Actually, they often don't arrive at the appointed time.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Orlando Sentinel - Disney autism disability lawsuit moves to Orlando federal court
- Thread starter PhotoDave219
- Start date
Actually, they often don't arrive at the appointed time.
Gomer
Well-Known Member
That’s a different argument completely. The comment is saying why aren’t people suing Walmart if they can’t wait. Which misses the point. Comparing a 3 minute wait at a grocery store to or the 2 minute wait for the ride vehicle to arrive is just really a way of mocking the plight of those who have the issues being discussed. Minimizing the issue in that way serves no purposes to the argument at hand.
I don’t disagree with you that being given a wait time is better than waiting in line. But that was not the point of my post.
As to your other comment. I obviously can’t speak for all parents of children with autism, but things like going to Chilis or pretty much anything that requires waiting in cramped quarters for more than 10-15 minutes, is just something we don’t do. It’s a different life than most are accustomed to, I understand. But people don’t seem to grasp that concept. Avoiding these things is a way of life for us.
I grocery shop at night. If my son wants to see a movie, I take a day off from work and go on a weekday afternoon so that there are only a few others in the theater. We fly before 7am to minimize security lines. I moved to a less densely populated area so that stores and such don’t have massive crowds or long lines. Every day of my life is spent minimizing waits and crowds. So, the implication that we are fine most times and just want special treatment in a theme park is insulting to all those who have to plan and strategize every second of their lives to make things as comfortable as possible for their children.
I feel I have to keep saying this because people keep applying motives to my words that aren’t there. I disagree with the suit and think DAS is a reasonable accommodation. My issues stem from the venom and anger aimed at both the plaintiffs as well as guests who happen to use the DAS who aren’t involved in the suit. There is an immediate rush to apply motives to their behavior without knowledge of the situation. My point here is only to remind those that are quick to judge that these complaints don’t necessarily stem from entitlement and much as they stem from desperation. That doesn’t make them any more valid, but it does make those involved more deserving of sympathy than hate.
Last edited:
NowInc
Well-Known Member
Regarding the DVC aspect of this:
Unless it is specifically listed as a "perk" or an selling feature that the DVC yields the access they are fighting for, then it has zero ground. As I am not a DVC owner, I question those who are: When you were being pitched the deal, did anything regarding it being ideal for those with Autism (or did they in any way claim in words or in documentation) come up? Is it communicated that by signing up, those with disabilities will be given guaranteed preferential treatment by doing so? As far as I understand it, the policies apply to the parks regardless of how you end up there. The policy changed (as policies often do), and if they don't like the changes..they are locked into a "contract". That is part of the risk of signing up to it. As said earlier, (as an EXTREME example just for a clearer picture)...lets say someone signs up for DVC because they love going to WDW to ride a ride. That ride closes...does that mean your DVC contract was violated?
DVC may in fact be a better choice for those individuals with disabilities, but in no way does it promise anything to the buyer outside of what is on paper. If the ones who signed up did so with an UNOFFICIAL understanding over future policies, not to sound mean, that isn't Disney's fault.
Unless it is specifically listed as a "perk" or an selling feature that the DVC yields the access they are fighting for, then it has zero ground. As I am not a DVC owner, I question those who are: When you were being pitched the deal, did anything regarding it being ideal for those with Autism (or did they in any way claim in words or in documentation) come up? Is it communicated that by signing up, those with disabilities will be given guaranteed preferential treatment by doing so? As far as I understand it, the policies apply to the parks regardless of how you end up there. The policy changed (as policies often do), and if they don't like the changes..they are locked into a "contract". That is part of the risk of signing up to it. As said earlier, (as an EXTREME example just for a clearer picture)...lets say someone signs up for DVC because they love going to WDW to ride a ride. That ride closes...does that mean your DVC contract was violated?
DVC may in fact be a better choice for those individuals with disabilities, but in no way does it promise anything to the buyer outside of what is on paper. If the ones who signed up did so with an UNOFFICIAL understanding over future policies, not to sound mean, that isn't Disney's fault.
Gomer
Well-Known Member
As with any sales spiel, they target your individual needs and make it out as if it is perfect for you. I don’t remember specifics of what our experience was like, but there were definitely no promises or any kind. Written or verbal. There was an effort to upsell us enough points to do a 1BR after she found out that our son was on a special diet. And the guide was right. For our purposes, having a full kitchen was the ideal situation and worth the extra money. Was she selling it appeal for those with autism to us? Absolutely. Does that in any way make her, or Disney responsible if we decide that Disney no longer fits our needs because of changes to their practices? Absolutely not.
