Today show does a follow up on the "Rich Manhattan Moms"

[Goofnut1980]

This is, by far, my favorite post on the GAC issue...ever.

I've been having a hard time with the very concept of GAC the very second I read some guys account that his son or daughter was able to ride some ride 5000+ times. The fact of the matter is that there's already a ride priority mechanism in place at WDW...it's called fastpass. If there's some other reason why you can't stand in line, get a hockey puck that'll make you wait just as long as everyone else and when it lights up, you can ride.

I personally hope this deplorable situation does infact hurt GAC for everyone. There are better ways to accommodate truly legitimately disabled people, while preventing a large amount of the clear and current abuse of the card.

Couldn't agree more. I mean geesh, the guy and girl in the video were walking and talking just fine. I am completely understanding of people with disabilities. My cousin is autistic and has a slighly hard time in social situations, but we know how to avoid them and make it easy for him. But if we were at Disney, we would manage the trip differntly and use FP so he didn't have to stand in the lines. Granted, having been a million times, I wouldn't go during peak season with him either. But if you are walking around and talking and carrying on. Then you obviously do not need any type of assistance.

 

[dadddio]

Couldn't agree more. I mean geesh, the guy and girl in the video were walking and talking just fine. I am completely understanding of people with disabilities. My cousin is autistic and has a slighly hard time in social situations, but we know how to avoid them and make it easy for him. But if we were at Disney, we would manage the trip differntly and use FP so he didn't have to stand in the lines. Granted, having been a million times, I wouldn't go during peak season with him either. But if you are walking around and talking and carrying on. Then you obviously do not need any type of assistance.

I didn't realize that 'walking' and 'talking' were the determinants of whether someone was disabled.

 

[Goofnut1980]

I don't want this to sound negative, because this is not my intentions at all. But, doesn't the ADA only state that the place be accessible for handicapped persons? It doesn't say anything about needing to provide a special card because someone says they are handicapped. With Disney being private property, that you pay to access, they shouldn't have to bend over backwards?! Should they?

edit: wanted to add this.. but don't want to sound like a jerk...

So, I looked these up to see the true definition.

Here is the defintion of disabled from Websters -
: incapacitated by illness or injury; also : physically or mentally impaired in a way that substantially limits activity especially in relation to employment or education

Here is the definition of handicapped from Websters-
: having a physical or mental disability; also : of or reserved for individuals with a physical disability

Those two on the NBC report were clearly not incapacitated nor did they have a mental disability. Disney needs to crack down hard on this.

 

[Lord_Vader]

Nope I see no problem. Here goes the inevitable drama starting, they are not spending hours apart for each ride. Oh god they have to spend an hour in line while their disabled family member sits with an escort and apparently impatiently waits for them. Oh god the sky is falling, the sky is falling! It is the end of the vacation, it is the end of the world, mercy mercy!

Get real. A real world point. I had to show legitimate disability for my passport to be issued with me wearing dark glasses because I am sensitive to light due to a brain injury. Nobody anywhere can ask me to remove them by law. Disney can require proof of disability. The cannot say no to those with a medical issue, they can require proof. Only if they do not provide reasonable accommodations are they in violation of ADA laws. Disney also cannot maintain a record of said medical issue for privacy reasons, where the government can. While this is an issue as well as the easily forged pass, it does not address the huge parties abusing and using disabled persons for front of the line priviledges.

By the discussions of some here it is very clear that there are certain people here that have little to no issue with either the flat out blatant abuse of the GAC and/ or issue with many people in a group being allowed front of line based upon one person's disability. Which leads me to postulate that those people screaming hardest and protesting the most are possibly the ones that either encourage the behaviour being contested or are the ones perpetrating said behaviour.

A popular quote that makes a lot of sense "The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" It may be from a movie, but logic is logic any way you look at it.

You are quoting Spock from Star Trek "Wrath of Khan" and "Into Darkness."

You are using fuzzy logic, the majority of guests that use and need a GAC are also the most affected by the abuse. If an attraction only allows two GAC parties on the attraction at a given time, and the usage triples, the wait times go up radically. If 1/2 the alternate entrance guests in BTMRR are faking it, then each real GAC card user has their wait effectively doubled whereas the typical guest might see a 2 minute longer wait. BTMRR only allowed one party at a time, every fourth train last Christmas, sometimes every eight train. One one occasion (12/26 at around 7:30PM) we had 15 wheelchairs in front of us at 10 minutes per chair, the posted wait was 65 minutes.

