New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[haveyoumetmark]

I knew what the point for DAS is, I guess I'm not understanding why if you have that, why would you also buy Genie +? But I see your posts explaining how that makes riding a lot of rides possible.

I'm guessing it would be illegal to tell those who have DAS that they aren't allowed to buy Genie?

The same reason anyone else buys Genie+, to do more in less time.

Although, at this point, it does feel like kind of a necessity if you go to the parks to enjoy rides.

 

[pigglewiggle]

The same reason anyone else buys Genie+, to do more in less time.

Yes. It just would never occur to me to do that.

But realizing this was happening also convinces me there are more people than I imagined who may be playing up the need for DAS.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Any time I go to Cedar Point or Kings Island their top coasters are easily 2 hours most days.

It’s been way too many years but yes I do remember waiting in long lines for top thrill, and millennium force. Now I’d probably just stick to the steam train - I’m getting old for the big coasters! Lol

 

[Happyday]

The point of DAS is to accommodate those with disabilities so everyone can enjoy the parks. It’s designed as an alternative standby. Genie+ is a separate offering that anyone can use to optimize their day.

Many people won’t find the need for Genie+ with DAS, but some do. I’m just illustrating what’s possible.

And for some Genie+ doesn't work at all. The last time we were at EPCOT we got a VQ for GOTG we never made it. Like Genie+ and the 2 pre-selects people are complaining about you have an hour to return, there are times (most of the time) that a time limit doesn't work hence the need for DAS you have to gauge the best time, or finish a medical procedure or insert other time sucking activity.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

The fact is that - from what I've seen - the law is very unsettled in this area. I don't think Disney's lawyers know for certain how the Six Flags litigation will turn out, but my bet is that Six Flags will win. Just my opinion, which can definitely be wrong.

Oh, I agree with both of these points absolutely. I think the law is very unsettled (the best case on this is the previous Disney one and that doesn’t answer a ton of these questions), and i also think Six Flags will win.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Absolutely it should. Handicap spots take away good spots from other guests. Handicap viewing for the parade and fireworks takes away prime viewing from other guests.

Loading a wheelchair onto the jungle cruise takes away capacity and reduces the efficiency of the attraction.

Proper use of DAS will slow down the standby line and that’s fine.

True, on the other hand, if a parking lot has 100 spots, dedicating 70 to handicap parking would be problematic. Slowing down the standby line is fine. Grinding it to a halt and causing 40-70 percent of capacity to go to 8 percent of park users is not.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It’s a mix though. There’s some definite abuse. “I have IBS” when the person does not have IBS. There’s also probably some level of “soft abuse” from people who have conditions and are qualifying, but also are definitely using accommodations they don’t actually need. Finally there are the general systemic problems. These three things are not mutually exclusive.

100%

 

[Chi84]

But to be clear - this isn't a reference of the ADA law itself - but of the DOJ Guidelines which are part of the Federal Register -- The 'implementation' portion spelled out by the DOJ and incorporated into law as part of the FR. The point being is the lack of inclusion in the ADA Guidelines written by the DOJ does not necessarily mean it's not part of the law; but that a specific implementation guidance has not yet been codified by the DOJ. The language of the ADA act itself are still in play, even if a situation is not covered by the ADA Guidelines. That's where we get to play with the case law rather than just the DOJ publication.

The premise of accommodation without the burden of proof of need comes from the ADA language itself - not from the DOJ's Accessibility Guide. So the three references you refer to really aren't that limiting, it just means there isn't nice clean agreed upon precedent to point to.

I think I get what you're saying, but I highly doubt case law is the answer; I think what you're suggesting might have to come about by amending the relevant legislation.

Case law develops through litigation, and people need to know what the law is before being charged with violating it. That's why the cases cite general law for the main propositions of the ADA, but cite to the regulations when discussing issues involving businesses asking questions about the nature and extent of disability and documentation.

Case law can develop and interpret the law, but judges have to be careful about going too far and extending it into areas not envisioned by the legislature.

 

[DisneyCane]

I think I get what you're saying, but I highly doubt case law is the answer; I think what you're suggesting might have to come about by amending the relevant legislation.