BigThunderMatt
Well-Known Member
They spent so much money on this transition, training for the transition, equipment for the transition, and compensated a LOT of people who were initially unhappy with the change that it will be a cold day in hell before they settle this case. They've already spent money, they're not in the business of spending more than they have to.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
There is no shot that anyone gets a dime from DVC purchases. They would have to prove the DVC resort violated the ADA in some way to even try to claim they should be a defendant. Nowhere in the filing is anyone asking for damages related to DVC. It just speculation and/or assumption.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Both sides are dug in now, but you never know. If the plaintiffs or better yet a neutral group representing people with autism could come up with a proposal that doesn't cause a major change to the system but would be good enough to drop the lawsuit I think it could still settle. You will never please everyone, but there is always a way to improve the situation for the majority.
Other than allowing people to book return times via phone/app instead of at the ride/kiosk I don't know what those changes could be.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
When reading a lawsuit like this, people have to keep in mind that inflammatory language is standard. It's the plaintiff attorney's job to make a one-sided argument and make the other side seem like the bad guy.
Similarly, it's the Disney attorney's job to admit to no wrong doing.
Once you get past this public posturing, I don't think the sides are far apart.
I'm fairly certain the plaintiffs would settle for a limited number of extra FP/FP+ per day. Perhaps give them the 3 FP+ everyone already receives but without the current advanced booking restrictions of FP+. It's not as generous as the old GAC system but families with children with Autism should be able to make this work.
I'm also fairly certain that Disney would gladly provide these if Disney could be assured that it would be restricted to those with legitimate medical needs. However, Disney is afraid that once word gets out, large numbers will claim to have Autism.
Sadly, it seems that both sides are being held hostage by a group of unscrupulous people who are sure to take advantage of any reasonable settlement.
Last edited:
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Please recall that even Disney has admitted that some modification is necessary for those with Autism, which is why DAS was enacted.
Please try to think of this as a physical disability. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) protects both mental and physical disabilities.
Disney has offered someone in a wheelchair an access ramp. The person in the wheelchair has said that's not good enough. In order to get to where they need to go, they need an elevator.
I believe most people would agree that an access ramp is sufficient for small height gains but insufficient for large height gains (e.g. getting to the third floor of a building).
There are extensive building codes governing what must be provided for physical disabilities. When it comes to this type of physical disability, there is a tremendous amount of precedent already established.
However, when it comes to mental disabilities, there is very little. In this sense, the lawsuit is breaking new ground.
Again, Disney is not arguing with the plaintiffs that some modification is needed.
Instead, Disney and the plaintiffs are arguing over how much of a modification is needed. Is a ramp or an elevator required?
I lack the medical background to fully appreciate the symptoms of Autism. As a spectrum disorder, I suspect there is no "one size fits all" answer. For some, no modification is needed. For others, a ramp might be enough. For others, an elevator might be needed. In the most severe cases, no amount of "reasonable modification" is possible so, for those, they will never be able to visit WDW.
I am hopeful that medical professionals will get involved and provide the Courts with guidance as to what's appropriate.
No matter how this turns out, everyone's opinions of the lawsuit provide for some interesting reading.
Last edited:
alissafalco
Well-Known Member
GoofGoof
Premium Member
That would probably go a long way. I really don't think people are out for a quick buck (except for the lawyers)
One of the complaints throughout the filing is that families need to show up at guest services and request the card and get their picture taken and all that. Why not streamline the process and allow people to pre-register from home and upload a picture. It could be incorporated into the MDE page and the pre-planning tools. The catch with pre-registering would be you would need a doctor's note explaining the need for the DAS card. It can't jsut be a free for all open to the public. If you are not willing to provide that information in advance you are free to stop in at guest services and pick up your card in person under the current system. This eliminates the need to jump through hoops to get the card on site for those who really can't wait but doesn't require a doctor's note if you choose not to provide one (I think its still open for debate whether it's legal or not under ADA to require a doctor's note as proof so this would get you around that grey area by offering it both ways). It would also allow you to book your regular advance FP reservations plus any additional reservations allowed under the program from home. The system would be capable of allowing additional reservation to be made on site as well via the phone app with a return time based on the current line without having to show up at the ride to get a return time.
I am not an expert on autism, but from everything I have read or heard it's very hard to be spontaneous if you are traveling with an autistic person. You are likely to have a very detailed plan in place and setting up the system this way would help a lot with that. It's not about getting unlimited front of the line access, but more about having more control over the planning of the day. If you are going to have a wait it's best to know about it as far in advance as you can and avoid it if at all possible
The abusers will find a way to abuse the system no matter how it's set up, but if you have a pre-registration system that requires a higher level of proof it will make people think twice. It would also help the people who really need help.
I'm not saying the current DAS system is a bad fix or a bad idea. I just think that if there are legit concerns from people who use it then Disney should listen and try to make it work better. Not go back to GAC, but keep refining DAS. Reading through the filing and hearing stories of kids who loved visiting the parks and how this system is hurting them or preventing them from going or enjoying themselves makes me sad. I'm sure someone is reading this and saying "the system works fine but they just want unlimited front of the line access". That may be true for some people, but every situation is different so how do we know it's true for everyone? What if some or possibly most of those stories are sincere. That's a real shame.
