Figgy1
Well-Known Member
Six Flags sued over claims of violating disabilities act
The park's “attraction access program” violates the ADA, a new lawsuit filed in federal court says.
www.chron.com
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Universal Studios new disability pass
- Thread starter Autumn
- Start date
www.chron.com
flynnibus
Premium Member
No shocker... the suit names the attributes brought up here earlier...
- the need to do it prior to visiting vs same privilege as others
- process that has the effect of discriminating
- eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities
- citing the documentation requirement
- the need to submit info to this 3rd party
- he's supposedly experienced discrimination, so he has standing (vs just challenging the concept)
And citing Cali's own protections too... Enjoy your reading...
- the need to do it prior to visiting vs same privilege as others
- process that has the effect of discriminating
- eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities
- citing the documentation requirement
- the need to submit info to this 3rd party
- he's supposedly experienced discrimination, so he has standing (vs just challenging the concept)
And citing Cali's own protections too... Enjoy your reading...
flynnibus
Premium Member
an interesting angle is they paint the Six Flags "Attraction Access Program" as problematic because it applies one model to all, vs individualized accomodations.
They cite many references about the Fed Regulations banning requiring documentation, but I think they are taking a lot of cites out of context and trying to apply them broader than their intended wording. That kind of stuff will be challenged. (Edit: I see later the plaintiff says he occasionally uses a scooter too.. so maybe he's got better footing there .. I'm not familiar with SF's implementation around scooters)
It's interesting they cite Disney's DAS as better because it doesn't require documentation
They cite many references about the Fed Regulations banning requiring documentation, but I think they are taking a lot of cites out of context and trying to apply them broader than their intended wording. That kind of stuff will be challenged. (Edit: I see later the plaintiff says he occasionally uses a scooter too.. so maybe he's got better footing there .. I'm not familiar with SF's implementation around scooters)
It's interesting they cite Disney's DAS as better because it doesn't require documentation
flynnibus
Premium Member
Some juicy story telling. I know MM has a reputation for bad staff... but this is almost unbelievable I think the missing element from the plantiff's story is he might be presenting his "card" in a format the park isn't used to accepting. Note in other forms they talk about the digital card... yet the story in each of these tales is about a printed copy. Does the park require a version of the "card" different than he is using? Or is their representation so poor they can't tell fakes or not themselves? Sounds like he has to present both the attractions pass and the IAC? seems odd...
----
Subsequently, on or around June 11, 2022, Plaintiff visited Magic Mountain with
his wife for a planned day trip to celebrate Plaintiff’s birthday. In advance of the trip, Plaintiff
printed out his digital IAC, and brought the paper copy to the Park with him on June 11, 2022.
Upon arrival at Magic Mountain, Plaintiff entered the Park and presented his IAC at Guest
Services in accordance with the Park’s disability access procedures and obtained an Attraction
Access Pass. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff presented both his IAC and Attraction Access Pass to a
ride attendant at the attraction’s alternative entrance.
85. However, upon doing so, the employee took Plaintiff’s paper card and ripped it up
into four pieces, then handed it back to Plaintiff and told him that he did “not look disabled
enough” to have the listed accommodations, that he looked “able-bodied.” Plaintiff felt
immediately distraught and embarrassed by the employee’s insinuation that Plaintiff was lying
about, and his dismissiveness of, Plaintiff’s need for accommodation, the destruction of his IAC,
and the conspicuousness of the employee’s display. Plaintiff explained to the employee that “not
all disabilities are visible,” and then went to Guest Services to talk to a manager about the Park
employee’s cruel and humiliating treatment. However, Guest Services did not offer any redress
but instead directed Plaintiff to make a complaint on the Six Flags website, stating that if he did so
a manager would get back to him. After that, Plaintiff left the Park within 10 minutes, with his
ripped-up paper IAC in hand and without any resolution for his denial of Park access and ruined
birthday celebration. In the parking lot, before leaving the premises, Plaintiff did exactly as Guest
Services advised: he submitted a complaint through Defendants’ website. However, no employee
of Six Flags ever reached out to him in response.
