TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Nobody. But they cause operational harm.
But I seem to be upsetting some posters which isn’t my intent. I was just honestly wondering if everyone thinks it’s ok to have operational harm for wheelchairs?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024
- Thread starter AEfx
- Start date
But I seem to be upsetting some posters which isn’t my intent. I was just honestly wondering if everyone thinks it’s ok to have operational harm for wheelchairs?
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Yes, because the alternative is no access. Disney is not withholding access from people who previously had DAS. Turning down the accommodation offered is analogous to a wheelchair-user saying, “thanks for the option but it’s just too hot in this queue right now. I’ll come back later.”
No problem there. Sometimes it be like that. I almost passed out in the Big Thunder queue last August!
I’m not sure how having lines be wheelchair accessible causes them operational harm. The wheelchair can go through the regular line just like everyone else. If anything it makes their operation smoother than needing a separate staffed entry point at all rides.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I meant the operational harm of loading wheelchairs. Plus many attractions do not have wheelchairs waiting in the same line - depends on the attraction.
DoubleSwitchback
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing they're referring to stopping/slowing conveyor belts to load. Yes, that has an operational impact, but the impact is the product of individual impact times magnitude. IOW, if 40% of riders were wheelchair users like they were DAS party, it seems obvious to me there'd be more changes than stopping the conveyor belt for every single car
DoubleSwitchback
Well-Known Member
I think it's going to come down to whether DAS is a necessary public accommodation, like wheelchair access, or an elevated level of custom service/charity like the access they grant to Make a Wish, to be granted entirely at Disney's discretion.
I think it's also going to come down to what constitutes "access" Is it purely physical barriers that are recognized, or do non-physical but just as real barriers fall under it as well. And at what point is Disney liable for providing that access? Does it start and end at things that Disney can control - for example physical queue design as cause of barrier-, or does it stretch to things it can't that are a by-product of it's success: for example queue length and barriers due to the time spent waiting. I think there is a distinguishment between those latter two that Disney is making in it's criteria, and that I have a feeling is going to be central towards Disney's defense against any lawsuits. I highly suspect that the new guidelines were created around what Disney's lawyers are interpreting to the be extent that the company is liable for accommodations under the ADA, and no further.
Angel Ariel
Well-Known Member
I don't see this going anywhere positive for the disability community. One thing Disney does know how to do is dot Is and cross Ts, so I don't expect that there will be much to find/argue legally.Class action lawsuit filed by a firm that doesn't know it's HIPAA, not HIPPA:
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Disney Over Disability Pass DAS Changes at Disneyland and Disney World
Details on the Disney Disability Pass DAS lawsuit filed against Disneyland and Disney World outlining how the pass changed.mickeyvisit.com
Chi84
Premium Member
There's an interesting preliminary question involving whether this can be brought as a class action. People applying for DAS had to agree to what's called a naked class action waiver; they had to agree not to proceed by way of a collective action without an accompanying requirement that the parties arbitrate instead of going to court.
Besides calling the naked class action waiver unenforceable, coercive and deceptive, the plaintiffs are alleging that it violates California's version of the ADA by creating a discriminatory barrier to those trying to assert their right to disability accommodations.
The reason this is interesting is because Disney recently backed off of a ridiculous claim that a plaintiff injured on its property had agreed to mandatory arbitration by signing up for Disney+. But the type of class action waiver signed here has been upheld and there is no question the plaintiffs knew what they were agreeing to because it wasn't three steps away in a subscription to a completely different service.
Besides calling the naked class action waiver unenforceable, coercive and deceptive, the plaintiffs are alleging that it violates California's version of the ADA by creating a discriminatory barrier to those trying to assert their right to disability accommodations.
The reason this is interesting is because Disney recently backed off of a ridiculous claim that a plaintiff injured on its property had agreed to mandatory arbitration by signing up for Disney+. But the type of class action waiver signed here has been upheld and there is no question the plaintiffs knew what they were agreeing to because it wasn't three steps away in a subscription to a completely different service.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I hadn’t thought about that angle. If guests don’t have to agree to those terms to enter the park, should they have to agree to those terms in order to use a disability accommodation? I do think they have a point there.
That part is probably the first of the complaints in this case that will be ruled upon as it will determine whether it can actually proceed to court or will force the main plaintiff into individual arbitration.
The document written really feels like the plaintiffs/lawyers are just trying to outline any and all possible reasons just to hope that one of the arguments will stick. If it does get past the first hurdle (the no class action signed in DAS terms and conditions), it will be interesting to see what the outcome of each point will be. I have a feeling disneys lawyers have already anticipated each of the arguments and have tight-clad data to refute each of the assertions. Even without access to Disneys data and without a background in law, I can see some pretty large fallacies in some of the arguments.
Chi84
Premium Member
Well there is no arbitration clause, which is part of the issue raised by the plaintiff. Proceeding in court on an individual basis is costly, time-consuming and inefficient. But people can waive the right to participate in a class action.