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

[LAKid53]

Except there is no requirement to show or prove any disability whatsoever, and Disney, by law, can't require this either. So, anyone who wants to have DAS just has to ask for it.

Actually, covered entities, under very specific and limited guidelines, can ask such questions,

 

[Bairstow]

This is a good read from a practicing attorney on the case (as it stood in May): http://www.legalrollercoaster.com/2014/05/here-now-prologue-question-of-autism-in.html

This is an excellent series of short articles and I would recommend everyone read them before commenting.

 

[dadddio]

I'm sorry that I have moved way past the comment where I was quoted and it is stated that there legally is no difference between a privilege and a right. I was going to quote it here, but don't feel like going back and finding it. I actually saw that same comment prior to me making my comment. I am hoping you can help me understand this a little. I know that many times there are things in the law that make no sense and this could be one of them. I am curious now that I have seen it said more than once.

I just made this comment to my daughter this morning: Me paying for a large 13th birthday party for you is a privilege not a right. Someone else said that going to Disney is a privilege not a right. Me giving my child a gift card to spend at Disney how they want is a privilege not a right. I could go on with examples. I am curious what the law says because I know that my opinion makes no difference when it comes to the law. How are they the same legally?

Pop on back to post #39 for a good explanation.

 

[LAKid53]

Some of the lawsuit, just wow.





Not true. At all.

Edit: I missed this gem.

Agree, wow. I doubt if Disney, as corporate policy, did what the plaintiffs allege. Are there CMs who probably shouldn't be CMs? Yes. But to say that Disney as a corporate practice does what is alleged in the complaint because perhaps you came across a CM having a bad day or one who was confused about the new practice is a little specious.

 

[Bairstow]

There is a difference, legally, between a right and a privilege. Rights are owned, privileges are granted, i.e., rights cannot be taken away for bad behavior while privileges can be. Those concepts enumerated both in the Declaration of Independence and the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are rights. Driving is a privilege.

But your question is an excellent one. Is the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services provided by Disney a right - like free speech - of those individuals whose physical or mental condition is covered under the ADA? And thus requires protection by the government, just as the 1st amendment provides government protection for our right of speech? Or a privilege granted by the government which can be revoked at any time? Like my driver's license.

The distinction breaks down when you consider that the right to vote can indeed be "taken away", namely by being convicted of a felony. The concept of "privilege" has no meaningful place in a society recognizing equal protection under the law for all citizens.

 

[Gomer]

Some of the lawsuit, just wow.





Not true. At all.

Eh…Sort of true.

There were widespread reports of cast demeanor changing. But this was probably due to the understandable issue of being beaten down by the constant stream of angry guests. When We went to get my son’s DAS in January we were initially met by a cast member who was immediately defensive of the policy and definitely a little on the rude side. When my wife explained to her we were familiar with the policy change and had no issues, that same cast member suddenly became the nicest person in the world. I can only imagine it’s a bit of shell shock from getting yelled at for 8 hours a day for months. I don’t really blame the cast member there.

As for the wheelchair issue. I don’t know where we left that, but that was happening quite a bit during the initial change. There were some heated threads on these boards from physically disabled people who were upset because Epcot guest services was telling people that only those with autism qualified for DAS and that wheelchairs could fit in accessible lines so there was no need. I feel like that was just a training issue that went away. But as I don’t have any physical disabilities, I’d leave that to someone with experience to clarify if the issue is ongoing.

*Edit. Didn't see the last one you added. Just to be clear. I don't believe that last one in any way shape or form. That's just crazy, conspiracy kind of stuff.

 

[NowInc]

Some of the lawsuit, just wow.


Not true. At all.

Edit: I missed this gem.

Like I stated in my earlier post, its such claims that will end up hurting the plaintiffs. To make such accusations based solely on rage filled emotions with no sort of proof will only showcase the true intent of those involved. They would have been far more successful to take a less aggressive approach and use facts instead of corporate defamation.

 

[LAKid53]

This is an excellent series of short articles and I would recommend everyone read them before commenting.

Based upon his analysis of the plaintiffs' complaint and the court ruling on the cruise ship case, it appears the plaintiffs have an uphill battle in proving Disney has violated ADA...because that is the issue - is Disney's new practice in violation of the reasonable accommodations requirement in ADA.

 

[TRONorail12]

This suit seems to make the claim that waiting in line is not reasonable for them or their child, which I think in itself is an unreasonable expectation to place on theme park. It could be said that waiting in line is just part of the theme park experience. Sure, it's not a part that anybody likes, but it is unavoidable due to the nature of what they offer and the demand for it. It varies, but many parks go to great lengths to accommodate their guests waiting by going so far as trying to make the wait tolerable by offering shade, entertainment and sometimes AC and almost always a system whether it be a queue line or now days an electronic means to communicate when your time to ride is available. So, to sue a park for not allowing you to cut the line, just seems silly and unreasonable. It's just not feasible or reasonable for them to allow this. I sympathize for them and their child, but I just don't see how Disney or any park, really, can accommodate for this in a reasonable manner short of closing the park to non-disabled guests and offering a special time for those who are disabled, but even that would require them to limit the number they let in or they would have the same issues.

