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

[Gomer]

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?

Yup. No different. You were technically required to show the GAC in order to enter the FP line and again at the merge point. Its possible people are complaining because of the added Photo ID component of the DAS. But I don’t see how that is any more embarrassing except by identifying which member of your party is the one who requires the card.

Another possibility is this. I have seen firsthand people with wheelchairs or scooters not being asked for a GAC. My mother twice rented a scooter during our visits with her. She would frequently either just wave the scooter key or cast members would invite her to use the FP line after she parked the scooter. I guess they just assumed she had a GAC. I know this wasn’t policy. But it did seem to happen frequently. If some were treating that as policy, then perhaps that is their justification for increased embarrassment? Although still, how is being asked for the card at the line entrance inviting more attention than riding a scooter in the first place?

 

[PhotoDave219]

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?

The main difference is that under the old system, you got immediate access. It was valid for up to a year. They would send you immediately write up the fast pass line.

In the new system? They write it down on a piece of paper. They tell you what your return time is. And you can come back and ride the ride at that particular time going up the fast pass line.

Of course you can only have one at a time with the new system as well.

In the past, people would abuse the holy hell out of it. You could do splash Mountain and big thunder Mountain Railroad in 20 minutes. Not anymore, you still have to wait the amount of time everybody else is waiting.... Just not in line. Which makes perfect sense in my mind. If your child cannot tolerate standing in a line without having a meltdown, this is perfect because he or she will not have to wait in line. They just have to wait elsewhere.

 

[Bairstow]

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.

I'm not sure I see your point.
If no one can ride, due to malfunction, there is no need to accommodate the disabled. When Disney can reasonably accommodate, the law requires them to.

 

[LAKid53]

Finally got to the section about DVC. Really, Disney promised to provide "caring and impeccable accommodations for 50 years"? I must have missed something in my contract - I didn't see any such language. Buying a membership in DVC is not purchasing space in a facility that provides care and assistance for individuals with disabilities, such as an assisted living facility. It is nothing more than purchasing a real estate interest, i.e., a time share. And as such is governed by the real estate laws in Florida, not the ADA....

 

[LAKid53]

Yup. No different. You were technically required to show the GAC in order to enter the FP line and again at the merge point. Its possible people are complaining because of the added Photo ID component of the DAS. But I don’t see how that is any more embarrassing except by identifying which member of your party is the one who requires the card.

Another possibility is this. I have seen firsthand people with wheelchairs or scooters not being asked for a GAC. My mother twice rented a scooter during our visits with her. She would frequently either just wave the scooter key or cast members would invite her to use the FP line after she parked the scooter. I guess they just assumed she had a GAC. I know this wasn’t policy. But it did seem to happen frequently. If some were treating that as policy, then perhaps that is their justification for increased embarrassment? Although still, how is being asked for the card at the line entrance inviting more attention than riding a scooter in the first place?

Thanks for the clarification. As I was not familiar with how the GAC was presented for accommodation, I didn't understand how presenting the DAS was any different. Which it appears not to be.

 

[durangojim]

I'm not sure I see your point.
If no one can ride, due to malfunction, there is no need to accommodate the disabled. When Disney can reasonably accommodate, the law requires them to.

Point is that the plaintiffs contend that if an autistic child wants to ride a certain ride that child needs to be able to do it RIGHT NOW otherwise the child will have an emotional and physical breakdown. So what happens if the child wants to ride 7DMT as they walk by it but it's not functioning but return later when it is and how is that any different from the family having to wait an hour or two and return during a given time?

 

[GrumpyFan]

If your child cannot tolerate standing in a line without having a meltdown, this is perfect because he or she will not have to wait in line. They just have to wait elsewhere.

I think this is the root of where a lot of us are confused on this this suit. Disney is offering a solution that would seem to meet the guest with special needs requirements. So, for them to say it doesn't, and demand immediate front of line access, just makes their claim sound a lot like those who were abusing the system before, spoiled and self-centered and not taking other guests wants and needs into consideration. Everybody wants to be able to enjoy the parks, and I believe everybody can, but that doesn't mean we're all going to get to see or do everything we want when we want while we're there. Sometimes things just don't work out, for one reason or another. But, to set the expectation otherwise is just setting yourself and/or your child up for a big disappointment.

 

[LAKid53]

Point is that the plaintiffs contend that if an autistic child wants to ride a certain ride that child needs to be able to do it RIGHT NOW otherwise the child will have an emotional and physical breakdown. So what happens if the child wants to ride 7DMT as they walk by it but it's not functioning but return later when it is and how is that any different from the family having to wait an hour or two and return during a given time?

I see Bairstow's point - if the ride is not functioning, Disney has no obligation to provide an accommodation - it is impossible to do so, so your example is not relevant.

 

[Bairstow]

Point is that the plaintiffs contend that if ank autistic child wants to ride a certain ride that child needs to be able to do it RIGHT NOW otherwise the child will have an emotional and physical breakdown. So what happens if the child wants to ride 7DMT as they walk by it but it's not functioning but return later when it is and how is that any different from the family having to wait an hour or two and return during a given time?

