New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah, you would be absolutely amazed at just how little is required by Disney to get the approval of the ADA law people(I don't know who they are) they talk to in the government. Believe me, many CM's are shocked by some of the things about lines, buildings, etc. That the ADA related officials will sign off on for Disney.

Even with these new changes Disney is still miles beyond what is required. Most businesses in the tourism area do more than they are required, because it's in their best interest to do so. As soon as it's not, they won't. It's unfortunate. But it's the reality we live in. Changing the ADA laws for theme parks would ironically be something more worthwhile

The only tangentially “ADA related officials” who “sign off” on anything are in the CFTOD building department and they technically enforce the EPCOT Accessibility Code which follows the Florida Building Code - Accessibility. these codes are similar to but do have some differences from the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design published by the federal Department of Justice. The Florida Building Code - Accessibility is recognized by the Department of Justice as complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act but local approval does not confer any sort of federal protection.

Disney has its own internal Inclusion Program that develops Disney’s own design and operational standards. They also have in-house employees and consultants who specialize in access who review decisions. Employees and consultants are not usually considered “officials”.

There is no federal accessibility bureaucracy that proactively approves designs or operations as being compliant. Compliance is determined through the courts after the fact.

 

[TrojanUSC]

The DAS is the "reasonable" accomodation Disney provides to comply with Title III of the ADA.

DAS is one of multiple "reasonable" accommodations that Disney can provide, based on the needs of the specific guest. From Disney's perspective, for example, someone with IBS (a real illness, but one of the most common "fudged" excuses to get DAS since it's not easily proveable) doesn't need to skip every queue - they just need the ability to exit the queue when necessary to use the restroom without having to restart the whole queue again. Someone with the inability to stand in direct sunlight could be given the ability to use a shaded wait area or perhaps skip any outdoor section of a queue, rather than the entire queue.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The 2010 Standards, Sections 234 & 1002, Amusement Rides, covers the physical design, accessable route to the ride, and load & unload areas. Didn't see anything that addressed waiting times.

I just read the pertinent sections of the 2010 Standards for Amusement Rides and didn't see anything regarding line accomodations that could infer wait times. Just providing physical access TO the ride and space to transfer from a wheelchair to the ride seat.

This is like reading Genesis looking for a mention of Jesus. There are a lot more accessibility regulations than just the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. The design standards are focused on physical design and as such are predominantly concerned with physical disabilities (and not just those that require the use of a wheelchair). The law’s definition of disability is far wider than just physical disabilities that can be accommodated through design.

 

[Chi84]

This is like reading Genesis looking for a mention of Jesus. There are a lot more accessibility regulations than just the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. The design standards are focused on physical design and as such are predominantly concerned with physical disabilities (and not just those that require the use of a wheelchair). The law’s definition of disability is far wider than just physical disabilities that can be accommodated through design.

What suggests line accommodations at an amusement park? I'm really not seeing it based on the nature of the business.

 

[LAKid53]

This is like reading Genesis looking for a mention of Jesus. There are a lot more accessibility regulations than just the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. The design standards are focused on physical design and as such are predominantly concerned with physical disabilities (and not just those that require the use of a wheelchair). The law’s definition of disability is far wider than just physical disabilities that can be accommodated through design.

Title III covers private entities that provide public access, including amusement parks. Section 36.105 of Title III defines disabilities covered.

 

[LAKid53]

What suggests line accommodations at an amusement park? I'm really not seeing it based on the nature of the business.

Nothing that I read in Title III addresses that.

 

[Chi84]

Nothing that I read in Title III addresses that.

I believe Disney has gone miles beyond anything contemplated by the ADA.

That’s not to say it’s a bad thing. It’s great. But I hate to see them criticized for it.

 

[mikejs78]

I can’t find anything in ADA guidelines that supports that. It is only concerned with physical access to attractions as far as I can tell, as in, ramps, proper clearance and radius, etc. nothing about wait times.

So I looked up the ADA to see what the text of the law actually says (as opposed to the guidance issued by the DOJ). When it comes to accomodations required for public accomodations:

(i)Denial of participation
It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.

So this doesn't have to do with physical access at all, but rather the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, etc.

For a person who is unable to wait in a line because their disability prevents them from doing so, forcing them to wait in a line would deny them the above-mentioned service (going on an attraction).

