New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[JMcMahonEsq]

It's not discriminatory in the sense that you're using it. I'm not saying that Disney is not accommodating all physical disabilities or that they are prejudiced against any particular disability.

When I say Disney is distinguishing between disabilities, I'm referring solely to the DAS program and the language stating that it is intended for developmental disabilities. Disney is expressly singling out that particular type of disability from the others for purposes of the DAS program.

And there is nothing legally or ethically wrong with that.

Legal, WDW is going to have to provide reasonable accommodations to people who are disabled, wither the disability manifests itself physically or mentally. But there is nothing that says the accommodate HAS to take a certain form. WDW has never said that its SOLE method of providing accommodations is DAS, and if you don't get that, you get nothing. Mobilized scooters are still allowed throughout the park. In lines like Pirates of the Carribean, wheel chairs are lined up and provided free of charge for guests who have physical disabilities and can't walk through the line. As long as accommodations are available, it doesn't matter if they are under the DAS program or not. You can have a program that looks are one particular form of disability and addresses those concerns, as long as you have other options for the concerns that specific program doesn't cover.

 

[jennab55]

It's not discriminatory in the sense that you're using it. I'm not saying that Disney is not accommodating all physical disabilities or that they are prejudiced against any particular disability.

When I say Disney is distinguishing between disabilities, I'm referring solely to the DAS program and the language stating that it is intended for developmental disabilities. Disney is expressly singling out that particular type of disability from the others for purposes of the DAS program.

Yes and I don’t think that is discriminatory. Developmental disabilities have different needs than mobility disabilities correct? So I guess why can’t they say that DAS is meant for developmental type disabilities and other accommodations are available for other types of disabilities?

That would be like my employer offering a screen reader to a blind employee but not me, even though I am disabled as well but not blind. That is also not discriminatory as I don’t necessarily need the same accommodations as someone who is blind.

 

[Chi84]

And there is nothing legally or ethically wrong with that.

Legal, WDW is going to have to provide reasonable accommodations to people who are disabled, wither the disability manifests itself physically or mentally. But there is nothing that says the accommodate HAS to take a certain form. WDW has never said that its SOLE method of providing accommodations is DAS, and if you don't get that, you get nothing. Mobilized scooters are still allowed throughout the park. In lines like Pirates of the Carribean, wheel chairs are lined up and provided free of charge for guests who have physical disabilities and can't walk through the line. As long as accommodations are available, it doesn't matter if they are under the DAS program or not. You can have a program that looks are one particular form of disability and addresses those concerns, as long as you have other options for the concerns that specific program doesn't cover.

I agree 100%. I was just talking in terms of what would be argued in a lawsuit. GAC wasn't required either, but someone sued.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here and stating why I believe Disney would be successful in a lawsuit. I understand and agree that DAS-type line-skip programs are not the only accommodation and that they are not necessary in every case. My hypothetical question is whether the ADA would require a line-skip accommodation in any case and what would that be?

 

[jennab55]

I agree 100%. I was just talking in terms of what would be argued in a lawsuit. GAC wasn't required either, but someone sued.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here and stating why I believe Disney would be successful in a lawsuit. I understand and agree that DAS-type line-skip programs are not the only accommodation and that they are not necessary in every case. My hypothetical question is whether the ADA would require a line-skip accommodation in any case and what would that be?

Oh maybe I was misunderstanding you. Yes I think if it ever comes to a lawsuit that Disney will win and it will come out that they don’t need to even provide DAS level. I do worry if that happens they will drop the program completely.

 

[Splash4eva]

Disney can really solve this issue by simply making an announcement stating that any ailment qualifies and call it a day. When everyone is special noone is special and thats how this bandaid is ripped off…

 

[Purduevian]

Disney can really solve this issue by simply making an announcement stating that any ailment qualifies and call it a day. When everyone is special noone is special and thats how this bandaid is ripped off…

If by "Ailment" you mean diagnosis/type of disability. They really can't do that because they can't ask for proof. If you start saying anyone with X can have DAS. Suddenly lots of people have "X" that actually don't.

 

[Chi84]

Disney can really solve this issue by simply making an announcement stating that any ailment qualifies and call it a day. When everyone is special noone is special and thats how this bandaid is ripped off…

Are you talking about Disney or society in general

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I think Disney vs Universal rider switch both have their pros and cons.

I went last year with just my wife and 10 month old son. I preferred Disney's method as one of us was able to take care of the baby while the other waited in the standby/vq. In universal's model we would have needed to carry the toddler through the line with us.

The nice thing about Universal is that you don’t really need to separate until right before the ride load, and the waiting rooms for the younger children are pretty nice complete with theme-appropriate movies/tv playing.

 

[DisneyHead123]

If anyone has a reasonable, civil, non-snarky, non-argumentative reply, do so soon; we probably only have a week

Ok here’s a genuine legal question - why would the program being voluntary and not required under the ADA matter? If a company said “We’re having a monthly giveaway! But X group of people aren’t eligible due to their disability.”, wouldn’t that also be a legal issue?

 

[Chi84]

Ok here’s a genuine legal question - why would the program being voluntary and not required under the ADA matter? If a company said “We’re having a monthly giveaway! But X group of people aren’t eligible due to their disability.”, wouldn’t that also be a legal issue?

Probably. The ADA doesn’t allow businesses to deny participation in a voluntary program based on disability.

 

[Purduevian]

The nice thing about Universal is that you don’t really need to separate until right before the ride load, and the waiting rooms for the younger children are pretty nice complete with theme-appropriate movies/tv playing.

