Prices up…profits down…

[flynnibus]

Contemplates it? Sure ... in very, very narrow circumstances. The obvious inference being that in the circumstances where it isn't explicitly stated (and narrowly tailored), like motorized scooters, then the ADA does not prohibit a person having to answer questions or provide evidence of their disability.

Wrong

If you wrongfully deny a person an accommodation- you can’t argue ‘they couldn’t prove their need’.

The law actually explicitly bars the creation of systems that would risk disenfranchising the disabled as well.

 

[mysto]

Nail, head, etc. If you can afford to splurge out every now and then on something to plus your experience, that's fine, but what you're actually doing is paying to devalue someone else's experience.

I never considered the appeal line cut schemes have for psychopaths and/or sociopaths, which may partially explain the popularity. Those particular consumers are likely price-insensitive and may be legion. Sorry so dark.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Lolwut??

Courts would step in?? What planet is this? The courts hear cases, not bring them.

Let me spell it out for you ...

1. Person requests an accommodation for their disability
2. Disney requests evidence of the disability
3. Person sues Disney for discrimination
4. Disney defends itself in court
5. Courts will step in and confirm that an entity has the right (under the ADA) to request reasonable proof that a person has a disability that requires an accommodation

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Wrong

If you wrongfully deny a person an accommodation- you can’t argue ‘they couldn’t prove their need’.

I disagree with you. If an entity hasn't been provided reasonable proof (or credible assurance, or whatever) the disability exists, then its denial or accommodation is not wrongful.

The law actually explicitly bars the creation of systems that would risk disenfranchising the disabled as well.

Again, I disagree with you that asking a person what their disability is or for evidence of the disability (other than an observable disability or one of the ADA carve-outs like selling wheelchair accessible seating tickets at a movie theater) is not "disenfranchising" them.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Wow…went WAY down the DAS well here, huh?

 

[Goofyernmost]

To me the DAS situation was basically an emotional problem solution. I have a mobility problem. Can't walk the distance required and cannot stand for extended time. (over 15 minutes). I have taken, before DAS, people that did indeed require assistance with loading and unloading, but a wheelchair took care of the mobility and standing issue. In 2019 when I needed a scooter due to mobility problems. I didn't need a DAS. I got a Fastpass+ or went in the standby, except for me it wasn't a standby it was a sitby. I used the regular queue's for either and never ever tried for a front of line. I had no emotional problem that made standing in line or dealing with crowds a necessity so I used the scooter to replace my unhealthy spine. I had no need for a DAS and even at 76 I still wouldn't and if I were so bad that the scooter would not allow me to at least be able to recreate my time before the disability, I simply wouldn't go. It is hardly a secret that going to any Theme Park is going to involve a lot of people and a lot of lines. It usually isn't hard to spot someone with those problems without having to ask. To me the DAS situation and the need for a Scooter are two completely different situational problems.

If I had tried for a DAS, it would have been impossible to prove what happens to me unless they assigned someone to follow me for about 15 minutes or less until I started to walk like I just consumed a 5th of Jack. It isn't a problem under normal life events and I have only used one twice, that trip and a more recent one to Dollywood. It would be impossible to know or prove other things unless that problem happens to be happening at the time of the request.

 

[TalkToEthan]

The ADA contemplates that this be done without a person having to answer questions about or provide evidence of their disability.

That horrific policy best be challenged and ultimately overturned.

Abusers and opportunists abound.

 

[Vacationeer]

Could be a combination. We aren’t talking about a double digit percentage

You also have to factor in how many non-DAS parties hit or neared end of their rope as each trip standby and LL got worse and worse. Our family has visited twice since the Genie+/DAS overhaul and experience improved over similar dated trips. Many people were getting fed up with unreasonable wait times and an unreliable paid system. The problem with prior DAS system was overuse and over-reliance heavily impacted those without access, resulting in more and more people turning to DAS Becuase park operations pushed past their personal limits.

It may be the only thing achieves true equity is a pay per attraction system. Rides are represented by points depending on demand/capacity and admission comes with a bundle points equal to real daily per capita average, which is likely lower than many people suspect. Having to pay for extra rides beyond that will shrink lines, cutting out much of the need to request bypass.

