Teen denied entry to AK for outfit....

[Fantasmic]

What a whiney little brat. She should be happy she got to go to Disney World.

 

[fosse76]

Basically it is Disneys park and they really can enforce or not enforce whatever rule they want to as they deem fit.

Well, any rule that is consistent with the laws regarding places of public accomodation. Disney can't simply enforce any rule it wants if it violates applicable state or federal laws. In this case, I believe they can enforce their policy without any legal repercussions. The question though is consistent enforcement.

Disney deemed this young lady was to close to thier liking. Not to mention a little more risque then they were comfortable with. The family has no shot of winning any suit.

I don't know about that. It depends on their claims and whether or not they can convince a jury. If Disney did in fact prevent her from leaving the property until she changed clothes, they violated the law. They held her against her will. I dout that really happened, but a jury may find otherwise.

As I have said in another post...Disney has a team of lawyers on retainer that would make Perry Mason look like a first year law student. Disney gets sued so many times they probably have a court room set aside for just Plantiff versus Disney cases,

Nonsense. Unless you know who their lawyer is, it's a ridiculous claim.

The family has no basis for a suit....

I agree.

why because someone yelled at her? No one restrained her from leaving.

That's not what she claims. She claims they did prevent her from leaving. If true, she has a claim, both criminal and civil. And if true, I hope they let Disney have it! (But I doubt the legitimacy of the claim).

I am sure if she didnt want to go backstage she would have been asked to leave the park. Escorted to the gate. They went above and beyond as some have mentioned and gave her free clothes to change into. Exactly what was her damages? DO we know if she changed clothes and continued her visit? She is just being a real Stinker Bell!

I hypothesized that upon being initially informed she was being denied entry, she bagan to make a scene and continued to insist she be admitted. Because of the scene she was making, they took her backstage to try and calm her down (being 15, they can't physically remove her from the park without police intervention, and something tells me she probably refused to leave). I am guessing that the unlawful restrain was one of two things: 1) she kept insisting that she was going to go into the park, and the CMs kept saying no (which in her mind is restarining her, since she wasn't going to leave the park); or 2) they told her she was being detained until her parents arrived (which is legal if they otherwise would have called the police) to remove her from the property. At some point during that they made an offer to give her clothes to enjoy her day (and before anyone commends Disney for such a grand gesture, those items of clothing probably cost Disney less than $10 total, despite the huge mark-up they sell them for).

The problem is she is 15, and Disney is probably very limited to what they could do. With an adult who caused a scene, they can simply kick out and escort them to the car (not necessarily with force). Because she is legally a child, they simply can't just kick her off the property. She was probably refusing to leave. They can't forcibly remover her, and it seems clear they didn't want to involve the police. I am guessing my above scenario played out.

 

[ariel90]

I never got to dress as a character as a kid and looked into it when I got older but it says you can't as an older person right on the website. You can't argue with policy although I can still fit the costumes they sell in the park. I can see why it's a rule it would confuse the kids and Disney is really protective of who wears their costumes and how the costume looks

 

[flynnibus]

Well, any rule that is consistent with the laws regarding places of public accomodation. Disney can't simply enforce any rule it wants if it violates applicable state or federal laws. In this case, I believe they can enforce their policy without any legal repercussions. The question though is consistent enforcement.

They aren't required to have consistent enforcement... but the problem is without consistent enforcement, it leaves the door open for people to make claims they were singled out on conditions that are protected under law (like age, sex, race, etc). Consistency is the key to avoid being accused of something else.. not that the law requires consistency in itself

On the detainment stuff.. the girl's parents were there already according to the kid's account.. so it wasn't about being a minor. I think it was simply Disney moving the scene out of the park's view (which is what they do for everything when possible) and instead of conforming, the family wanted to keep fighting the issue. If you fight the issue, they aren't going to release you back into the park areas. I don't recall anywhere in her recount of the situation where they specifically asked to leave either. I think her 'detention' story is a twist of the story that isn't an objective view. I'm sure they could have been escorted out backstage if they wanted to. Who knows, maybe part of that time was Disney trying investigating her claims about being in DHS prior.. ?