Case law develops through litigation, and people need to know what the law is before being charged with violating it. That's why the cases cite general law for the main propositions of the ADA, but cite to the regulations when discussing issues involving businesses asking questions about the nature and extent of disability and documentation.

Case law can develop and interpret the law, but judges have to be careful about going too far and extending it into areas not envisioned by the legislature.

The job of judges (if they are doing what they are supposed to do) is to interpret the law as well as to determine if a particular law is constitutional. I've never read the text of the ADA so I have no educated opinion but, the question is, does the ADA, as passed, require the accommodations sought.

If the legislative intent was essentially to provide access in workplaces and in public for people who had mobility related disabilities, a theme park might not even be required to provide any kind of accommodation for autistic people to not have to stand in line. It doesn't really matter what the DOJ says or what rule might be put in place by a federal agency. They can be challenged in court to determine what kind of rulemaking the law allows.

Using my nephew as an example. He has pretty severe autism. If he waits in a long line he will very likely act out and cause a scene and very possibly start hitting whoever happens to be near him. Does that mean he doesn't have the ability to access SDD or 7DMT through the standby line. Technically he has access it will just be a miserable experience.

For somebody with IBS (which my mom has and I don't really need to hear about it), if a theme park has to provide a way to reduce wait times for the person so that they don't need to use the bathroom during the queue, does a movie theatre then need to provide a seat with a built in toilet in the auditorium so they have "access" to watch a 3 hour movie? I know that example is over the top but there are just things that people with certain conditions can't do. My mom won't go to a movie or a show anymore because of her condition. It sucks but it is what it is.

 

[Chi84]

The job of judges (if they are doing what they are supposed to do) is to interpret the law as well as to determine if a particular law is constitutional. I've never read the text of the ADA so I have no educated opinion but, the question is, does the ADA, as passed, require the accommodations sought.

If the legislative intent was essentially to provide access in workplaces and in public for people who had mobility related disabilities, a theme park might not even be required to provide any kind of accommodation for autistic people to not have to stand in line. It doesn't really matter what the DOJ says or what rule might be put in place by a federal agency. They can be challenged in court to determine what kind of rulemaking the law allows.

Using my nephew as an example. He has pretty severe autism. If he waits in a long line he will very likely act out and cause a scene and very possibly start hitting whoever happens to be near him. Does that mean he doesn't have the ability to access SDD or 7DMT through the standby line. Technically he has access it will just be a miserable experience.

For somebody with IBS (which my mom has and I don't really need to hear about it), if a theme park has to provide a way to reduce wait times for the person so that they don't need to use the bathroom during the queue, does a movie theatre then need to provide a seat with a built in toilet in the auditorium so they have "access" to watch a 3 hour movie? I know that example is over the top but there are just things that people with certain conditions can't do. My mom won't go to a movie or a show anymore because of her condition. It sucks but it is what it is.

I’m not following. No one is talking about a case challenging the constitutionality of any particular law.

My post was responding to one talking about the documentation requirement and the relationship between the ADA and the DOJ regulations implementing its provisions.

I don’t think the intent and spirit of the ADA is met by choosing accommodations that make the disabled miserable.

 

[The Mom]

Please remember to discuss politely without attacking/insulting other posters. If you cannot, please don't post. Thank you.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

For somebody with IBS (which my mom has and I don't really need to hear about it), if a theme park has to provide a way to reduce wait times for the person so that they don't need to use the bathroom during the queue, does a movie theatre then need to provide a seat with a built in toilet in the auditorium so they have "access" to watch a 3 hour movie?

The DAS equivalent for a movie theatre would probably be to allow a person with MAS to pause the movie whenever they need to to go to the bathroom or take a break.

 

[flynnibus]

I think I get what you're saying, but I highly doubt case law is the answer; I think what you're suggesting might have to come about by amending the relevant legislation.

What I'm saying is - don't cap what the ADA defines, purely by the Accessibility Guidelines. The Guidelines are specifically tasked to be defined in the legislation, but the breath of the original legislation (and how it can be interpreted by the courts) can supercede the Accessibility Guidelines.

Case law develops through litigation, and people need to know what the law is before being charged with violating it.

