agree the wording on Disney's website is awkward at best, in accurate at worst, but I don't know exactly what they can say to convey the limited access to DAS compared to more recent times. That wording is not going to result in a court ruling reversing the changes -- it may result in some better wording, or removal of any attempt to clarify about DAS. To that end, there is a TON of outdated or inaccurate information not just on Disney's websites but many others as well.


First off that individual would have to show their level of need qualifies for DAS. That's an uphill battle, though there are definitely individuals with non-developmental disabilities who have qualified. Then Disney would only need to show they have extended DAS to those who have that level of need to prove they aren't excluding based on disability/diagnosis. "Physical disabilities" is a category of diagnoses and accommodations aren't based on diagnoses.

I think the difference is that there are laws to protect persons with disabilities and to require businesses to provide reasonable accommodations. I don't put it on the same level as BBB or party tickets. Where disability accommodations are concerned, I would expect Disney to handle them in a more consistent way.

 

[flynnibus]

This generalized assertion is what I disagree with, as it is fundamentally incorrect. I'm not saying there's never one off situations where school districts might over provide, but that's NOT the norm. IEPs are provided from the "Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act" (IDEA). It's in the name. It requires evidence and data based decisions to support that a child has a disability.

This is an issue of CONTEXT. "Disability" in itself is not precise enough for the conversation you two are having.

Learning disabilities are a 'disability'
Yes, IEPs are about how to handle a student's disabilities in education

But 'learning disabilities' are not disabilities themselves under the ADA and dealing with public accommodations. "disability" under the ADA has its own definition, which is not applicable to IDEA/IEPs, etc.

"disability" is a generic term - trying to use the same definition in different applications will always get you into this 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' back and forth you two are in now. The spaces are not interchangable.

 

[NotTheOne]

"DAS party" seems a bit judgmental, doesn't it? At best it's a rude way to characterize disability accommodations.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine.

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

I think the difference is that there are laws to protect persons with disabilities and to require businesses to provide reasonable accommodations. I don't put it on the same level as BBB or party tickets. Where disability accommodations are concerned, I would expect Disney to handle them in a more consistent way.

So... DAS being restricted to a very small set of disabled individuals who [presumably] are well-defined isn't consistent? Not consistent with what -- the prior loose qualifications? I'll agree there but that doesn't mean the current standards aren't being applied consistently based on their definition of "unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time." Just because many internet warriors disagree doesn't make it inconsistent. And I would bet Disney has their documentation and statistics on the matter, in expectation of a legal challenge.

Again, accommodations are being provided. It's just not DAS.

 

[Angel Ariel]

This is an issue of CONTEXT. "Disability" in itself is not precise enough for the conversation you two are having.

Learning disabilities are a 'disability'
Yes, IEPs are about how to handle a student's disabilities in education

But 'learning disabilities' are not disabilities themselves under the ADA and dealing with public accommodations. "disability" under the ADA has its own definition, which is not applicable to IDEA/IEPs, etc.

"disability" is a generic term - trying to use the same definition in different applications will always get you into this 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' back and forth you two are in now. The spaces are not interchangable.

I agree that they're not interchangeable. The ADA and IDEA are different conversations. The poster was referring to IDEA contexts, however, and saying things in the IEP context weren't disabilities that isn't the case. That is what I was responding to.

That they are not interchangeable is why I agreed, and made clear that I agreed, that IEPs shouldn't be used as proof in this Disney context.

 

[Chi84]

So... DAS being restricted to a very small set of disabled individuals who [presumably] are well-defined isn't consistent? Not consistent with what -- the prior loose qualifications? I'll agree there but that doesn't mean the current standards aren't being applied consistently based on their definition of "unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time." Just because many internet warriors disagree doesn't make it inconsistent. And I would bet Disney has their documentation and statistics on the matter, in expectation of a legal challenge.

Again, accommodations are being provided. It's just not DAS.

I don't disagree with any of that. My concern is with people saying that Disney is not expressly restricting DAS to people with developmental disabilities such as autism or similar disorders. What Disney does in practice is controlled by human beings and will always be inconsistent.