86. Plaintiff returned to Magic Mountain with his wife on July 17, 2022. On this
occasion, too, Plaintiff faced inappropriate treatment from Park employees regarding his need for
accommodation. Specifically, after presenting his IAC at Guest Services and obtaining an
Attraction Access Pass, Plaintiff entered the alternate or standby entrance reserved for disability
access at Magic Mountain’s “Justice League: Battle for Metropolis”57 attraction. Plaintiff then
presented his IAC and Pass to the ride attendant, and in response the Park employee took the paper
card from Plaintiff’s hands, told Plaintiff that she needed to verify it, showed the IAC to one of her
co-workers, and then directed Plaintiff to leave and join the “regular” line, stating that she did not
know where Plaintiff got the IAC, but that his accommodation was not valid for that particular
ride.
87. Plaintiff then requested multiple times that the employee return his IAC, but she
refused to return Plaintiff’s paper IAC to him the first two or three times Plaintiff asked for it back,
telling Plaintiff that she needed to show it to her manager. When Plaintiff then became visibly
upset and again insisted that she return his IAC, the employee ultimately gave it back to Plaintiff
and directed him to go to the front office. She did not indicate for what purpose, and neither
Plaintiff nor his wife understood why she was telling them to do that. Instead, they went to
Customer Relations to explain the situation regarding the IAC, but the Customer Relations
manager told Plaintiff that he did not look like he had a disability, and that Plaintiff was lucky that
the manager did not take his season pass from him.
88. Plaintiff’s next visit to Magic Mountain with his wife was on or around September
10, 2022. This visit was plagued by yet another incident concerning Plaintiff’s IAC. At around
1:05 p.m. that day, Plaintiff presented his IAC and Attraction Access Pass to an attendant at one of
the rides. The attendant took Plaintiff’s card and Pass and examined the wait time interval
provided on the latter, but then told Plaintiff that there must be something wrong with his IAC
and/or Pass because, according to the attendant, it looked like Plaintiff did not qualify for the
Attraction Access Pass program accommodation. The attendant then denied Plaintiff’s request to
use the attraction’s alternate entrance reserved for disability access, telling Plaintiff that he would
have to join the “regular” queue and wait. At that point, Plaintiff walked away from the attraction
altogether, finding that the ride was not worth either the sciatic pain he would experience by
waiting on the line or the trouble of convincing the attraction attendant or any other Six Flags
employee that he is, in fact, disabled and in need of reasonable accommodation, no matter how
“able-bodied” he may appear to the employees at Six Flags in their fleeting interactions.
Ultimately, Plaintiff did not get to experience that ride. And, once again, this negative interaction
with a Park employee left Plaintiff feeling upset, embarrassed, frustrated, angry, and excluded.
I think the missing element from the plantiff's story is he might be presenting his "card" in a format the park isn't used to accepting. Note in other forms they talk about the digital card... yet the story in each of these tales is about a printed copy. Does the park require a version of the "card" different than he is using? Or is their representation so poor they can't tell fakes or not themselves? Sounds like he has to present both the attractions pass and the IAC? seems odd...----
Subsequently, on or around June 11, 2022, Plaintiff visited Magic Mountain with
his wife for a planned day trip to celebrate Plaintiff’s birthday. In advance of the trip, Plaintiff
printed out his digital IAC, and brought the paper copy to the Park with him on June 11, 2022.
Upon arrival at Magic Mountain, Plaintiff entered the Park and presented his IAC at Guest
Services in accordance with the Park’s disability access procedures and obtained an Attraction
Access Pass. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff presented both his IAC and Attraction Access Pass to a
ride attendant at the attraction’s alternative entrance.
85. However, upon doing so, the employee took Plaintiff’s paper card and ripped it up
into four pieces, then handed it back to Plaintiff and told him that he did “not look disabled
enough” to have the listed accommodations, that he looked “able-bodied.” Plaintiff felt
immediately distraught and embarrassed by the employee’s insinuation that Plaintiff was lying
about, and his dismissiveness of, Plaintiff’s need for accommodation, the destruction of his IAC,
and the conspicuousness of the employee’s display. Plaintiff explained to the employee that “not
all disabilities are visible,” and then went to Guest Services to talk to a manager about the Park
employee’s cruel and humiliating treatment. However, Guest Services did not offer any redress
but instead directed Plaintiff to make a complaint on the Six Flags website, stating that if he did so
a manager would get back to him. After that, Plaintiff left the Park within 10 minutes, with his
ripped-up paper IAC in hand and without any resolution for his denial of Park access and ruined
birthday celebration. In the parking lot, before leaving the premises, Plaintiff did exactly as Guest
Services advised: he submitted a complaint through Defendants’ website. However, no employee
of Six Flags ever reached out to him in response.
