Orlando Sentinel - Disney autism disability lawsuit moves to Orlando federal court

[ParentsOf4]

The ADA is all about equal accessibility and reasonable accommodation. If Disney gives you the ability to wait the duration of the queue because you possess a disability that prevents you from physically doing so and in all other aspects besides the physical waiting your experience is identical to that of a guest without disabilities, then that meets the definition of equal accessibility and reasonable accommodation in the eyes of the law.

What the plantiffs are arguing is that being asked to wait elsewhere the same duration of time as a non-disabled guest (and in reality they knock 10 minutes off) somewhere besides the queue is not a fair or reasonable enough accommodation for autistic children as it causes "meltdowns" and that they should be given immediate access.

In this particular case, ADA is not about "equal accessibility". As applicable to WDW, it's about the "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations".

Is (for example) waiting 60 minutes part of the "full and equal enjoyment" of Peter Pan's Flight?

ADA notes that discrimination occurs when there is 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, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations".

I think we all agree that not having to wait 60 minutes would make it more enjoyable, but the plaintiffs seem to claim that without near-immediate access, they would be unable to enjoy the attraction at all. If the plaintiff's claims are true, then they clearly would be unable to achieve "full and equal enjoyment" without the modification they seek.

For someone with Autism, is having near-immediate access to an attraction a "necessary" modification in order to achieve "full and equal enjoyment"?

In order for the plaintiffs to win, the Courts have to accept the notion that requiring someone with Autism to wait (for example) 60 minutes prevents them from achieving "full and equal enjoyment".

 

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

In order for the plaintiffs to win, the Courts have to accept the notion that requiring someone with Autism to wait (for example) 60 minutes prevents them from achieving "full and equal enjoyment".

Agree. However, I would say the court would not only have to agree the plaintiff's request was "necessary". The court would also have to agree that it was a "reasonable modification" and that it does not "fundamentally alter" the good or service.

In my opinion, the plaintiffs only win if the court answers yes to all 3 components. If the court answers no to any one component, the plaintiffs lose.

That being said.....I have no idea what the courts will decide. I don't know enough about the law to make a prediction

 

[AEfx]

Doesn't the new program give you a return time that is comparable to the current average wait meaning you don't have to wait in line? You can go do whatever you want and then return to the FP+ entrance?

Which sounds utterly fair, to those that believed the fallacy about the old system that somehow everyone with a GAC skipped to the front of the line. It may have been in some cases for folks who made claims such as in this lawsuit, but that was not the standard. It depended on what type of "stamp" you got, apparently.

This whole "one size fits all" system has made it a lot harder on physically disabled folks who depend on alternate entrances as the only way to get access to a ride. The fallacy is that anyone who is wheelchair bound, etc. went to the front. They did not. On some rides, because of how they are set up, that is the case (loading in the exit of RnR for example). However, the typical ride is not like that - but since folks have seen it on a few headliners they assume it's standard throughout attractions. It's not, it's just the few places where it did happen (also Splash) it was simply highly visible.

In many cases, someone who needs to use an alternate entrance (because the queues simply cannot accommodate wheelchairs in many places) actually already waited the same or more time - for a specific ride vehicle (say, HM - even when it was walk-on, if you used the alternate entrance you often have to wait at least a full ride cycle for a certain car that they can stop at so you can board), or because you needed to wait for a CM to escort you (on rides where they send you up the exit). Basically, I used to calculate it - it pretty much came out even as to the times we had to wait extra vs. had to wait shorter. It was a wash.

Now, in order to use alternate entrance you need to get one of these return things. "But, you can go do whatever you want in the meantime!" say folks. Yeah, but since you have to use an alternate entrance for pretty much every attraction (there are truly only a small handful that you actually queue normally, even newer rides don't often have it - off the top of my head Soarin' is the only big one where you can) - that means you really can't do anything in between, PLUS when your magic time comes to go back - you STILL have to do the extra waiting for the right ride vehicle, etc. (they aren't going to have it waiting for you, that's not practical, they don't start waiting for it until the guest is actually there, obviously).

And you add to that the fact that when folks are disabled, it takes a lot longer to get from ride to ride to begin with, only a select few bathrooms (usually only one in each park, maybe two) are actually companion-friendly to assist someone in a wheelchair), and all the other hurdles - basically, we used to be able to see about the same amount of a park per day as anyone else - now, under this system, it will likely be half that.

It would be all fine and dandy if WDW actually had queues that wheelchairs could be used in, but like I said - even on most newer rides, they simply don't (even if you think they can fit, they won't let you on most). It's also often because you need a separate load area, the standard load area is often not equipped, or their procedures state you must board elsewhere (often the exit side due to the automatic turnstyles that hold folks back). All this is extra time and waiting that isn't accounted for here, and as I said - overall it used to just wash (we waited longer as much as we waited less) but now there is no less wait, only more wait upon more wait.