I know what the Universal rules are. I'm just saying with a 10-month-old, I would rather be alone with him for 45mins in a park with access to distractions, his stroller, entertainment, freedom of movement, and most importantly bathrooms/changing tables. We were able to do the rider swap during his stroller naps, which I don't think I could do at Uni.

Everyone can have a different opinion, but the split was easier for us.

 

[Splash4eva]

If by "Ailment" you mean diagnosis/type of disability. They really can't do that because they can't ask for proof. If you start saying anyone with X can have DAS. Suddenly lots of people have "X" that actually don't.

Thats my point… it was basically sarcasm meaning Disney just allows everyone access

 

[DisneyHead123]

Ok here’s a genuine legal question - why would the program being voluntary and not required under the ADA matter? If a company said “We’re having a monthly giveaway! But X group of people aren’t eligible due to their disability.”, wouldn’t that also be a legal issue?

Ok that’s my question with what you were saying about DAS. If Disney’s strategy is to have a court rule it is an “extra” offering for those with developmental delay and not mandatory under ADA guidelines, how would that help them? Wouldn’t the same standards apply?

 

[Angel Ariel]

I know what the Universal rules are. I'm just saying with a 10-month-old, I would rather be alone with him for 45mins in a park with access to distractions, his stroller, entertainment, freedom of movement, and most importantly bathrooms/changing tables. We were able to do the rider swap during his stroller naps, which I don't think I could do at Uni.

Everyone can have a different opinion, but the split was easier for us.

I actually agree with you. We took DD when she around the same age. We spent a day at universal just to see Harry Potter, and the lines for forbidden journey were incredibly long. Having to have her in line was much more problematic than the rider switch option at Disney (of course we also didn't have anything at Disney on that trip that hit anywhere near that length of wait either).

 

[Angel Ariel]

Ok that’s my question with what you were saying about DAS. If Disney’s strategy is to have a court rule it is an “extra” offering for those with developmental delay and not mandatory under ADA guidelines, how would that help them? Wouldn’t the same standards apply?

It would mean Disney could stop offering it altogether.

 

[Purduevian]

Thats my point… it was basically sarcasm meaning Disney just allows everyone access

Sorry, whooshed over my head! I even thought as I was typing that Splash knows that won't work!

 

[DisneyHead123]

It would mean Disney could stop offering it altogether.

Ok, I must have misunderstood Chi84’s post. I thought she was saying offering DAS to people with only certain disabilities is legally problematic, but only if it’s a mandatory program under the ADA, not a voluntary one. I wasn’t understanding why that would be the case (if something is considered discrimination legal repercussions apply to any program, I think, mandatory or voluntary.)

Instead maybe she was saying that the ultimate end game if challenged is just to shut down the program altogether.

 

[NotTheOne]

Ok, I must have misunderstood Chi84’s post. I thought she was saying offering DAS to people with only certain disabilities is legally problematic, but only if it’s a mandatory program under the ADA, not a voluntary one. I wasn’t understanding why that would be the case (if something is considered discrimination legal repercussions apply to any program, I think, mandatory or voluntary.)

Instead maybe she was saying that the ultimate end game if challenged is just to shut down the program altogether.

I think the confusion might be because you tried to compare two completely different and unrelated situations, i.e., a monthly giveaway of some kind (a prize, or a free day or whatever) and disability accommodation.

If something is offered to the general public (such as a giveaway), it would be discrimination to say "except for disabled people" (or any other protected class, for that matter).

But with the exception of where the ADA lays out specifics (how wide door must be, or that there must be ramps, etc.), how to offer accommodations is really up to the business or entity.

That's why I've believed for some time that Disney could do away with the DAS completely, and still be on solid legal ground, so long as they offered a different accommodation that met the need.

 

[Chi84]

I think the confusion might be because you tried to compare two completely different and unrelated situations, i.e., a monthly giveaway of some kind (a prize, or a free day or whatever) and disability accommodation.

If something is offered to the general public (such as a giveaway), it would be discrimination to say "except for disabled people" (or any other protected class, for that matter).

But with the exception of where the ADA lays out specifics (how wide door must be, or that there must be ramps, etc.), how to offer accommodations is really up to the business or entity.

That's why I've believed for some time that Disney could do away with the DAS completely, and still be on solid legal ground, so long as they offered a different accommodation that met the need.

I think you’re correct that they’re on solid legal ground, but there may have been public relations or administrative reasons to keep the program.

People suggested that they should have changed the name of the program, but even if they replaced it with an almost identical one the headlines would have still been “Disney discontinues DAS.”

I sincerely doubt Disney wants to discontinue DAS, but it did want to significantly limit it.

The difficult part is what different accommodation would meet the need. Hypothetically, if the only accommodation that would work for a person is to skip standing in line, would Disney be required by the ADA to provide that as a reasonable accommodation given its current business model?

 

[DisneyHead123]

I think the confusion might be because you tried to compare two completely different and unrelated situations, i.e., a monthly giveaway of some kind (a prize, or a free day or whatever) and disability accommodation.

I think that if the courts found virtual lines have nothing to do with the ADA, calling it a "disability accommodation" would be pretty slippery semantic territory. I guess that gets to the root of what I was asking - if the ADA says "Nope, no thanks, this has nothing to do with disability accommodations as far as we're concerned, not legally anyways", then it become something that Disney is choosing to give to parks goers with a developmental delay. So does that change the legality? Maybe a clearer example would be - could Disney say "Anyone who is deaf or hard of hearing will get a free annual pass, but only those who are deaf or hard of hearing."? Or would that be considered discriminatory?