It is absolutely rediculous that everyone is so worked up about this right now. The "abuse" can be mitigated by Disney if they so choose, I greatly wish they would as the alternate entrance lines have gotten rediculous over the past few years, we typically go at Christmas. While I did not record exact times, I did keep up with averages and E-Ticket rides like Splash Mountain, Big Thuder, Toy Story, Space Mountain, etc typically had 5 to 10 wheelchairs/ECVs last year. Each group takes approximately 5-10 minutes depending on the ride leaving us with very long waits as well, sometimes 30 minutes or more than the posted standby time. Haunted Mansion is a great example, we waited 15 minutes for a cast member to come over to the alternate entrance, then waited in about 1/2 the standby line, through the main room, but then right before the inside queue we get pulled out, to sit in another line that averaged 15-20 minutes because they limit the number of guests requiring assistance at a single time. We rode HM at least six times over a 14 day period, virtually the same result every time unless it was very early in the morning or late at night, not a one time issue.
Our experiences may not be typical but it gets tiresome to hear over and over that they are a front of the line pass when they are not truely an unlimited fast pass. The alternate entrance lines are getting longer and longer each year, at least during the Christmas holidays and believe me if my wife could climb stairs and did not need assistance with the omnimover type entrances/exits we would gladly wait in a queue that is both moving and many times shorter.

 

[Lord_Vader]

I don't want this to sound negative, because this is not my intentions at all. But, doesn't the ADA only state that the place be accessible for handicapped persons? It doesn't say anything about needing to provide a special card because someone says they are handicapped. With Disney being private property, that you pay to access, they shouldn't have to bend over backwards?! Should they?

edit: wanted to add this.. but don't want to sound like a jerk...

So, I looked these up to see the true definition.

Here is the defintion of disabled from Websters -
: incapacitated by illness or injury; also : physically or mentally impaired in a way that substantially limits activity especially in relation to employment or education

Here is the definition of handicapped from Websters-
: having a physical or mental disability; also : of or reserved for individuals with a physical disability

Those two on the NBC report were clearly not incapacitated nor did they have a mental disability. Disney needs to crack down hard on this.

The two tour guides in the Today spot should be banned from the parks for life. They know they are abusing the system and simply do not care that they are scamming the system. The guests they are hurting most are the guests that truely need the assistance.

 

[asianway]

I don't want this to sound negative, because this is not my intentions at all. But, doesn't the ADA only state that the place be accessible for handicapped persons? It doesn't say anything about needing to provide a special card because someone says they are handicapped. With Disney being private property, that you pay to access, they shouldn't have to bend over backwards?! Should they?

edit: wanted to add this.. but don't want to sound like a jerk...

So, I looked these up to see the true definition.

Here is the defintion of disabled from Websters -
: incapacitated by illness or injury; also : physically or mentally impaired in a way that substantially limits activity especially in relation to employment or education

Here is the definition of handicapped from Websters-
: having a physical or mental disability; also : of or reserved for individuals with a physical disability

Those two on the NBC report were clearly not incapacitated nor did they have a mental disability. Disney needs to crack down hard on this.

They only need to provide accessibility. As @flynnibus has recapped several times in many threads, Disney goes above and beyond what is needed to accomodate because they are too cheap to tailor accomodations to what the true need is. They could build this into MM+ and maybe they will. The common example is your local Target doesnt allow you to cut the checkout line because you have anxiety. They dont because they dont have to.

 

[articos]

I'm not sure how it would cut down the abuse, but my son received the equivilent of a GAC at Sea World last year and in order to get the pass, I had to sit down with a Guest Relations Rep. He put my name and License information as well as my son's name and State ID # into a database "for future visits". They never asked for any information regarding our need for the assistance. Maybe just the idea of having to identify yourself and put your name in a database would deter people?

Exactly. If they have to provide ID info, they may think twice about constantly abusing the system. Especially if their name is in the system weekly with a different group of other names.

The two tour guides in the Today spot should be banned from the parks for life.

I'm positive they will be, if they haven't been already. At some point soon when they show up, I'm sure they'll be issued a permanent trespass.