I wouldn't want to be the one in front of a judge arguing that - even thought Disney said it intended to restrict the program in that way - it was just trying to dissuade physically disabled people from applying and would really give it to them if they were in bad enough shape and didn't believe what Disney said.

My complaint about inconsistency is in the language. If Disney wanted to be clear, they could have said that DAS is primarily intended to accommodate people with developmental disabilities, but that any disabled guest could apply and discuss DAS and other accommodations available to the disabled.

 

[NotTheOne]

I don't disagree with any of that. My concern is with people saying that Disney is not expressly restricting DAS to people with developmental disabilities such as autism or similar disorders. What Disney does in practice is controlled by human beings and will always be inconsistent.

I wouldn't want to be the one in front of a judge arguing that - even thought Disney said it intended to restrict the program in that way - it was just trying to dissuade physically disabled people from applying and would really give it to them if they were in bad enough shape and didn't believe what Disney said.

My complaint about inconsistency is in the language. If Disney wanted to be clear, they could have said that DAS is primarily intended to accommodate people with developmental disabilities, but that any disabled guest could apply and discuss DAS and other accommodations available to the disabled.

They essentially did say that by saying "Guests" rather than "developmentally disabled guests" can apply.

 

[nickys]

Oh okay, I get it. So if Disney says that a program is for guests 12 and under and a 65-year-old doesn't apply, that's on them.

So the U.K. site still has some dead links relating to disabilities and DAS, which is frustrating. However I did find a multi-page guide which includes this paragraph:

“To access our attractions, Guests with disabilities have several options including use of the standard queue, single rider queue, Attraction Queue Re-Entry, Rider Switch, Stroller as a Wheelchair Tag, Disability Access Service, Genie, and Genie+. Guests are encouraged to learn about these programs in advance of their visit to determine which options might be best for their party. For a personalized conversation about available options, you may contact us via e-mail or chat prior to your visit or in-person at Theme Park Guest Relations locations when you arrive.”

And also this:

“Guests may have a conversation with a Cast Member to determine eligibility for DAS via live video chat.”

Those both seem to be saying that anyone with a disability should contact them, either by email / chat (possibly this is specifically for U.K. guests since Disney don’t offer a video chat from the U.K. (although some do using a vpn), or live video chat (which officially we have to do when we arrive at a park).

 

[nickys]

I don't disagree with any of that. My concern is with people saying that Disney is not expressly restricting DAS to people with developmental disabilities such as autism or similar disorders. What Disney does in practice is controlled by human beings and will always be inconsistent.

I wouldn't want to be the one in front of a judge arguing that - even thought Disney said it intended to restrict the program in that way - it was just trying to dissuade physically disabled people from applying and would really give it to them if they were in bad enough shape and didn't believe what Disney said.

My complaint about inconsistency is in the language. If Disney wanted to be clear, they could have said that DAS is primarily intended to accommodate people with developmental disabilities, but that any disabled guest could apply and discuss DAS and other accommodations available to the disabled.

Which is what they do say for international guests.

 

[Chi84]

So the U.K. site still has some dead links relating to disabilities and DAS, which is frustrating. However I did find a multi-page guide which includes this paragraph:

“To access our attractions, Guests with disabilities have several options including use of the standard queue, single rider queue, Attraction Queue Re-Entry, Rider Switch, Stroller as a Wheelchair Tag, Disability Access Service, Genie, and Genie+. Guests are encouraged to learn about these programs in advance of their visit to determine which options might be best for their party. For a personalized conversation about available options, you may contact us via e-mail or chat prior to your visit or in-person at Theme Park Guest Relations locations when you arrive.”

And also this:

“Guests may have a conversation with a Cast Member to determine eligibility for DAS via live video chat.”

Those both seem to be saying that anyone with a disability should contact them, either by email / chat (possibly this is specifically for U.K. guests since Disney don’t offer a video chat from the U.K. (although some do using a vpn), or live video chat (which officially we have to do when we arrive at a park).

So it doesn't contain the language about DAS being intended for people with developmental disabilities such as autism? Maybe that's because the laws in the U.K. are so different that people would have no context for the change?