86. Plaintiff returned to Magic Mountain with his wife on July 17, 2022. On this
occasion, too, Plaintiff faced inappropriate treatment from Park employees regarding his need for
accommodation. Specifically, after presenting his IAC at Guest Services and obtaining an
Attraction Access Pass, Plaintiff entered the alternate or standby entrance reserved for disability
access at Magic Mountain’s “Justice League: Battle for Metropolis”57 attraction. Plaintiff then
presented his IAC and Pass to the ride attendant, and in response the Park employee took the paper
card from Plaintiff’s hands, told Plaintiff that she needed to verify it, showed the IAC to one of her
co-workers, and then directed Plaintiff to leave and join the “regular” line, stating that she did not
know where Plaintiff got the IAC, but that his accommodation was not valid for that particular
ride.
87. Plaintiff then requested multiple times that the employee return his IAC, but she
refused to return Plaintiff’s paper IAC to him the first two or three times Plaintiff asked for it back,
telling Plaintiff that she needed to show it to her manager. When Plaintiff then became visibly
upset and again insisted that she return his IAC, the employee ultimately gave it back to Plaintiff
and directed him to go to the front office. She did not indicate for what purpose, and neither
Plaintiff nor his wife understood why she was telling them to do that. Instead, they went to
Customer Relations to explain the situation regarding the IAC, but the Customer Relations
manager told Plaintiff that he did not look like he had a disability, and that Plaintiff was lucky that
the manager did not take his season pass from him.
88. Plaintiff’s next visit to Magic Mountain with his wife was on or around September
10, 2022. This visit was plagued by yet another incident concerning Plaintiff’s IAC. At around
1:05 p.m. that day, Plaintiff presented his IAC and Attraction Access Pass to an attendant at one of
the rides. The attendant took Plaintiff’s card and Pass and examined the wait time interval
provided on the latter, but then told Plaintiff that there must be something wrong with his IAC
and/or Pass because, according to the attendant, it looked like Plaintiff did not qualify for the
Attraction Access Pass program accommodation. The attendant then denied Plaintiff’s request to
use the attraction’s alternate entrance reserved for disability access, telling Plaintiff that he would
have to join the “regular” queue and wait. At that point, Plaintiff walked away from the attraction
altogether, finding that the ride was not worth either the sciatic pain he would experience by
waiting on the line or the trouble of convincing the attraction attendant or any other Six Flags
employee that he is, in fact, disabled and in need of reasonable accommodation, no matter how
“able-bodied” he may appear to the employees at Six Flags in their fleeting interactions.
Ultimately, Plaintiff did not get to experience that ride. And, once again, this negative interaction
with a Park employee left Plaintiff feeling upset, embarrassed, frustrated, angry, and excluded.
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
I believe that falls underSome juicy story telling. I know MM has a reputation for bad staff... but this is almost unbelievable
----
Subsequently, on or around June 11, 2022, Plaintiff visited Magic Mountain with
his wife for a planned day trip to celebrate Plaintiff’s birthday. In advance of the trip, Plaintiff
printed out his digital IAC, and brought the paper copy to the Park with him on June 11, 2022.
Upon arrival at Magic Mountain, Plaintiff entered the Park and presented his IAC at Guest
Services in accordance with the Park’s disability access procedures and obtained an Attraction
Access Pass. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff presented both his IAC and Attraction Access Pass to a
ride attendant at the attraction’s alternative entrance.