I know from reading a lot of the opinions that this is all "too bad so sad" and they don't care, but the focus is so much on "invisible" disabilities and making sure we all accept them and the majority of folks who didn't actually even understand the old system (again, anyone who thinks it was instant FOTL simply does not know what they are talking about for physically disabled guests) who just use this as a "stop the abuse!" feel-good exercise (we as a society just love when someone "gets theirs!").

Those just plain ol' physically disabled folks - who would gladly stand in regular lines if Disney designed and/or allowed it, and just use whatever entrance Disney tells them - have been really steamrolled in the discussion about the impact of these changes.

 

[Goofyernmost]

In this particular case, ADA is not about "equal accessibility". As applicable to WDW, it's about the "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations".

Is (for example) waiting 60 minutes part of the "full and equal enjoyment" of Peter Pan's Flight?

ADA notes that discrimination occurs when there is 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, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations".

I think we all agree that not having to wait 60 minutes would make it more enjoyable, but the plaintiffs seem to claim that without near-immediate access, they would be unable to enjoy the attraction at all. If the plaintiff's claims are true, then they clearly would be unable to achieve "full and equal enjoyment" without the modification they seek.

For someone with Autism, is having near-immediate access to an attraction a "necessary" modification in order to achieve "full and equal enjoyment"?

In order for the plaintiffs to win, the Courts have to accept the notion that requiring someone with Autism to wait (for example) 60 minutes prevents them from achieving "full and equal enjoyment".

Not arguing, just asking... by the standards of what you said about "full and equal enjoyment" then alter that experience for everyone else. Thereby making it less enjoyable for everyone else? How is that equal?

I know I will be crucified for this but not all situations that a disabled person would like access to are going to be doable. A person that is blind cannot drive a car. Not only would that be a problem for them, but, for everyone else as well. A person that is paralyzed cannot go mountain climbing. Without some restriction there is no such word as disabled, all would be abled.

I do understand that folks with kids that are affected by autism that causes them to melt down if they cannot deal with waiting or with crowds would like them to experience everything, but, when they are at the peak of that problem, is this the right time to be pushing that particular activity and location. Wouldn't waiting a while for a tad more maturity to become established a much better idea then force feeding a child into an environment that causes them that much stress. How is that fun for them? How is that a good experience for them? Never mind that you , as the parent, get all verklempt about the situation, I'm asking to put yourself in the child's shoes and have a little sympathy for them. They are the ones melting down. I cannot imagine that being a good experience no matter the age.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Not arguing, just asking... by the standards of what you said about "full and equal enjoyment" then alter that experience for everyone else. Thereby making it less enjoyable for everyone else? How is that equal?

Disney already has acknowledged that a modification is needed to accommodate those with Autism. The new DAS system already provides what many (most?) would consider to be preferential treatment for those with certain disabilities.

Wouldn't we all like to be able to walk up to a ride, get a piece of paper signed, and then return some time later to ride that attraction?

Disney already has acknowledged that those with Autism need a special, even 'preferential' accommodation.

What Disney and the plaintiffs are arguing over is how much of an accommodation is needed.

Disney and the plaintiffs are arguing "how much", not "if".

I know I will be crucified for this but not all situations that a disabled person would like access to are going to be doable. A person that is blind cannot drive a car. Not only would that be a problem for them, but, for everyone else as well. A person that is paralyzed cannot go mountain climbing. Without some restriction there is no such word as disabled, all would be abled.

The cases you mention are covered by ADA.

ADA makes an exception for anything that presents a "direct threat to the health or safety of others", addressing the "blind man" example. It's why Disney won the Segway case. Those wanting to ride Segways because of their disabilities were deemed to be risks to others.

Similarly, the "reasonable accommodation" clause covers the paraplegic mountain climber. ADA doesn't require entities to go to extraordinary lengths to accommodate those with disabilities.

Some might think the old GAC was "unreasonable". Sorry but "reasonable" does not necessarily mean "fair" or "equal". It might be an unpopular observation among some but the old GAC clearly was not unreasonable since Disney provided it for years. Disney accepted it to be reasonable for years. It's only when those without disabilities started abusing the system that Disney felt the need to change it.

I do understand that folks with kids that are affected by autism that causes them to melt down if they cannot deal with waiting or with crowds would like them to experience everything, but, when they are at the peak of that problem, is this the right time to be pushing that particular activity and location. Wouldn't waiting a while for a tad more maturity to become established a much better idea then force feeding a child into an environment that causes them that much stress. How is that fun for them? How is that a good experience for them? Never mind that you , as the parent, get all verklempt about the situation, I'm asking to put yourself in the child's shoes and have a little sympathy for them. They are the ones melting down. I cannot imagine that being a good experience no matter the age.

Not only the plaintiffs, but many parents of children with Autism claim that WDW and DLR have transformational effects on their children. They state that WDW and DLR truly are magical places for them.

What bothers me is that there sometimes seems to be thinking along the lines of: "Raising my child with a disability is difficult every place else. Disney was the one place that made it easy. Disney 'owes' me this special treatment to make up for all my other struggles."

Disney doesn't 'owe' them anything. Disney needs to comply with the law.