 

[jennab55]

I don't disagree with any of that. My concern is with people saying that Disney is not expressly restricting DAS to people with developmental disabilities such as autism or similar disorders. What Disney does in practice is controlled by human beings and will always be inconsistent.

I wouldn't want to be the one in front of a judge arguing that - even thought Disney said it intended to restrict the program in that way - it was just trying to dissuade physically disabled people from applying and would really give it to them if they were in bad enough shape and didn't believe what Disney said.

My complaint about inconsistency is in the language. If Disney wanted to be clear, they could have said that DAS is primarily intended to accommodate people with developmental disabilities, but that any disabled guest could apply and discuss DAS and other accommodations available to the disabled.

Well if Disney didn’t ask what the persons disability is, then they don’t know they are being inconsistent right? It’s based on needs, not disability type? I get some people are outright being denied, but based on how they are explaining their needs they don’t fall into that specific “box”. Someone else might be in a gray area and those are the ones getting approved outside the regular developmental disabilities I think. Although we have to be careful how we talk about this as others may use this to their advantage on what to say or not to say to get approved (even though they should probably be denied based on the definition).

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

My complaint about inconsistency is in the language. If Disney wanted to be clear, they could have said that DAS is primarily intended to accommodate people with developmental disabilities, but that any disabled guest could apply and discuss DAS and other accommodations available to the disabled.

That's not accurate either. Ideally Disney should have left out any categorization, but that leaves it looking broad-based and thus also would not be accurate to the changes. There really is no perfect way to phrase it.

The website reads: "Guests may have a conversation with a Cast Member to determine eligibility for DAS..." That sounds like any guest to me -- developmental disability, physical disability, or no diagnosis of record. Diagnosed with "a disability" has never been an actual requirement for GAC or DAS. Some people don't fit the molds, they don't have a diagnosis yet, they are in process or the medical professionals haven't yet been able to put a name to their condition. But again the diagnosis doesn't matter; explaining the need is what matters.

 

[DisneyHead123]

This is an issue of CONTEXT. "Disability" in itself is not precise enough for the conversation you two are having.

Learning disabilities are a 'disability'
Yes, IEPs are about how to handle a student's disabilities in education

But 'learning disabilities' are not disabilities themselves under the ADA and dealing with public accommodations. "disability" under the ADA has its own definition, which is not applicable to IDEA/IEPs, etc.

"disability" is a generic term - trying to use the same definition in different applications will always get you into this 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' back and forth you two are in now. The spaces are not interchangable.

I think the original discussion was about whether or not children are routinely given inappropriate disability labels in the school system - which, if true, would be a very serious issue.

It's not that this has never happened - it has, in some specific situations. Decades ago there were accusations that children were being classified as special education students in order to raise standardized test scores. I believe massive changes were made in the way that test scores are recorded, and now you can't just 'toss out' the scores of special education students. More recently, as immigration has increased, there have reportedly been issues with dual language learners being misidentified as having a delay, in cases where people are not aware of how long it really takes for a child to fully acquire a new language up to and including academic level language. It's a much longer process than people assume.

That said, on the whole, it's generally rare for a school system to ask for an evaluation and propose identifying a child with an educational disability if there is not a significant reason to do so. Of course I have no idea what the the original poster's situation is, what her school system is like, what testing was completed and what the results were, etc., etc., so I can't comment on her situation. It could be an outlier situation. But I don't think there's evidence that children in the US are routinely given inappropriate diagnoses within the school system. Again, I'm not ruling it out and it's always good to be wary, but I don't think it's a good idea to make a sweeping statement to that effect without any evidence that this is happening (again, outside of a few specific situations where misdiagnosis might be more common and more training is needed for educators.)

 

[flynnibus]

That they are not interchangeable is why I agreed, and made clear that I agreed, that IEPs shouldn't be used as proof in this Disney context.

IEPs shouldn't be used as proof because they are an IEP - but I can understand how the supporting material for an IEP can be seen as relevant to documenting an issue to someone else.