No different, but Disney is not required by the ADA to provide reasonable accommodation when any such accommodation is impossible. When reasonable accommodation is possible, they are. The fact that attractions are sometimes nonoperative does not excuse Disney's duty to provide reasonable accommodation when the attractions are operating.

 

[COrunner]

I think this is the root of where a lot of us are confused on this this suit. Disney is offering a solution that would seem to meet the guest with special needs requirements. So, for them to say it doesn't, and demand immediate front of line access, just makes their claim sound a lot like those who were abusing the system before, spoiled and self-centered and not taking other guests wants and needs into consideration. Everybody wants to be able to enjoy the parks, and I believe everybody can, but that doesn't mean we're all going to get to see or do everything we want when we want while we're there. Sometimes things just don't work out, for one reason or another. But, to set the expectation otherwise is just setting yourself and/or your child up for a big disappointment.

You hit the nail on the head. Disney recognized an area of concern (non-GAC guests vs. GAC guests) and attempted to change and implement a system where the disabled guests needs were met. Now that the new system doesn't guarantee preferential treatment there is a problem.

My question with their logic is that there are guests that cannot wait in line. I can think of rides like RnRC, ToT, HM, ST... Where even getting front of the line access still means you will be queued and have to stand/wait with other guests before loading. At what point is the 'ride' the actual ride?

Also if these people cannot wait, what if they want to do a character meet and greet with the Frozen cast at 7:45am, 10:00p, when they get off the magical express and haven't checked in? I see that as unreasonable but would a court feel the same?

I just don't understand why I don't see people at every restaurant with a wait claiming ADA and demanding seating immediately, people jumping the line at a grocery store. Waiting your turn happens in life.

 

[LAKid53]

You hit the nail on the head. Disney recognized an area of concern (non-GAC guests vs. GAC guests) and attempted to change and implement a system where the disabled guests needs were met. Now that the new system doesn't guarantee preferential treatment there is a problem.

My question with their logic is that there are guests that cannot wait in line. I can think of rides like RnRC, ToT, HM, ST... Where even getting front of the line access still means you will be queued and have to stand/wait with other guests before loading. At what point is the 'ride' the actual ride?

Also if these people cannot wait, what if they want to do a character meet and greet with the Frozen cast at 7:45am, 10:00p, when they get off the magical express and haven't checked in? I see that as unreasonable but would a court feel the same?

I just don't understand why I don't see people at every restaurant with a wait claiming ADA and demanding seating immediately, people jumping the line at a grocery store. Waiting your turn happens in life.

Precisely. Even if you go to the head of the line at RnRC, you still have to wait in the little queue, "stand on #2" until a car shows up that you can then get into - same as HM, ToT, Star Tours, Splash Mountain, Thunder Mountain, 7DMT, etc., etc., i.e., any ride that has a load line up. Which can be a wait of 5-10 minutes at RnRC; for some reason that ride always seems to have a delay at the load line. And how many times have the "logs" at Splash Mountain gotten stuck?

EDIT: What if you are given the first spot on Line 5 at Star Tours just after the doors close? You are going to have to wait until that "show" is finished and the simulator is emptied before you can get on the ride. That wait is probably a good 5 minutes. So even if you are allowed to go to the head of the line for Star Tours, you will still have to wait to get inside the simulator. ....

 

[Bairstow]

Precisely. Even if you go to the head of the line at RnRC, you still have to wait in the little queue, "stand on #2" until a car shows up that you can then get into - same as HM, ToT, Star Tours, Splash Mountain, Thunder Mountain, 7DMT, etc., etc., i.e., any ride that has a load line up. Which can be a wait of 5-10 minutes at RnRC; for some reason that ride always seems to have a delay at the load line. And how many times have the "logs" at Splash Mountain gotten stuck?

EDIT: What if you are given the first spot on Line 5 at Star Tours just after the doors close? You are going to have to wait until that "show" is finished and the simulator is emptied before you can get on the ride. That wait is probably a good 5 minutes. So even if you are allowed to go to the head of the line for Star Tours, you will still have to wait to get inside the simulator. ....

I think the argument is that Disney should allow these people to board as soon as possible.
Instant boarding is not technically feasible. Front-of-line access, or close to it, not only is possible, it was standard procedure under GAC.
At the very least, the plaintiffs want a return to the old system.

I just don't understand why I don't see people at every restaurant with a wait claiming ADA and demanding seating immediately, people jumping the line at a grocery store.

Maybe that's the next step after this case.

 

[BrianV]

If no proof was required of a disability under the old system, what stopped anyone from getting such a card--other than that people didn't know it existed? Given the publicity this would get it it is successful, I'd suspect that many many many more people would feel the need to get such a card effectively making the standy lines a thing of the past. There would be a new standby line filled with people with these cards.

Perhaps a tad hyperbolic, but I could see plenty of parents saying "really, my child cannot wait on an hour line with out having a tantrum, so I should get to go to the front!"

 

[LAKid53]

I think the argument is that Disney should allow these people to board as soon as possible.
Instant boarding is not technically feasible. Front-of-line access, or close to it, not only is possible, it was standard procedure under GAC.
At the very least, the plaintiffs want a return to the old system.