 

[fosse76]

They aren't required to have consistent enforcement... but the problem is without consistent enforcement, it leaves the door open for people to make claims they were singled out on conditions that are protected under law (like age, sex, race, etc). Consistency is the key to avoid being accused of something else.. not that the law requires consistency in itself

That was supposed to be my point .

On the detainment stuff.. the girl's parents were there already according to the kid's account.. so it wasn't about being a minor.

Ok. I wasn't sure about that. If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were making a bigger issue out if at the park than she was.

I think it was simply Disney moving the scene out of the park's view (which is what they do for everything when possible) and instead of conforming, the family wanted to keep fighting the issue. If you fight the issue, they aren't going to release you back into the park areas.

Agreed. And in my response to CJR I said as much. These people clearly weren't planning on leaving, at least not without a fight, and Disney would rather that happen out of the sight of other guests until the situation is resolved.

I don't recall anywhere in her recount of the situation where they specifically asked to leave either.

My best guess is that they continued to insist on going into the park, and Disney refused to allow them entry while she was costumed. It's possible they refused to leave if they were escorted by Disney personnel (ensuring they don't stay in the park), and they therefore "translated" that to mean they were unlawfully detained.

I think her 'detention' story is a twist of the story that isn't an objective view. I'm sure they could have been escorted out backstage if they wanted to. Who knows, maybe part of that time was Disney trying investigating her claims about being in DHS prior.. ?

Even in our hypotheticals it barely makes any sense, which is why I believe the dentention is fabricated. It's spin to leave a paper trail of what happened, since unlawful detention is the only legitimate claim they can make (Disney can, theoretically, ban blonde people from wearing red shirts if it wanted, so it can certainly ban guests dressed as a character in their IP).

 

[Captain Chaos]

But, according to her report she DID enter the park and was stopped by security by, her words, Mt. Everest... This after the CM at the gate told her she couldn't enter and supposedly left his or her post... In which time her and her family took it upon themselves, even after being told they couldn't enter, to ENTER the park... Now, who knows if that is true... But, if the CM told her she can't enter because she "looked too good" as Tink, then left his post (I imagine to get a manager), she STILL entered the park, disobeying orders... Did they not think security would seek them out in the park after they entered after being told not to?

I couldn't picture why a CM would leave the post, but like I said, maybe he or she went to get a manager to make a determination.. Or maybe when he or she told them she couldn't enter looking like that, the family started a fight... Which the CM left to get a manager or possibly security to help calm the situation...

Either way, she and her family were 100% wrong...

 

[flynnibus]

Ok. I wasn't sure about that. If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were making a bigger issue out if at the park than she was.

Read the facebook post linked aways back. It gives 'her' side of the story. In reading it, I think like most situations, there are things that happen for a finite reason, but the 'reason' is often perceived differently by the parties involved.

Situation: You are in a room for over an hour. Why?
My view - You ask to goto the park, I say no. Cycle repeats. Net effect, you stay in the room longer because what you ask I can not allow. You continue to argue why. This arguing takes time. I am not going to throw you out while you are trying to debate it with me.
Your view - I was detained in a room for hours! They treated me like a criminal and wouldn't let me leave!

Neither are factually wrong - but what lead to the result is often perceived very differently. Now being factually correct on some aspects, doesn't exclude one from being delusional about the other aspects

The classic 'two sides to every story'... even when the actual actions themselves aren't in question.

 

[John]

"Nonsense. Unless you know who their lawyer is, it's a ridiculous claim".

Dont know who the LAW firm is. But do have a family member who is a CM and who is familiar with the many many law suits filed against Disney. Sorry, I think I will take my mothers information as somewhat reliable. As far as the other comments think Flynni summed up pretty well.

 

[Allie_Marie]

I honestly find this really amusing. I am 16, it would be fun to dress up as Belle for a day but rules are rules! She shouldn't be devestated rules are rules! Granted she looked really good, she should take it for being a compliment that she looked real! o
I kinda find it a little pathetic that she was that upset over it.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I do wonder how quietly awkward the drive home was for them...

