News New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[TrainsOfDisney]

Yes, but it was free for everyone, just as LL is paid for everyone.
FP+ was not considered an accommodation in and of itself.

But the fact that FP was available was part of Disneys argument. A paid option would change that argument. It may or may not have changed the outcome of the case (probably not, but the argument would be different).

I find them very different. One is access to a business/government/school, etc and one is access to a theme park ride.

A theme park is a business.

 

[NotTheOne]

But the fact that FP was available was part of Disneys argument. A paid option would change that argument. It may or may not have changed the outcome of the case (probably not, but the argument would be different).

Not really - their argument was that if they didn't like DAS alone (the provided accommodation for the plaintiff), they could use FP+. Now they'll simply argue that if they don't like the provided accommodation, they can use LL.

That they would have to pay for LL is irrelevant, in that LL is not an accommodation (nor was FP+) but rather a service that is available to anyone, disabled or not.

 

[Chi84]

Correct - generally one would expect if new ground is established in a broad sense, that the DOJ would provide clarity and codify standards that capture those baselines.

But really that case was more about defeating a specific accomodation request, vs defining what theme park accomodations should be. That is very different, from say, the Segway case, which established acceptable restrictions/boundaries on the use of personal mobility devices. And that case in turn did lead to new publications AFAIK.

Case precedent is also dependent on our two-tier court system - federal and state.

States can enact their own laws on accessibility. Those laws cannot provide less protection than the federal ADA but they can and sometimes do provide greater protection.

The most recent lawsuit is by a California resident suing a California company under California law. Even though the California law incorporates the terms of the ADA I’m not sure how widespread this decision is going to be in terms of setting precedent.

 

[jennab55]

A theme park is a business.

I specifically said a “theme park ride”. Disney in itself is accessible, it’s the queue that DAS is meant for, which I personally find different. There are many times that people can access the business, but other items they are not able to access or have. An example being some of the rides are not accessible to everyone. Not everyone can eat every food offered by Disney due to allergies or other issues. These people can still access Disney but not all is accessible to them inside the parks.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I specifically said a “theme park ride”.

Oh! I see what you meant now. I thought you were saying Disney as entertainment doesn’t count cause it’s not a business that people need.

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

I find them very different. One is access to a business/government/school, etc and one is access to a theme park ride.

A theme park is a business.

One is access to the facility; another is access to the service or programs provided at that facility.

It would be like the entrance to your local city hall is at grade (street level, no steps). However that only gets you into the lobby and a large meeting space on the ground floor. The offices (city clerk, mayor, etc.) are upstairs and there's no elevator. To do business with city hall, you must have access to those offices not just to get inside the building's front doors.

 

[Disstevefan1]

A theme park is a business.

A movie studio..... Not so much

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Not really - their argument was that if they didn't like DAS alone (the provided accommodation for the plaintiff), they could use FP+. Now they'll simply argue that if they don't like the provided accommodation, they can use LL.

I guess I interpreted it a bit different.

““Moreover, Disney argues, the majority of rides have waits of less than 20 minutes, and for those with longer waits, the FastPass+ system allows guests, with planning, to make three reservations each day for premium rides.””

I suppose if it cost money the argument is the same - to me it’s a bit different.

 

[DisneyHead123]

You mentioned items such as wheelchair ramps and handicapped parking spots. My argument is that a building (or business that owns a building) must meet minimum accessibility standards that are part of building code. Customer opinion or even business owner preference doesn't really matter. If it is an older building that has been grandfathered, they still must do whatever possible to make the space physically accessible (ramps, elevators, etc.) OR make their business (the client-facing aspects) accessible in another manner. They can't simply not be accessible.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I'm not arguing with the details of what you're saying, I was making something of a different point about the what logical precedent could be extracted from the case mentioned earlier in this thread.

Maybe. Or it may be vague intentionally because how 1 business can accommodate may be different than how another business can accommodate.

Yes, this is my assumption. That there is much more that would need to be hashed out for individual cases, should they arise in the future.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I find them very different. One is access to a business/government/school, etc and one is access to a theme park ride.

I think we got our wires crossed somehow. I'm talking about wheelchair ramps anywhere, not in a school vs. a theme park.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Not exactly. The DOJ hasn't promulgated new regulations in a long time and it's unlikely that they are going to do so just in order to cover not having to wait in line at theme parks.

As far as the general provisions of the ADA are concerned, there is some precedent on this issue in the GAC to DAS case mentioned by @networkpro. Waiting in lines anywhere these days is becoming more rare as technology offers alternatives. But theme parks still have very long lines that are difficult for even healthy people to deal with, let alone people who are disabled.

Given an aging population and an increase in the number of recognized disabilities, I do not believe any determination of "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA is going to turn on how many need to skip waiting in a physical line or who actually needs to do so and how much. I think as in the A.L. case, it's going to turn on whether this particular accommodation is not one a business can reasonably provide without fundamentally altering its business model, which now includes selling LLs to both disabled and non-disabled guests.