It's back to the topic of 'IEP' doesn't mean a specific accommodation just like 'autism' doesn't. In both cases there are specific limitations that lead to that broader conclusion, and it's the documenting of those limitations where the relevance is.

 

[nickys]

So it doesn't contain the language about DAS being intended for people with developmental disabilities such as autism? Maybe that's because the laws in the U.K. are so different that people would have no context for the change?

Parts of it do, but the link just redirects to the “offers and deals” page.

However, as I posted just after, in the disabilities guide it also talks about those unable to tolerate waiting in line. That doesn’t specifically limit it to neurodivergent disabilities.

The communication of the changes in DAS to U.K. guests has been non-existent. They literally haven’t posted it on the U.K. site (except in places with no link to explanatory information) or even to those who have already booked.

The people that have reported being granted it without a neurodivergent disability and have been willing to elaborate a little seem to either have a set of multiple complex needs that presumably the medical advisors believe could only be met by DAS, or a few who are travelling either solo or in a group where no one would be able to hold their place in a line.

 

[NotTheOne]

Having just gone back and re-read the GAC ruling from 2020 (which was later upheld on appeal), there is a great deal in there that Disney can fall back on, if necessary, in any new DAS lawsuits. Specifically:

• Public accommodations must start by considering how their facilities are used by nondisabled guests and then take reasonable steps to provide disabled guests with a like experience
• Facilities need make only reasonable accommodations that are ‘necessary.’
• They "are not required to make the preferred accommodation of plaintiffs’ choice."
• They are also not required to make "any and all possible accommodations that would provide full and equal access to disabled patrons"
• Quoted the ruling from a 2019 lawsuit which held that granting all guests with anxiety at Disneyland DAS passes would increase their inventory to an unsustainable level and "fundamentally alter the theme park experience" at Disneyland

So, people may well sue, but I think it's going to be a hard row to hoe to actually win.

 

[jennab55]

So I went to the WDW disability page and it says this:

“Walt Disney World Resort offers a variety of programs that assist Guests in accessing attraction queues. Some of the programs listed below are available to all Guests and help maximize the time spent in the parks.

Some of the programs described below provide accommodations that may be required for specific types of mental or physical impairments. Guests with disabilities can learn more about these programs, including how they operate and whether they may be eligible, through a personalized conversation with Accessibility Services.”

I think that right there means anyone can contact and talk to the accessibility team to seee what they may qualify for. Further down it goes over each option and there under DAS is says who it is intended for, but again says “guests” may contact. So it’s just giving who the program is intended for, but it never says ONLY those people can call and ask about it.

 

[Chi84]

So I went to the WDW disability page and it says this:

“Walt Disney World Resort offers a variety of programs that assist Guests in accessing attraction queues. Some of the programs listed below are available to all Guests and help maximize the time spent in the parks.

Some of the programs described below provide accommodations that may be required for specific types of mental or physical impairments. Guests with disabilities can learn more about these programs, including how they operate and whether they may be eligible, through a personalized conversation with Accessibility Services.”

I think that right there means anyone can contact and talk to the accessibility team to seee what they may qualify for. Further down it goes over each option and there under DAS is says who it is intended for, but again says “guests” may contact. So it’s just giving who the program is intended for, but it never says ONLY those people can call and ask about it.

Anyone can call and ask about anything. That’s as it should be. But when the website says that DAS is intended for people who have a developmental disability such as autism, why would someone who doesn’t have that disability apply for DAS?

Maybe this is being made more difficult because of the history of DAS. If Disney started an entirely new program specifically intended for people who are unable to stand in lines because of autism, would you expect people with other disabilities to apply?

I’m not saying Disney isn’t on solid legal ground - I think they are and I believe this program is the best they can do for people unable to handle Disney’s lines.

But I think it’s disingenuous to read their language as an invitation for people who are not the intended beneficiaries of DAS to ask for it.

I know what unambiguous language looks like and this isn’t it.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Hospitals can't turn away people for emergencies...getting a letter to skip a line at a theme park is not really an emergency.

Have you read this thread?

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

But they are blanket denying those with physical disabilities

This is because physical disabilities can be accommodated with their other options whereas severe intellectual disabilities cannot.