 

[dadddio]

I don't want this to sound negative, because this is not my intentions at all. But, doesn't the ADA only state that the place be accessible for handicapped persons? It doesn't say anything about needing to provide a special card because someone says they are handicapped. With Disney being private property, that you pay to access, they shouldn't have to bend over backwards?! Should they?

edit: wanted to add this.. but don't want to sound like a jerk...

So, I looked these up to see the true definition.

Here is the defintion of disabled from Websters -
: incapacitated by illness or injury; also : physically or mentally impaired in a way that substantially limits activity especially in relation to employment or education

Here is the definition of handicapped from Websters-
: having a physical or mental disability; also : of or reserved for individuals with a physical disability

Those two on the NBC report were clearly not incapacitated nor did they have a mental disability. Disney needs to crack down hard on this.

I'm not an ADA attorney, but legal definitions often substantially differ from that of Websters. Also, laws like this are often significantly modified/defined by case law.

 

[tracyandalex]

It's much like the rules regarding Service Animals. People now buy $25 vests and put them on their housepets because the laws don't allow places like Disney to ask for proof. I get why it's important not to make it hard for those who legitimately need a GAC or Service Animal, but the problem comes about when people abuse it. As we see in this kind of "disabled tour guide" situation.

Thanks so much, I had no idea I could just get a vest for my dog! You have just saved me a ton of $$ on pet sitting.

j/k

but seriously I had no idea one could do that, i thought you had to get those vest from some official place. Over the last year or so I saw a few dogs with the vests and thought really, how on Earth did those non-disabled looking folks pull that off. Now I know. Obviously i wouldn't be a good scammer since this idea never even occurred to me. I guess I have to stick with my honest day job

 

[flynnibus]

I don't want this to sound negative, because this is not my intentions at all. But, doesn't the ADA only state that the place be accessible for handicapped persons?

No - ADA covers 'disabilities' - which are defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual" and focuses on inclusion.. not just accessibility.

 

[flynnibus]

Get real. A real world point. I had to show legitimate disability for my passport to be issued with me wearing dark glasses because I am sensitive to light due to a brain injury. Nobody anywhere can ask me to remove them by law. Disney can require proof of disability. The cannot say no to those with a medical issue, they can require proof. Only if they do not provide reasonable accommodations are they in violation of ADA laws. Disney also cannot maintain a record of said medical issue for privacy reasons, where the government can. While this is an issue as well as the easily forged pass, it does not address the huge parties abusing and using disabled persons for front of the line priviledges.

so full of wrong... can not digest

 

[flynnibus]

People have to realize.. the ADA law is setup to explicitly protect the disabled from having to jump through hoops others do not.

Even requiring 'registration' if you didn't require it for non-disabled people would put the company at risk of a lawsuit.

When simply acting as a place of public accommodation - Disney can not require explict proof of a disability to provide an accommodation. Disney can do things like inquire what impairments you have... but only to the degree to provide the necessary accommodations.

The general statement that was codified to enforce this portion of the ADA is
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol1/xml/CFR-2010-title28-vol1-part36.xml

§ 36.301Eligibility criteria.
(a) General. 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.

...unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods...

So if Disney has a system of simply handing out cards as needed... you couldn't turn around and say 'You need to register with our database to get a GAC card...'. You've already proven it's not necessary to facilitate the service based on your past use. Trying to enforce a registration for these guests that you do not on others.. would expose them to violating the conditions above.

The idea of screening people out who legitimately have a need also puts them at risk. The only 'catch' is when it can be shown you need the info to provide the service.. and there are specific exceptions around safety. That is the premise Disney used prior to try to combat the use of Segways, arguing their use would put the safety of others at risk.

Do not confuse what an EMPLOYER is allowed to do regarding an employee/employer relationship with what a place of public accommodation can do. SEPARATE PARTS OF THE LAW.

Basically Disney (and all other public accommodations) are screwed because setting up criteria that would risk excluding those covered by the law would put them at risk.

And anyone bringing up medical information as a privacy concern is completely off base. HIPPA doesn't even apply to Disney as a theme park vendor... nor does it prevent storage of medical info... nor does it prevent inquiring about medical info... nor does it prevent individuals from sharing their medical details. It's as applicable here as Dr Suess is to Brain Surgery.