Honestly I will be really curious if these things start to go to court, just from a philosophical standpoint. I think it raises a couple of interesting questions, i.e.:

- If you can monetize any aspect of your business and then claim "fundamental alteration" when your profit margin is impacted, is there any logical endpoint to that? If so, where, based on what? What would stop a company from monetizing audio tours for the visually impaired and claiming providing audio tours is now a "fundamental alteration" because they are losing money on it? (And if the answer is that audio tours are more grandfathered in legally, which they might be, just replace with a similar example)

- If the basic logic of "this inconveniences our customers" is accepted, as it was when customers were found to be inconvenienced by long lines, where is the logical endpoint to that? Again, based on what criteria? What if customers are annoyed by or don't like the aesthetics of any accommodation? Not saying that there is no line in the sand there, I do think some things are acceptable and some are not - but there will have to be much more discussion of how much inconvenience is ok and how much is not, and based on what factors.

It's possible none of this will come up since, as you said, technology in general makes life easier, simpler, and faster, and theme parks are something of an outlier. But, with more and more people identifying as disabled, I do wonder if we'll see these conversations at some point.

 

[networkpro]

I'm out.

 

[jennab55]

I’m trying to think what other area is similar to a theme park where a majority of what it offered is going to be via queues? It’s hard to compare something when it doesn’t exist in the same capacity.

 

[Purduevian]

I’m trying to think what other area is similar to a theme park where a majority of what it offered is going to be via queues? It’s hard to compare something when it doesn’t exist in the same capacity.

Maybe Airports? Lines to get to check in, get through security, board the plane, disembark the plane.

I know southwest is going to/has gone to reserved seating because too many "disabled" people were boarding early and affecting their priority boarding (which they sell).

 

[jennab55]

Maybe Airports? Lines to get to check in, get through security, board the plane, disembark the plane.

I know southwest is going to/has gone to reserved seating because too many "disabled" people were boarding early and affecting their priority boarding (which they sell).

I guess. I know TSA offers a “cares” program for people who have trouble in their lines, but do the airlines (for check in and bag drop)? I assume they would only offer for 1 person to wait in line and rest of family to join once ant the front. Also, that’s about what 2-3 lines in a day? A theme park is going to be a lot more.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

but do the airlines (for check in and bag drop)?

I rarely see particularly long lines for check in and bag drop. I know when I’m flying first class I often feel silly for going to the priority lane and skipping all of 3 people haha.

 

[jennab55]

I rarely see particularly long lines for check in and bag drop. I know when I’m flying first class I often feel silly for going to the priority lane and skipping all of 3 people haha.

I’ve seen some long ones. I sure it’s all dependent ton time of year, time of day, airline, etc. but there’s definitely been times where the line is longer than 20min. And the accommodation would likely be to split from the family and have one person wait. However, that’s just 1-2 lines, not a whole day of lines.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

However, that’s just 1-2 lines, not a whole day of lines.

I’ve never seen check in and bag drop in 2 different locations- so it would be 1 line.

 

[Chi84]

Honestly I will be really curious if these things start to go to court, just from a philosophical standpoint. I think it raises a couple of interesting questions, i.e.:

- If you can monetize any aspect of your business and then claim "fundamental alteration" when your profit margin is impacted, is there any logical endpoint to that? If so, where, based on what? What would stop a company from monetizing audio tours for the visually impaired and claiming providing audio tours is now a "fundamental alteration" because they are losing money on it? (And if the answer is that audio tours are more grandfathered in legally, which they might be, just replace with a similar example)

- If the basic logic of "this inconveniences our customers" is accepted, as it was when customers were found to be inconvenienced by long lines, where is the logical endpoint to that? Again, based on what criteria? What if customers are annoyed by or don't like the aesthetics of any accommodation? Not saying that there is no line in the sand there, I do think some things are acceptable and some are not - but there will have to be much more discussion of how much inconvenience is ok and how much is not, and based on what factors.

It's possible none of this will come up since, as you said, technology in general makes life easier, simpler, and faster, and theme parks are something of an outlier. But, with more and more people identifying as disabled, I do wonder if we'll see these conversations at some point.

I think this is an area where hypotheticals are completely unproductive.

There would have to be actual real life instances in which customers objected to disability accommodations based on how they look. There would have to be a business that could prove audio tours fundamentally altered its business model.

Court cases aren’t decided on what “could” happen. If a plaintiff alleges she had to divulge confidential medical information in a public setting, she has to prove that in court with witnesses or other evidence. Disney would then counter with their own evidence.

Hypotheticals just lead to unnecessary speculation.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I’m trying to think what other area is similar to a theme park where a majority of what it offered is going to be via queues? It’s hard to compare something when it doesn’t exist in the same capacity.

Maybe fan conventions or something like that where you wait on lines to meet people?

Hard to compare as not a lot of entertainment options are all day activities with multiple parts vs just the initial queue and then see the single concert, movie, sporting event

Maybe like the US Tennis Open or Olympics where you see multiple matches/events?