After reading the plaintiffs' complaint and other posters comments, these are my observations on the matter.
Disney has done an admirable job providing accommodation for those individuals covered under the ADA. In fact, I think Disney has gone beyond what is required. Is the new system perfect? No, but neither was the old one. Disney has to accommodate a wide range of disabilities and will never be able to please everyone. And remember, the majority of people attending Disney parks are not disabled and Disney must also consider their access to its attractions. As an analogy, think of affirmative action. A policy implemented by the Nixon administration to address the historical wrongs suffered by individuals who are members of the discriminated classes protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As entities - employers, institutions of higher education, etc. - struggled to implement the requirements of this policy - they came up with a measure that over time become an anathema to those individuals who were not members of the protected classes in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The result, Allan Bakke successfully sues U.C. Davis over admission to medical school, citing reverse discrimination, quotas are determined to be impermissible in college admissions, 2 additional cases follow and now university systems have discarded affirmative action in admission decisions and other factors affecting students, like scholarships that are just for women or Asians or other affected classes. And affirmative action in general is now dead. The unintended result? California, after the Michigan ruling, saw a drop in enrollment of Hispanics and African-Americans, the very individuals affirmative action was attempting to help. My point, after this long winded (and I apologize) story? That well meant but unreasonable demands for special treatment, especially when those demanding such are a small segment of the general population (and yes, it is important to protect the small segment from the capriciousness of the majority) sometimes has a consequence that undermines the original intent. Which can be confirmed by some of the comments on this thread.
Do I think the parents in this litigation bear some of the responsibility? Most definitely. My child is not disabled. But I have friends who do have disabled children and have witnessed their struggles to provide a rich, rewarding experience for their child. However, they also recognize the limitations their child's disability places on those experiences and understand that their child may not be able to experience everything my non-disabled child can. In other words, they would think carefully about taking their child to a venue that experiences crowds of 10,000, 20,000 people. And if they did and the family, especially their child, had an unpleasant experience, would realize that is not an appropriate environment to place their child in, especially if the organization controlling that environment did make every attempt to mitigate the impact of the child's disability on the child's enjoyment.
Personally, I've never witnessed the behavior attributed to Cast Members as outlined in the complaint. I have found all my interactions with CMs to be pleasant, funny and helpful. However, I am not the parent of a disabled child. But I have witnessed CMs taking unwarranted abuse from guests. Does Disney need to provide additional training for its front office staff? Sounds like it - and in the process will identify those employees who might be better suited for jobs at Disney that don't directly interact with guests.
Just my long two cents.