 

[flynnibus]

For a good example of how this plays out in real world. Take this note from the DOJ regarding ticket sales. Now most of you are familiar with the idea of buying tickets for concert/performance/etc.. and the challenges you face as a regular buyer. Take a look at how the ADA protects the disabled in such a situation, and how those protections go as far as.. even enabling the disabled to do some things that other people can NOT do. All in the effort to ensure the disabled have equal opportunity.

Take a look...
http://www.ada.gov/ticketing_2010.htm

---
Venues cannot require proof of disability as a condition for purchasing tickets for accessible seats. However, venues and third-party vendors may take steps to prevent the fraudulent sale and use of accessible seating. For single event tickets, venues may ask purchasers to state that they require, or are purchasing tickets for someone who requires, the features of an accessible seat. For series of events tickets, purchasers may be asked to attest in writing that they require, or are purchasing tickets for someone who requires, the features of an accessible seat. These steps may be used in all sales, including those over the Internet. Venues may also mark tickets to clearly identify that they are for accessible seats. Some venues include on tickets for accessible seats a message stating that, if the user of the ticket does not need the specific features of the accessible seat, the venue may require the ticket holder to move to a different, non-accessible seating location.
---
Venues cannot charge higher prices for accessible seats than for non-accessible seats in the same seating section. This concept also applies to service charges added to the cost of a ticket, whether charged by the venue or a third-party seller. Venues must offer accessible seats in all price categories available to the public.
---
People purchasing a ticket for an accessible seat may purchase up to three additional seats for their companions in the same row and these seats must be contiguous with the accessible seat. Accessible seats may be used as companion seats. If contiguous seats have already been sold and are not available, the venue must offer other seats as close as possible to the accessible seat. If those seats are in a different price category, the venue is not required to modify the price and may charge the same price as it charges others for those seats
---
If venues permit patrons to give or sell their tickets to others, the same right must be extended to patrons with disabilities who hold tickets for accessible seats and to persons with disabilities who intend to buy or receive tickets on the secondary ticket market. An individual with a ticket for an accessible seat may transfer it to anyone, including someone who does not have a disability. Venues cannot require that accessible seats only be transferred to someone with a disability
---

 

[MattC]

People have to realize.. the ADA law is setup to explicitly protect the disabled from having to jump through hoops others do not.

Even requiring 'registration' if you didn't require it for non-disabled people would put the company at risk of a lawsuit.

When simply acting as a place of public accommodation - Disney can not require explict proof of a disability to provide an accommodation. Disney can do things like inquire what impairments you have... but only to the degree to provide the necessary accommodations.

The general statement that was codified to enforce this portion of the ADA is
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol1/xml/CFR-2010-title28-vol1-part36.xml


...unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods...

So if Disney has a system of simply handing out cards as needed... you couldn't turn around and say 'You need to register with our database to get a GAC card...'. You've already proven it's not necessary to facilitate the service based on your past use. Trying to enforce a registration for these guests that you do not on others.. would expose them to violating the conditions above.

The idea of screening people out who legitimately have a need also puts them at risk. The only 'catch' is when it can be shown you need the info to provide the service.. and there are specific exceptions around safety. That is the premise Disney used prior to try to combat the use of Segways, arguing their use would put the safety of others at risk.

Do not confuse what an EMPLOYER is allowed to do regarding an employee/employer relationship with what a place of public accommodation can do. SEPARATE PARTS OF THE LAW.

Basically Disney (and all other public accommodations) are screwed because setting up criteria that would risk excluding those covered by the law would put them at risk.

And anyone bringing up medical information as a privacy concern is completely off base. HIPPA doesn't even apply to Disney as a theme park vendor... nor does it prevent storage of medical info... nor does it prevent inquiring about medical info... nor does it prevent individuals from sharing their medical details. It's as applicable here as Dr Suess is to Brain Surgery.

Nice explanation.

I have a question. This may be over simplified, but here ya go. Could Disney require some sort of explanation of a disability because of the possible need to help guest on and off rides? If the guest needs assistance to experience the attraction like everyone else, would that fall under the allowance to gather info language in the code you quoted?

 

[DisneyJoe]

Nice explanation.

I have a question. This may be over simplified, but here ya go. Could Disney require some sort of explanation of a disability because of the possible need to help guest on and off rides? If the guest needs assistance to experience the attraction like everyone else, would that fall under the allowance to gather info language in the code you quoted?