85. However, upon doing so, the employee took Plaintiff’s paper card and ripped it up
into four pieces, then handed it back to Plaintiff and told him that he did “not look disabled
enough” to have the listed accommodations, that he looked “able-bodied.” Plaintiff felt
immediately distraught and embarrassed by the employee’s insinuation that Plaintiff was lying
about, and his dismissiveness of, Plaintiff’s need for accommodation, the destruction of his IAC,
and the conspicuousness of the employee’s display. Plaintiff explained to the employee that “not
all disabilities are visible,” and then went to Guest Services to talk to a manager about the Park
employee’s cruel and humiliating treatment. However, Guest Services did not offer any redress
but instead directed Plaintiff to make a complaint on the Six Flags website, stating that if he did so
a manager would get back to him. After that, Plaintiff left the Park within 10 minutes, with his
ripped-up paper IAC in hand and without any resolution for his denial of Park access and ruined
birthday celebration. In the parking lot, before leaving the premises, Plaintiff did exactly as Guest
Services advised: he submitted a complaint through Defendants’ website. However, no employee
of Six Flags ever reached out to him in response.
86. Plaintiff returned to Magic Mountain with his wife on July 17, 2022. On this
occasion, too, Plaintiff faced inappropriate treatment from Park employees regarding his need for
accommodation. Specifically, after presenting his IAC at Guest Services and obtaining an
Attraction Access Pass, Plaintiff entered the alternate or standby entrance reserved for disability
access at Magic Mountain’s “Justice League: Battle for Metropolis”57 attraction. Plaintiff then
presented his IAC and Pass to the ride attendant, and in response the Park employee took the paper
card from Plaintiff’s hands, told Plaintiff that she needed to verify it, showed the IAC to one of her
co-workers, and then directed Plaintiff to leave and join the “regular” line, stating that she did not
know where Plaintiff got the IAC, but that his accommodation was not valid for that particular
ride.
87. Plaintiff then requested multiple times that the employee return his IAC, but she
refused to return Plaintiff’s paper IAC to him the first two or three times Plaintiff asked for it back,
telling Plaintiff that she needed to show it to her manager. When Plaintiff then became visibly
upset and again insisted that she return his IAC, the employee ultimately gave it back to Plaintiff
and directed him to go to the front office. She did not indicate for what purpose, and neither
Plaintiff nor his wife understood why she was telling them to do that. Instead, they went to
Customer Relations to explain the situation regarding the IAC, but the Customer Relations
manager told Plaintiff that he did not look like he had a disability, and that Plaintiff was lucky that
the manager did not take his season pass from him.
88. Plaintiff’s next visit to Magic Mountain with his wife was on or around September
10, 2022. This visit was plagued by yet another incident concerning Plaintiff’s IAC. At around
1:05 p.m. that day, Plaintiff presented his IAC and Attraction Access Pass to an attendant at one of
the rides. The attendant took Plaintiff’s card and Pass and examined the wait time interval
provided on the latter, but then told Plaintiff that there must be something wrong with his IAC
and/or Pass because, according to the attendant, it looked like Plaintiff did not qualify for the
Attraction Access Pass program accommodation. The attendant then denied Plaintiff’s request to
use the attraction’s alternate entrance reserved for disability access, telling Plaintiff that he would
have to join the “regular” queue and wait. At that point, Plaintiff walked away from the attraction
altogether, finding that the ride was not worth either the sciatic pain he would experience by
waiting on the line or the trouble of convincing the attraction attendant or any other Six Flags
employee that he is, in fact, disabled and in need of reasonable accommodation, no matter how
“able-bodied” he may appear to the employees at Six Flags in their fleeting interactions.
Ultimately, Plaintiff did not get to experience that ride. And, once again, this negative interaction
with a Park employee left Plaintiff feeling upset, embarrassed, frustrated, angry, and excluded.
What
The
Actual
word best not even attempted here
All that has to violate the ADA/Ca laws about a dozen ways each offence
flynnibus
Premium Member
The 'approving' board (IBCCES) hasn't done anything wrong in the suit... they did their role. They aren't the ones obligated to provide the accommodation. They didn't deny the plantiff anything (even tho they are challenging their requirements because of the overreach). It's SixFlags who is doing the stuff like not right sizing the accommodation, denying the guy access, setting up the program, etc. IBCCES isn't even a named defendant.
The suit is juicy because it actually stands to challenge many of the fundamentals of this idea of 'proving and validating' a need before providing an accommodation. Could make some interesting precedent. The WDW case was very different because ultimately that case was about declaring the accommodation the mom was seeking was not reasonable... where here this case isn't about the specific accomodation offered (as much, there is a point about failing to address individual needs)... but is more about their process and of course their supposed failure to provide him access he was entitled to.