Well that's part of the issue with how the ADA was drafted - where the legislation wasn't actually very specific, instead setting a definition and then tasking the DOJ to create something to map out what the law actually means in terms of implementation. It's also a problem with Civil enforcement in general.. the law here was INTENTIONALLY throwing a wide net... and was even updated when the breadth was narrowed by the court's interpretation of the first version of the law.

The legislation is problematic for interpretation period because it spells out to enforce a standard, it only defines with broad, vague terms.

TLDR - One can make an argument to the judge for what the law enables beyond what the Accessibility Guidelines explicitly have documented.

 

[mergatroid]

Out of curiosity do airports have systems in place for those who can't wait in line at Disney? I'm not being snarky just genuinely curious as we seem to do a lot of queuing at airports especially when it comes to going through security and I've never seen anyone not in a wheelchair bypassing it in another line? Similarly at car rental counters when they have 1 or 2 staff members on with about 15 people waiting to collect their vehicles?

Is it a case that Disney does it more because they can than they have to and the examples above just have the attitude "Don't use these services if you can't wait"?

 

[Happyday]

Out of curiosity do airports have systems in place for those who can't wait in line at Disney? I'm not being snarky just genuinely curious as we seem to do a lot of queuing at airports especially when it comes to going through security and I've never seen anyone not in a wheelchair bypassing it in another line? Similarly at car rental counters when they have 1 or 2 staff members on with about 15 people waiting to collect their vehicles?

Is it a case that Disney does it more because they can than they have to and the examples above just have the attitude "Don't use these services if you can't wait"?

Actually yes! It is through a TSA cares program.

 

[Chi84]

What I'm saying is - don't cap what the ADA defines, purely by the Accessibility Guidelines. The Guidelines are specifically tasked to be defined in the legislation, but the breath of the original legislation (and how it can be interpreted by the courts) can supercede the Accessibility Guidelines.


Well that's part of the issue with how the ADA was drafted - where the legislation wasn't actually very specific, instead setting a definition and then tasking the DOJ to create something to map out what the law actually means in terms of implementation. It's also a problem with Civil enforcement in general.. the law here was INTENTIONALLY throwing a wide net... and was even updated when the breadth was narrowed by the court's interpretation of the first version of the law.

The legislation is problematic for interpretation period because it spells out to enforce a standard, it only defines with broad, vague terms.

TLDR - One can make an argument to the judge for what the law enables beyond what the Accessibility Guidelines explicitly have documented.

As a practical matter, courts are not going to add to a vague law by inserting their own elements. A law can be unconstitutionally vague, but here the ADA is implemented through the DOJ regulations.

You’re entitled to your opinion on how far courts will go in interpreting legislation in a way that adds elements that aren’t there. That is not what usually happens though.

 

[WDWTrojan]

DAS usage is skyrocketing, Genie+ isn’t.

Considering Genie+ often sells out, people are buying it - a lot.

 

[natatomic]

I don’t know if Disney would ever go this route, but - in theory - I wonder if they could just get rid of DAS all together and then say, “if you have trouble waiting in line, Genie+ is available to purchase, which gives you access to our lightning lane.”
I’m not saying I agree with it, this is just a hypothetical. But everyone would have the same chance to access the LL. Wheelchairs would still go to whichever queue is accessible. Per the ADA, would that qualify as “reasonable?”

 

[Brian]

I don’t know if Disney would ever go this route, but - in theory - I wonder if they could just get rid of DAS all together and then say, “if you have trouble waiting in line, Genie+ is available to purchase, which gives you access to our lightning lane.”
I’m not saying I agree with it, this is just a hypothetical. But everyone would have the same chance to access the LL. Wheelchairs would still go to whichever queue is accessible. Per the ADA, would that qualify as “reasonable?”

No, being required to pay for accommodations is, generally speaking, not acceptable.

 

[pigglewiggle]

I don’t know if Disney would ever go this route, but - in theory - I wonder if they could just get rid of DAS all together and then say, “if you have trouble waiting in line, Genie+ is available to purchase, which gives you access to our lightning lane.”
I’m not saying I agree with it, this is just a hypothetical. But everyone would have the same chance to access the LL. Wheelchairs would still go to whichever queue is accessible. Per the ADA, would that qualify as “reasonable?”

If we don't want to pay for it, we can just wait in line.
If those who qualify for DAS can't pay for it, they can't just wait in line.