Best response yet! Kudos to GrumpyFan on their reply. Bottom line is, it's a THEME PARK. When you buy a ticket, along with the 40,000 other guests, you are going to have to wait in line for some of the experiences. It is supply and demand. If all 40,000 guests were disabled, there would still be lines due to demand for an attraction, so who gets to go first? I hope the federal court judge throws out this case. Lines are a part of everyday life, whether it's the grocery store, a department store, the post office, banks, but nobody is suing those places. Disney has gone above and beyond to accommodate guests with special needs and I have no sympathy for the people bringing about this lawsuit.

 

[LAKid53]

The distinction breaks down when you consider that the right to vote can indeed be "taken away", namely by being convicted of a felony. The concept of "privilege" has no meaningful place in a society recognizing equal protection under the law for all citizens.

And there are those who will argue, not that I agree with them, that the right to vote is not a right granted under the Constitution...

 

[Gomer]

I agree there are defensive cast members, and the shell shock is the culprit. They do get villainized throughout the court document.

As far as I know, wheelchair access is still based on the accessibility of the ride. Some rides you join the regular line, others there is a separate line. I think it was a training thing to the new system.

Edit: They also bring up repeat riders quite a bit. Thoughts on that? I understand some autistic kids crave the repetition, but to be allowed to stay on board over and over is a bit much.

Yeah, I’m not intending to say it belongs in a suit at all. Just that it sounds like they cherry picked some half-truths to make the case stronger. What they say isn’t technically false, it’s just not the entire story. Typical legal shenanigans.

As for as repeat riders go, it’s another two sided issue.

If I let my son decide his own plans, he would ride Pooh all day and every day while we are in WDW. I don’t let him do that, because I don’t like to let him get that obsessed. We’ve ridden twice in a row before during morning EMH, but never used the GAC to do so. Our max was 4 times in one day. I want that repeat that he craves to be a treat, not the norm. Because of maintaining that balance he has grown to love other rides as well (though none near his level of Obsession with Pooh).

At the same time, in more severe cases than my son, multiple rides may be required to be the sort of reward needed to drive behavior. Or from a different angle, I go every year, so barring Pooh closing (knock on wood, cross my fingers and pray to as many gods as possible that that doesn’t happen) we know he will go on Pooh again. If this is a once in a lifetime trip, I wouldn’t begrudge someone looping. Where it becomes a problem is when looping is used to enable obsessive behavior over and beyond what is good for the child. My son can get stuck in loops from time to time, and he is thankful when we force him out of it. It’s not always that they are choosing to do the same thing over and over, but sometimes they just don’t know how to stop. Looping with GAC can in some cases allow that obsessive loop to continue far beyond necessity.

Sorry, if that’s a wishy washy answer, but it’s sort of a wishy washy issue.

 

[Bairstow]

Edit: They also bring up repeat riders quite a bit. Thoughts on that? I understand some autistic kids crave the repetition, but to be allowed to stay on board over and over is a bit much.

On a low-capacity attraction like Peter Pan, I would think that a single autistic child re-riding the attraction could have the ability to severely curtail the capacity of the ride even further, fundamentally altering the experience of the guests behind her by adding to their wait time.

 

[Gomer]

No that's totally good info, exactly what I was looking for. I knew analyzing it on my own was beyond my comprehension of autism, even with a decent background.

It sounds like you have (and excuse me if this is the wrong word) conditioned your son to accept the things that he cannot change and understand more of the world around him. I sincerely applaud that. Several plaintiffs are citing that Disney has suggested they practice waiting in lines, and find that to be insulting and disgusting. I disagree with that, just on the basis that I've seen autistic kids who practice various functions and overcome them.

I'm not saying the plaintiff is wrong in needing to bypass some form of a line, just that to suggest Disney insulting them by advocating for at home practice is a bit off the wall. How many parents practice that all the time, outside of autism? I know we took a few weekend trips to practice for long car rides to avoid tantrums.

Insulting? I don’t really agree with that at all. The life of someone with autism is perpetual practicing to fit into the norms of a society that was built without you in mind. If they aren’t used to that practice by now, then they are in for a long and bumpy ride.

I’d buy that practice is ineffective for many. But insulting…again that sounds like melodrama to make Disney into the bad guy here.