My question is why keep returning to such a terrible park? If they treat you like trash, stop rewarding them with your patronage. Their issues obviously go far beyond this disability pass system, although clearly it isn't helping matters. I wouldn't expect Universal's execution to go quite so badly, but they still need to rethink this.
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
They had APs and from what they said everything was fine until the new system. If I've being going to a place for years and everything went well I'd also probably give them a few chances to fix a new system
After the way their employees acted? I'd demand a refund for my AP in the strongest of terms. But maybe I have higher expectations than a Six Flags patron.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
Because it's made up BS. You know what uncaring, poorly trained ride attendants would actually do? Shrug their shoulders and let them in.
Not all poorly trained park employees fit the "stoner high school student who doesn't take their job seriously" stereotype. Some take their job too seriously and will sometimes go on a power trip on their guests, just like these employees reportedly did. I myself have been yelled at while not doing anything wrong. At Disney. So I can imagine how bad things can get at these lower rung parks & wouldn't put it past them to act this way.
jaklgreen
Well-Known Member
Good. I hope that they win and that everyone stops using that company. Don't know why anyone thinks that an autism help website is qualified to keep and store people's medical information. They are right that it puts an undue burden on those with disabilities to get a doctor's note. Not all doctors will do that for free. Not sure how they got away with doing this for so long.Six Flags sued over claims of violating disabilities act
The park's “attraction access program” violates the ADA, a new lawsuit filed in federal court says.
jaklgreen
Well-Known Member
That is what makes this whole thing ridiculous. They make people go through these hoops to verify that they have a disability, and then the parks can just say "nah, we think that you are lying"?! What is the point of the verification then? It seems like they are using it as a deterrent and are hoping that some people won't go through the hassle.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Well… remember we only have one side of this story.
Imagine if you went to the airport with a printed copy of your passport… and they turned you away. Would you be in a good spot go complain if your ‘version’ of your passport was rejected?
Im not defending sixflags… but this story has a lot of oddities combined with a lot of typical lawyer hyping.
I mean… if the guest services believes his info enough to give a card… yet the attraction won’t take the same pieces of paper… do we really believe guest relations can’t sort that out day of incident to some satisfaction? It would take some sewer level customer support there…
There could be a mix of fouls by everyone… but it seems a real stretch to get to their version of the story without foul
jaklgreen
Well-Known Member
My issue is more that they require you to go through IBCCES. Universal is now using them. That absolutely puts an undue burden on those with disabilities. Not only do you have to go through the "approval" ahead of time, but you have to have doctor fill out a form. That would cost many people in either an office visit or even some doctors charge to fill out those forms. People with disabilities shouldn't have to go through those hoops to get accommodations.
And as the article said, disabled people are not free to just show up to the park because they require this pre approval. How is that equal treatment?
Angel Ariel
Well-Known Member
I just filled out the ICCBES card for our upcoming trip today. When you're done, you receive a digital card - a PDF file - in your email, accompanied with this language:Some juicy story telling. I know MM has a reputation for bad staff... but this is almost unbelievable
When you log in to IBCCES after this point, and click on the "digital card download" it still downloads as a PDF. There's nothing that indicates this has to be presented electronically. The card only takes up maybe like 3"x2" on an 8x11" page - the rest of the 2-page document is a wall of text terms and conditions. There's no way to download just the photo of the card. So I would also say, if they wanted this to be primarily provided electronically, this isn't the best format for doing so.
The language on the 2-page card document explicitly states: "Please present this document at guest services desk upon arrival for details about what accommodations may be available". My understanding of this process is that we fill out the IBCCES card ahead of time, then at the park we selected (in our case Universal Hollywood) we bring them the IBCCES card and then they then provide whatever disability accommodation documentation that specific park requires for its attractions.
Angel Ariel
Well-Known Member
It 100% adds additional barriers for those with disabilities. It took 4 days of back and forth with our doctor to get all of the documentation and information. Thankfully we weren't charged for any of it, it was all email. But I acknowledge that's a privilege and not the case for everyone. It took more time than should be necessary, IMO.
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
You'd think my disability card from the NPS would be sufficient to prove a disability! The EU from what I've read takes it as proof as you have to prove a disability to the feds