I'm not saying the lawsuit is a good idea or that I think they should win or even that I think they can win.
JWG
Well-Known Member
Then I really don't see the problem or credible claim. Not at all trying to take away from the challenge Autism presents, but no one is being forced to wait in any line and is free to engage in a variety of activities while waiting for their arrival time to come to be.
BigThunderMatt
Well-Known Member
Anything requiring documentation is out the window as that would be a privacy violation. In no way shape or form can Disney request any sort of proof. And even if they did, there are quite a few unscrupulous doctors that will write notes for whatever. And that is an issue with the law itself, Disney has no control over it.
The problem is that Disney created the beast themselves. They gave these people unlimited access and now they're taking it back, which by the way Disney reserves every right to do, but these people are demanding it and only for themselves.
Well thats what the report button is for. I mean, other than drawing my jokes to Steves attention....
GoofGoof
Premium Member
First, nobody would be required to do anything. If you want to pre-register from home you need a doctor's note, if you choose not to provide that you can request the card in person. It is not illegal under HIPPA if the information is provided directly from the patient. I'm not sure how it is a "privacy violation".
Under the ADA it is not prohibited for Disney to require proof of a disability as long as they using that proof to determine if a person needs an accomodation and are not going to use the information to discriminate against the customer or prohibit them from entry to the park:
From Title III of the ADA:
III-4.1300 Unnecessary inquiries. The ADA prohibits unnecessary inquiries into the existence of a disability.
ILLUSTRATION 1: A private summer camp requires parents to fill out a questionnaire and to submit medical documentation regarding their children's ability to participate in various camp activities. The questionnaire is acceptable if the summer camp can demonstrate that each piece of information requested is needed to ensure safe participation in camp activities. The camp, however, may not use this information to screen out children with disabilities from admittance to the camp.
ILLUSTRATION 2: A retail store requires applicants for a store credit card to supply information regarding their physical or mental health history. This policy violates the ADA because such information is not relevant to a determination of credit worthiness.
Could someone get a fake doctor's note? Sure, but they can also fake the current system and very easily fake the previous system. There is no way to prevent all forms of fraud. With GAC anyone could just walk up and get a card no questions asked. It was abused because it was so easy. How many people are really going to seek out a "shady doctor" to get them a doctor's note that nets them essentially 2 extra FP+ reservations a day on a trip to WDW? Providing a fake doctor's note in writing is a pretty slam dunk case of fraud. I seriously doubt many people would risk putting it in writing like that.
BigThunderMatt
Well-Known Member
And how is Disney and its Guest Relations Cast, none of whom are medically qualified to properly interpret doctor's notes on a plethora of disabilities, able to make such a judgment call? As many others have said there are no "one size fits all" responses to disabilities. Providing proof of disability would do nothing as it would ultimately come down to the person getting paid $10.35 an hour and their interpretation of the doctor's note as to whether a Guest would qualify or not.
To the people who scammed the previous and current system, they see it as a victimless crime. They're not stealing the money of anyone else, only their time, despite the fact that it is quite true on a Disney vacation that time is money. And since it's THEIR vacation THEY feel that THEY'RE entitled to a front of the line pass that hurts no one.
The current system at least offers very little incentive over using the FastPass system, making it less attractive and far more cumbersome to abuse. And Disney has been implementing ways to prevent people from getting multiple cards. Yes, this means that former GAC users are not getting an equivalent experience to what they're used to anymore, but if it means a more balanced experience for disabled and non-disabled guests alike, then it's for the greater good. I say suck it up buttercup. Disney got a little overzealous in its attempts to make accommodations to the disabled and now that they're drawing it back it's like making a heroin addict go cold turkey. The GAC should have never been invented to begin with and that's Disney's fault, but at the end of the day it's their policy and if they feel that it provides reasonable accommodations while providing a more equal experience to all guests (which it does on both counts) then the people crying discrimination about this need to just suck it up and accept it.
Last edited:
dumboflyer
Well-Known Member
Unless you know the lawyers involved, let's keep the gloves up. There are lots of us who take cases to help and do not get rich doing so. There are lots of ADA-related cases, in particular, that turn into little- or no-profit cases since remedies are often changes in practice or physical construction, rather than monetary judgments. It's entirely possible the plaintiffs' attorneys are only in this case for the money, but that's not necessarily a fair assumption to make without more background.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
All I am proposing is a process to pre-register for the card. I'll say it again. Not returning to the GAC, not unlimited front of the line passes.
Having a form letter which your doctor fills out and signs takes all of the guess work away from the $10.35 CM. Right now they must face the parent in line at guest relations and ask a series of questions before issuing the pass. Allowing them to pre-register for the pass eliminates that interaction. The person receiving the card would get no added benefit other than not having to wait in line for the card. Would it suddenly become that much more attractive to abusers? What am I missing?