 

[larryz]

"Where we're delivering more value, we feel comfortable taking more price," the executive said. - Hugh Johnston

As he was describing how they offer the high end LL, park hopping and surge pricing....

 

[larryz]

I was asking where the ADA used the specific term “reasonable proof” because the term itself seems odd.

Proof or evidence generally refers to something verifiable; documentation is a specific type of proof. Reasonableness is more generally used in connection with interpretation or construction.

I’ve said more than once that line-skip systems likely would not be required as reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The DOJ regulations do not require them and it would not be reasonable to require a business to give away a product it’s selling to everyone.

My only point is that the ADA is vague enough that I don’t believe Disney is being completely unreasonable in not requiring documentation. I believe the requirement is being challenged in the Six Flags litigation.

In any event, I’m worried this discussion is taking the thread off-topic. I’d be happy to discuss it in a PM if you like only because I don’t think anyone else here cares.

You've never heard the term "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" before?

Dictionary.com ...

Reasonable - "agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical"

Proof - "the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration"

Let's put them together ... That which establishes the truth of anything to one with sound judgment.

Hey, guys -- get a (court) room...

 

[Disstevefan1]

Got the answer on prices today from the CFO

"Where we're delivering more value, In any event, we feel comfortable taking more price," the executive said. - Hugh Johnston

FIFH (Fixed it for Hugh)

 

[flynnibus]

Let me spell it out for you ...

1. Person requests an accommodation for their disability
2. Disney requests evidence of the disability
3. Person sues Disney for discrimination
4. Disney defends itself in court
5. Courts will step in and confirm that an entity has the right (under the ADA) to request reasonable proof that a person has a disability that requires an accommodation

Let me spell it out for you... this is nothing like the sequence of events I replied to, so you might want to communicate more clearly.

And you're still wrong here... Your assertion in #5 is simply wrong. There is no 'right to request reasonable proof' of a person's disability. To believe that means you completely missed the entire preface of the law and why they did it. They wanted people with disabilities to avoid alienation and discrimination and allow them to function WITHOUT jumping through hoops. The entire concept is to be accessible BY DEFAULT. No one is supposed to get a 'disabled ID card' -- because the law calls for the places to accomodate needs WITHOUT proof.

The constraints on this have only been carved out because of practical limits on providing the accommodations.. like safety or implementation details to be able to implement the accommodations. Even systems like registration for the service stretch the language of the ADA.. and those systems still have to be shown to inclusive, and not setup to screen out people that would be entitled to the accommodations:

"A public accommodation shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered."

 

[flynnibus]

I disagree with you. If an entity hasn't been provided reasonable proof (or credible assurance, or whatever) the disability exists, then its denial or accommodation is not wrongful.

You can disagree all you want -- It's not a matter of opinion. This very risk is exactly why businesses stay out of the game of trying to judge a person's need. Believing they weren't eligible is not a defense to not a claim of discrimination if they fail to provide the reasonable accommodation to someone who legitimately has a covered disability. The person still has to prove in court that they legitimately have a covered disability -- but in court is the only place they have to do it. The chance of 'getting it wrong' and discriminating against someone is the liability businesses try to avoid because if they deny someone who has a covered disability.. they are in the wrong and risk civil lawsuits for doing so. Hence, the posture of businesses is to focus on mapping a person's NEED to what accommodations they can provide that will address the person's need. Not focusing on eligibility. And this is why systems like the Six Flags model and Disney's new screening are being scrutinized as much as they are.

If an entity hasn't been provided reasonable proof (or credible assurance, or whatever) the disability exists, then its denial or accommodation is not wrongful.

Well, I suggest you write to your congress person and lobby for that change... because that's not the law today.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

"A public accommodation shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered."

This doesn't say what you are suggesting it says.

 

[mysto]

This doesn't say what you are suggesting it says.

Inconceivable!

 

[Chi84]

This doesn't say what you are suggesting it says.