 

[DisneyMusician2]

I just love the news coverage of it, could you sensationalize something like this a bit more?

Next thing we'll be getting teary-eyed news stories about people who couldn't bring their favorite firearm with them to match their pirate t-shirt.

 

[rsoxguy]

That happened to me. I was so distraught that I went on a shooting spree. It's a good thing that they allow us internet access in prison.

 

[fosse76]

"Nonsense. Unless you know who their lawyer is, it's a ridiculous claim".

Dont know who the LAW firm is. But do have a family member who is a CM and who is familiar with the many many law suits filed against Disney. Sorry, I think I will take my mothers information as somewhat reliable. As far as the other comments think Flynni summed up pretty well.

Oh please. I doubt she has any knowledge as to the resolution of most of Disney's cases. Small firms win cases against large corporations all the time. If this is indeed a legitimate case where she and her family were prevented from leaving, it's unlikely she would lose (in fact it most likely would be settled). Your initial claim is what I was arguing. Simply because Disney can hire a "high-powered corporate attorney" (which just means expensive) doesn't mean they'll win. It's a ludicrous claim. And Flynn and I are agreeing, though it seems like we aren't, he and I are making the same points.

 

[RSoxNo1]

We should all show up in tinkerbell costumes to show our support

 

[John]

Oh please. I doubt she has any knowledge as to the resolution of most of Disney's cases. Small firms win cases against large corporations all the time. If this is indeed a legitimate case where she and her family were prevented from leaving, it's unlikely she would lose (in fact it most likely would be settled). Your initial claim is what I was arguing. Simply because Disney can hire a "high-powered corporate attorney" (which just means expensive) doesn't mean they'll win. It's a ludicrous claim. And Flynn and I are agreeing, though it seems like we aren't, he and I are making the same points.

And exactly what do you know about thier cases? Resolutions? You are the one that has abslolutely no idea what you are talking about. Disney RARELY settles a case. They fight tooth and nail over every penny....They do this to prevent themselves to become a easy mark. Who do you think this girl is Erin Brockovich? My mother has worked at WDW for 15 yrs. No matter where you work after that amount of time you tend to make many friends. She has held many different jobs there ( by design). She knows an awful lot of people. DO you doubt some of the insiders here? How do you think they get some of thier info? because they know someone. Have I established reliability? Not really trying to. I just gave an ancdote to something I admittedly have albeit limited knowledge of. So shoot me.

I am not a lawyer nor do I presume to know the law. I am a regular guy who visits a informal chat discussion board. I apoligize for not going into a analytical legal disection of this girls plight. If I realized that there were going to be lawyers around here to cross examine me I would have been better prepared.

 

[John]

Fosse....I thought Flynni did a fine job elaborateing on my comments. You say that you were essentially making the same point. So the only thing you had a problem with was my comment about Disney lawyers? Why so sensitive?
And honestly you know no more about who or whatkind of lawyersDisney has then anybody else. You just didnt like the tone of my comment. So you refute my comment with no real knowledge or basis.....hmmmmpf?

 

[mp2bill]

HAH! I literally spit my drink out laughing when they said "She started the day looking like this [pic of her as Tink], but she ended it looking like this [shot of her with running mascara and disheveled." Great journalism. :ROFLOL:

On a serious note, I don't feel bad for her. I think it's ironic that they'll let someone in the shirt with a crude sexual reference on their shirt, but not a girl dressed as Tink, but I understand their reasoning. She should not have made such a big deal out of it, Disney offered her free clothes to change into...I say get over it.

Agreed. If it wasn't already in their official policy, I'd side with her. But since it is, "Sorry, it was a nice try. Take these free clothes and try not to let it ruin your day."

 

[Maerj]

Somebnody should tell her that the *real* Tinkerbell would never sue anyone!

 

[Jim Handy]

I feel no sympathy for her, even with the tears. This has long been Disney's policy.Disney didn't even have to offer her what they did. She should have taken their offer and been happy instead of a pouty little brat.

 

[trr1]

is she still in Hawaii ? check her facebook page