 

[LAKid53]

No that's totally good info, exactly what I was looking for. I knew analyzing it on my own was beyond my comprehension of autism, even with a decent background.

It sounds like you have (and excuse me if this is the wrong word) conditioned your son to accept the things that he cannot change and understand more of the world around him. I sincerely applaud that. Several plaintiffs are citing that Disney has suggested they practice waiting in lines, and find that to be insulting and disgusting. I disagree with that, just on the basis that I've seen autistic kids who practice various functions and overcome them.

I'm not saying the plaintiff is wrong in needing to bypass some form of a line, just that to suggest Disney insulting them by advocating for at home practice is a bit off the wall. How many parents practice that all the time, outside of autism? I know we took a few weekend trips to practice for long car rides to avoid tantrums.

EDIT:



I assume that's something Disney will bring up.

Also interesting, as I spent the last two hours going through the legal document, is the number of plaintiffs who are APs or DVC members. Several have listed their fees and buy-ins and are citing breach of contract. So although the aim is lawyer's fees, many of the counts include negligence, intentional discrimination, breach of contract, and undue harm/distress.

I find the breach of contract the most interesting, since to have breach of contract you'd have to something that states your contract includes the ability to utilize the park in a certain way. As far as I can tell on a Disney ticket, the only contract I have is that by buying that ticket I am admitted to the park with the opportunity to utilize the facilities. Nothing more, nothing less. If I don't get to ride Splash Mountain, Disney didn't breach a contract with me. Splash Mountain was there and available to be ridden.

Those who are DVC members are claiming breach of contract? I am a DVC member and I don't remember ANYTHING in my contract - I'm buying a piece of REAL ESTATE, not admittance to a park or access to a ride - covering park admittance and ride waits. I imagine Disney's lawyers will have a field day with the complaint. And cite as grounds for dismissal Alumni Cruises LLC v. Carnival & PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin.

EDIT: The breach of contract issue with regard to DVC membership just burns me. Nothing prevents the DVC members from continuing to enjoy their membership, which is part interest in REAL ESTATE. And if they feel that they are no longer able to enjoy said interest in real estate, sell it. There is a market for resale of DVC memberships and Disney has a waiting list - I was on it. And if you take a loss, you take a loss. But Disney will do whatever is necessary to make sure DVC memberships are not resold at a loss. That's like me saying BREACH OF CONTRACT because when I sold my house, given the housing market in my area, I sold it for less than the purchase price or mortgage balance. Caveat Emptor

 

[PhotoDave219]

And there are those who will argue, not that I agree with them, that the right to vote is not a right granted under the Constitution...

Well, not in the original. Its in the amendments now, right?

 

[LAKid53]

Well, not in the original. Its in the amendments now, right?

Well, technically, if the right to vote is enumerated only in the amendments to the Constitution, then men didn't receive the right to vote until March 30, 1870 and women until August 26, 1920...thus making elections prior to March 1870 an interesting conundrum....

Haven't read the entire Constitution in a while, but I don't remember anything in the first seven articles specifically addressing the right to vote. Article I establishes Congress and its powers; Article II establishes the Executive Branch and its powers; Article III establishes the Judicial branch and its powers. The remaining articles touch on state rights, the power of Congress to amend the Constitution, settlement of debts. It's been quite a while since my constitutional law class but I don't remember any discussions about the right to vote not being addressed in the original Articles to the Constitution or that it is most likely an implicit, not explicit, right in the original articles. Now I'm going to have to pull out my well worn copy and read it...

 

[durangojim]

This is really interesting and while I feel for those with autistic children, I don't agree with this lawsuit at all and think Disney has done all that they need to.

Now here's my question:
What happens when a ride breaks down or is closed for refurbishment but the child really wants to ride it? To me that's not much different than the child having to wait until the return time for the ride.

 

[LAKid53]

I'm wading through the pages of the filing and some of the assertions made by the parents of the disabled children would offend my friend who has an autistic son. But then, language in such legal documents does sometimes tend to be over the top.

 

[Gomer]

This is really interesting and while I feel for those with autistic children, I don't agree with this lawsuit at all and think Disney has done all that they need to.

Now here's my question:
What happens when a ride breaks down or is closed for refurbishment but the child really wants to ride it? To me that's not much different than the child having to wait until the return time for the ride.

Depends on the situation. Some will handle it some won’t. The point of the DAS/GAC was never to eliminate risk, just to minimize it. Even if I cleared the park of every other human being, there’s still a chance of a meltdown, albeit significantly lessened.

 

[LAKid53]

Got to the part about showing the CM at the ride the DAS card. Question, how did the old GAC card work? Didn't the individual possessing said card have to show it to someone in order to receive the accommodation? So how is the showing the DAS card (1) any different and (2) subject the holder to embarrassment?