CM's don't/won't (can't?) due to the liability involved.

 

[flynnibus]

Nice explanation.

I have a question. This may be over simplified, but here ya go. Could Disney require some sort of explanation of a disability because of the possible need to help guest on and off rides? If the guest needs assistance to experience the attraction like everyone else, would that fall under the allowance to gather info language in the code you quoted?

They can inquire to what kind of help you need-like inquire if you can enter a ride vehicle without assistance, but they should not attempt to ask why, etc

Basically the structure expected is the customer should outline what they can't do, and the owner needs to make accommodations to include them. The customer does not get to dictate the accommodation.

That's why if you goto Disney and say 'I need to cut the line' they'll run you through the wringer. But if you say 'I can't sit or stand stationary for long periods'. Disney may offer an accommodation of bypassing the normal line

 

[MattC]

They can inquire to what kind of help you need-like inquire if you can enter a ride vehicle without assistance, but they should not attempt to ask why, etc

Basically the structure expected is the customer should outline what they can't do, and the owner needs to make accommodations to include them. The customer does not get to dictate the accommodation.

That's why if you goto Disney and say 'I need to cut the line' they'll run you through the wringer. But if you say 'I can't sit or stand stationary for long periods'. Disney may offer an accommodation of bypassing the normal line

Thanks

 

[bethymouse]

For a good example of how this plays out in real world. Take this note from the DOJ regarding ticket sales. Now most of you are familiar with the idea of buying tickets for concert/performance/etc.. and the challenges you face as a regular buyer. Take a look at how the ADA protects the disabled in such a situation, and how those protections go as far as.. even enabling the disabled to do some things that other people can NOT do. All in the effort to ensure the disabled have equal opportunity.

Take a look...
http://www.ada.gov/ticketing_2010.htm

---
Venues cannot require proof of disability as a condition for purchasing tickets for accessible seats. However, venues and third-party vendors may take steps to prevent the fraudulent sale and use of accessible seating. For single event tickets, venues may ask purchasers to state that they require, or are purchasing tickets for someone who requires, the features of an accessible seat. For series of events tickets, purchasers may be asked to attest in writing that they require, or are purchasing tickets for someone who requires, the features of an accessible seat. These steps may be used in all sales, including those over the Internet. Venues may also mark tickets to clearly identify that they are for accessible seats. Some venues include on tickets for accessible seats a message stating that, if the user of the ticket does not need the specific features of the accessible seat, the venue may require the ticket holder to move to a different, non-accessible seating location.
---
Venues cannot charge higher prices for accessible seats than for non-accessible seats in the same seating section. This concept also applies to service charges added to the cost of a ticket, whether charged by the venue or a third-party seller. Venues must offer accessible seats in all price categories available to the public.
---
People purchasing a ticket for an accessible seat may purchase up to three additional seats for their companions in the same row and these seats must be contiguous with the accessible seat. Accessible seats may be used as companion seats. If contiguous seats have already been sold and are not available, the venue must offer other seats as close as possible to the accessible seat. If those seats are in a different price category, the venue is not required to modify the price and may charge the same price as it charges others for those seats
---
If venues permit patrons to give or sell their tickets to others, the same right must be extended to patrons with disabilities who hold tickets for accessible seats and to persons with disabilities who intend to buy or receive tickets on the secondary ticket market. An individual with a ticket for an accessible seat may transfer it to anyone, including someone who does not have a disability. Venues cannot require that accessible seats only be transferred to someone with a disability
---

There was another issue where The Shakespeare Theater in Washington, DC charged extra for handicapped seating! I believe the guy is sueing!

 

[asianway]

There was another issue where The Shakespeare Theater in Washington, DC charged extra for handicapped seating! I believe the guy is sueing!

There are professional plaintiffs as a result of the new legislation.

 

[Timekeeper]

I'm not an ADA attorney, but legal definitions often substantially differ from that of Websters. Also, laws like this are often significantly modified/defined by case law.

True, but courts (when reaching decisions that become case law) often turn to the "plain meaning" of terms, and often cite to dictionaries (like Oxford and Websters) when attempting to determine the plain meaning of a term as it pertains to statutory construction. The idea is that words that compromise law ought not be attributed definitions that are removed from common sense (plain meaning). If the legislature gets too creative, then we're left with law that for example could be deemed unconstitutionally void for vagueness.