Maybe that's the next step after this case.

See Complaint #631 - that plaintiff's incident occurred before the implementation of DAS in 2013. It addresses the opening of Radiator Springs in 2012. Which confirms what I've read previously. This really started with the opening of Radiator Springs in 2012 and how Disney accommodated GACs for children with developmental or cognitive disorders. And every family that is a DVC member addresses the cost of their ownership - annual dues, monthly payment, total cost of the contract. Which makes me think that as this progresses through the court, the plaintiffs' who are DVC members will be asking for damages in the form of compensation for their DVC membership payments. Why else provide such detail in a complaint?

My concern is that if the plaintiffs' prevail, then as CORunner mentioned, there will be lawsuits demanding immediate seating in restaurants and line jumping at retail establishments. At that time, you will see pushback from the non-disabled community similar to what happened with affirmative action - charges of reverse discrimination. Not the intent of these well meaning parents. If you don't think this is possible, there's some land in Florida I want to sell you....

As one of my professors told me, your rights stop at my nose.

 

[LAKid53]

If no proof was required of a disability under the old system, what stopped anyone from getting such a card--other than that people didn't know it existed? Given the publicity this would get it it is successful, I'd suspect that many many many more people would feel the need to get such a card effectively making the standy lines a thing of the past. There would be a new standby line filled with people with these cards.

Perhaps a tad hyperbolic, but I could see plenty of parents saying "really, my child cannot wait on an hour line with out having a tantrum, so I should get to go to the front!"

If what I've read is accurate, that was part of the problem with the old system, people found out about the cards and then figured out how to abuse the system. And I don't mean reports of rich families hiring disabled individuals in order to acquire a GAC.

 

[BigThunderMatt]

Painting Disney as the villain, and winning the public sentiment, is the best chance for Disney to try and settle this quickly.

It's hard to paint Disney as the villain to guests whose children do not have disabilities when you're sitting there demanding immediate access to all attractions. Requesting special treatment and then looking for public sympathy when you're not getting it usually doesn't stir much support from the people who aren't going to benefit from such treatment.

I think it's pretty fair to say no one in this thread is in the camp of the plantiffs getting everything they're asking for, if anything at all.

 

[Gomer]

It's hard to paint Disney as the villain to guests whose children do not have disabilities when you're sitting there demanding immediate access to all attractions. Requesting special treatment and then looking for public sympathy when you're not getting it usually doesn't stir much support from the people who aren't going to benefit from such treatment.

I think it's pretty fair to say no one in this thread is in the camp of the plantiffs getting everything they're asking for, if anything at all.

Is your venom directed at me or the suit? The quote you pulled out of context was me illustrating a possible strategy of the plaintiff not my personal belief. One that I do think would theoretically be their best bet. Because, whether you, personally, have any sympathy for them or not is irrelevant. Other people will have sympathy for the story of the little man getting trampled by the giant corporation. Yes, even if that little man got more fastpasses than them.

 

[LAKid53]

It's hard to paint Disney as the villain to guests whose children do not have disabilities when you're sitting there demanding immediate access to all attractions. Requesting special treatment and then looking for public sympathy when you're not getting it usually doesn't stir much support from the people who aren't going to benefit from such treatment.

I think it's pretty fair to say no one in this thread is in the camp of the plantiffs getting everything they're asking for, if anything at all.

Yes, most posters, while empathizing with the parents of disabled children, feel that Disney has provided reasonable accommodations with the new DAS. And the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are asking more for entitlements than what the law requires and in doing so, aren't hesitating to paint Disney as a villain. But that language I fault the attorneys' who wrote the complaint. I'm still trying to determine if the inclusion of the DVC membership purchases and payments on the mortgages was for sympathy or to lay the groundwork for additional damages. "Your honor, my client has been so abused and humiliated by Disney that they can no longer make the $500 month payment on their time share interest or annual dues payments of $400. My client considers Disney's deplorable behavior a breach of the terms and conditions of said contract and therefore asks for relief from said contract without prejudice and reimbursement for all payments made to Disney Vacation Properties."

But, and this is a BIG but, there is precedent that supports Disney. Issued by a federal court in Florida, no less.

 

[bethymouse]

This lawsuit is very confusing, sadly. While I do understand the need to include all children, including the "special" ones in a Disney experience, a child with autism may get easily distracted, overly stimulated, or many other issues may happen. Any parent of a special needs child should understand that there are "limits" to what the child may be able to experience. That's really said for all children. When going to Disney, I just feel like there is nothing Disney can do about waiting in lines. Like someone else had stated, the queues are now large enough to accommodate a wheelchair or an ECV. I just don't understand how Disney is violating any ADA policies, as Disney usually does a good job of accommodating many people of all kinds. This should be interesting to keep up with what the final "verdict" will be.

 

[LAKid53]

I think stating that parents are using their child's disability for pity and special treatment is going a tad too far. While I personally think the plaintiffs are overreaching and Disney is providing was is reasonable under the ADA, I don't doubt that these parents feel they are advocating for their child, a little misguided perhaps.