Later, when defining discrimination, the law further says that discrimination includes:

a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities,

and

failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services

If it does not fundamentally alter the nature of their business. Line accommodations have never been required by the ADA, although that hasn't been tested.

It does have two exceptions - but it's not an exception around fundamentally altering the business. It's an exception around fundamentally altering the good or service.

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations;

The other exception is if providing an accomodations would result in a direct threat health and safety.

So the question in my mind is if waiting in line is essential to the nature of the service (experiencing an attraction). This hasn't been tested in any courts yet as far as I know. A court can decide anything, but my gut says that they wouldn't consider a line to be an essential element.

 

[Chi84]

So I looked up the ADA to see what the text of the law actually says (as opposed to the guidance issued by the DOJ). When it comes to accomodations required for public accomodations:



So this doesn't have to do with physical access at all, but rather the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, etc.

For a person who is unable to wait in a line because their disability prevents them from doing so, forcing them to wait in a line would deny them the above-mentioned service (going on an attraction).

Later, when defining discrimination, the law further says that discrimination includes:



and







It does have two exceptions - but it's not an exception around fundamentally altering the business. It's an exception around fundamentally altering the good or service.



The other exception is if providing an accomodations would result in a direct threat health and safety.

So the question in my mind is if waiting in line is essential to the nature of the service (experiencing an attraction). This hasn't been tested in any courts yet as far as I know. A court can decide anything, but my gut says that they wouldn't consider a line to be an essential element.

I think they would consider waiting in line an essential element. I posted my thoughts earlier in the thread and don’t really want to repeat them but I don’t think any court would require a business to provide a service they’re selling for a substantial amount to both disabled and non-disabled people free as an ADA accommodation.

 

[mikejs78]

Nothing that I read in Title III addresses that.

Title III is the set of regulations that implements the ADA. It's not exhaustive of what the ADA prescribes. And it isn't meant to cover every situation. If a court were to rule on this, they would look at Title III and the ADA legislation, but the text of the ADA legislation would outweigh Title III.

I believe Disney has gone miles beyond anything contemplated by the ADA.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Disney does not have to offer DAS - but they do need to provide some kind of accomodations to those who cannot wait in a line because of their disability, because doing so prevents those with the disability from access to the product.

 

[mikejs78]

I don’t think any court would require a business to provide a service they’re selling for a substantial amount to both disabled and non-disabled people free as an ADA accommodation.

If Disney could prove another accommodation was sufficient, I think you would be right. But I still don't see how providing DAS represents fundamentally altering the service of being able to experience an attraction.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Disney does not have to offer DAS - but they do need to provide some kind of accomodations to those who cannot wait in a line because of their disability, because doing so prevents those with the disability from access to the product.

It’s a repeated claim that nobody seems to substantiate. If anything, other parks offer a greater accommodation by allowing line skipping instead of using a virtual queue.

 

[Chi84]

If Disney could prove another accommodation was sufficient, I think you would be right. But I still don't see how providing DAS represents fundamentally altering the service of being able to experience an attraction.

We disagree on that point. Take a look at A.L v Walt Disney World Resorts.

 

[Chi84]

It’s a repeated claim that nobody seems to substantiate. If anything, other parks offer a greater accommodation by allowing line skipping instead of using a virtual queue.

They do, but again I believe they aren’t required to do so.

Quite honestly I’m thinking of the precedent that would set for all the other places people stand in line.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

“Can’t” wait in line seems like a high standard to prove. My GF had DAS due to a heart condition but if they provided a wheelchair at the beginning of the long lines it would technically take away the risk of fainting, she would likely skip the ride rather than using it but legally I think would be considered a reasonable accommodation that makes the ride accessible.

IBS could be accommodated with exit points, heat intolerance could be accommodated with more misters/fans/shade, etc. I think this is why Disney has focuses on Autism and similar disorders, there’s no easy way to provide what would legally be considered a reasonable accommodation to that.

From a legal standpoint I don’t think Disney will have any problem showing they’re providing a “reasonable accommodation” for most conditions… the much bigger risk is alienating a large number of their guests. They may not lose a lawsuit but we’ve speculated that between 8 and 40% of their guests use DAS directly or indirectly, that’s millions of guests who may no longer find Disney worth their money.