Disney is not asking for documentation of disability for its DAS program. Universal initially did ask for documentation for its program, but has now made it optional. Six Flags is being sued for requiring advance requests and documentation. They have some pretty good lawyers.

My personal opinion is that the ADA does not require DAS. But it seems ridiculous to say there’s no issue.

The ADA has businesses between a rock and a hard place here. @lentesta talked about it in a fairly recent interview.

 

[Indy_UK]

I still don't think it's unreasonable to ask for proof of disability. Most places in the UK/Europe ask like Disneyland Paris.

 

[Two Ears]

I never get Genie+ and ride everything I want.

Yes but how much time do you spend queing? I refuse to ride a ride with a wait time longer then 20 mins. They just aint worth it.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I still don't think it's unreasonable to ask for proof of disability. Most places in the UK/Europe ask like Disneyland Paris.

It's not a law in UK/Europe. It is a law here. The ADA law had good intentions but poor ability to know what a disabled person wants to have happen. Just the idea that a disabled person doesn't need to tell anyone what is wrong is the same as saying disabled people are embarrassed or ashamed of their less than normal condition and feel awful when someone asks. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The way it is now once a DAS is issued it automatically creates a situation where others will judge them when otherwise people wouldn't pay any attention at all. It puts a spotlight on them. Not because they have a disability but because since a place like Disney cannot vet the individual and felt that they had a real reason for needing one, public doubt enters the picture. Without that Vetting, others will be judging to see if that person has a legitimate problem or faking it. Instead of being helpful there is always, unless it is obvious, the opportunity to lie ones way in. That extra, not required by law DAS system is now a pain for places like Disney. Asking a simple question like "What is the reason for the need?" and knowing it is asked before issuing it would ease the situation of always feeling judged.

Although, I have never requested a DAS because I have never needed one, I still feel conspicuous when I get off the scooter and can walk fairly normally to the ride. It makes me feel like those behind me (in the normal line) will think that I am just fat and lazy and that is the only reason why I have one. I, of course, know better, but it still doesn't make me feel any better. Imagine what it would be like if I were given a front of the line perk and no one knew why. From childhood we were taught the cutting lines was wrong. As adults we should be more empathic towards people with disabilities but due to the abuse of the system done by dishonest people it has ruined the experience for those that are truly in need of help.

 

[John park hopper]

It's not a law in UK/Europe. It is a law here. The ADA law had good intentions but poor ability to know what a disabled person wants to have happen. Just the idea that a disabled person doesn't need to tell anyone what is wrong is the same as saying disabled people are embarrassed or ashamed of their less than normal condition and feel awful when someone asks. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The way it is now once a DAS is issued it automatically creates a situation where others will judge them when otherwise people wouldn't pay any attention at all. It puts a spotlight on them. Not because they have a disability but because since a place like Disney cannot vet the individual and felt that they had a real reason for needing one, public doubt enters the picture. Without that Vetting, others will be judging to see if that person has a legitimate problem or faking it. Instead of being helpful there is always, unless it is obvious, the opportunity to lie ones way in. That extra, not required by law DAS system is now a pain for places like Disney. Asking a simple question like "What is the reason for the need?" and knowing it is asked before issuing it would ease the situation of always feeling judged.

Although, I have never requested a DAS because I have never needed one, I still feel conspicuous when I get off the scooter and can walk fairly normally to the ride. It makes me feel like those behind me (in the normal line) will think that I am just fat and lazy and that is the only reason why I have one. I, of course, know better, but it still doesn't make me feel any better. Imagine what it would be like if I were given a front of the line perk and no one knew why. From childhood we were taught the cutting lines was wrong. As adults we should be more empathic towards people with disabilities but due to the abuse of the system done by dishonest people it has ruined the experience for those that are truly in need of help.

Goofernmost we are of the same age and military background thus due to A/O exposure I had a rare non malignant brain tumor and lost the ability to hear in my right ear and have sever balance issues due to right side balance nerve being removed. I can not stand for long periods and can't walk long distances without stopping for a rest. Someone not know would think I was drinking (have not had a drink in 40 years). I have no problem supplying Disney with proof IMO it should be mandatory --in a perfect world people would not abuse any system with good intent.