If they don’t provide what their guests consider a reasonable accommodation it won’t matter if it meets the legal standards or not, they will lose far more money from loss of guests than they’d ever lose from a lawsuit.

 

[ditzee]

So I looked up the ADA to see what the text of the law actually says (as opposed to the guidance issued by the DOJ). When it comes to accomodations required for public accomodations:



So this doesn't have to do with physical access at all, but rather the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, etc.

For a person who is unable to wait in a line because their disability prevents them from doing so, forcing them to wait in a line would deny them the above-mentioned service (going on an attraction).

Later, when defining discrimination, the law further says that discrimination includes:



and







It does have two exceptions - but it's not an exception around fundamentally altering the business. It's an exception around fundamentally altering the good or service.



The other exception is if providing an accommodations would result in a direct threat health and safety.

So the question in my mind is if waiting in line is essential to the nature of the service (experiencing an attraction). This hasn't been tested in any courts yet as far as I know. A court can decide anything, but my gut says that they wouldn't consider a line to be an essential element.

Thank you so much for posting - you did a splendid job explaining. I read this earlier and agree with you.

 

[Chi84]

“Can’t” wait in line seems like a high standard to prove. My GF had DAS due to a heart condition but if they provided a wheelchair at the beginning of the long lines it would technically take away the risk of fainting, she would likely skip the ride rather than using it but legally I think would be considered a reasonable accommodation that makes the ride accessible.

IBS could be accommodated with exit points, heat intolerance could be accommodated with more misters/fans/shade, etc. I think this is why Disney has focuses on Autism and similar disorders, there’s no easy way to provide what would legally be considered a reasonable accommodation to that.

From a legal standpoint I don’t think Disney will have any problem showing they’re providing a “reasonable accommodation” for most conditions… the much bigger risk is alienating a large number of their guests. They may not lose a lawsuit but we’ve speculated that between 8 and 40% of their guests use DAS directly or indirectly, that’s millions of guests who may no longer find Disney worth their money.

If they don’t provide what their guests consider a reasonable accommodation it won’t matter if it meets the legal standards or not, they will lose far more money from loss of guests than they’d ever lose from a lawsuit.

That may be true. I believe that's why they went over and above what's legally required in the first place.

Unfortunately, it seems their chosen accommodation, while working well for the disabled, is not working for the rest of its guests and is unsustainable. It's going to change, no matter how much people agree with others who wish it wouldn't.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

That may be true. I believe that's why they went over and above what's legally required in the first place.

Unfortunately, it seems their chosen accommodation, while working well for the disabled, is not working for the rest of its guests and is unsustainable. It's going to change, no matter how much people agree with others who wish it wouldn't.

It’s certainly unsustainable with a program like Genie, it seemed to work fine with FP, we’ve used DAS since probably 2017, rarely ever stood in a FP/DAS line over 15 minutes, ever since they implemented Genie those lines are frequently over 30 minutes and have occasionally hit an hour or more. Disney created the problem when they eliminated FP and people realized DAS was essentially what FP used to be, add the lack of documentation for DAS and it was doomed to fail.

It’ll be curious to see whether the changes to DAS actually change anything or if it’s just a scapegoat so Disney management can avoid admitting that Genie, and their lack of park investment, is the true reason behind the current line issues at the parks.

 

[TrojanUSC]

Having spent the last hour reading people on Twitter I, on one hand, feel guilty that some people who are legitimately in need of DAS are being turned down. On the other, there are a whole lot of people, based on their statement of needs, have convinced themselves they need it when other accommodations (complimentary wheelchair access for queues, exit points to visit the restroom, etc) would work absolutely fine. This is to say nothing of the many people who lie about having an illness to get it.

 

[LAKid53]

Title III is the set of regulations that implements the ADA. It's not exhaustive of what the ADA prescribes.

I'm going to disagree with this statement. Regulations are the implementation of law. Having worked in government for nearly 40 years, been involved in the development, implementation & enforcement of both, regulations are quite exhaustive.

Disney's lawyers will be quite familiar with the ADA and what, as a private company proving public access, it must do to meet the ADA. I'm also pretty sure Disney's internal counsel or an expert firm it keeps on retainer, reviewed both the original DAS and the revised version to make sure it complies with both statute and regulation.