ADA/Autism WDW and DL Request Letter - update 12/9/16 readmission passes NOT required. See page 2

[bpellis]

Saying that, oh, people with autism.. just wait somewhere. its easy. everyone else waits, why cant you. That is ridiculous and goes against the traditional understanding of autism. Want to know how that waiting goes sometimes? Try getting a DAS return time, having a child meltdown because they fail to understand the concept of delayed gratification or executive functioning, and then having to hunker down in a family bathroom for 40 minutes while a child has a violent, physical meltdown. Is it always the case, no. Does it happen, yes to me and many families, despite the best of planning. I live this on a daily basis, day in, day out, every day for years.

 

[wilkeliza]

Other than all the other stuff that makes children with autism different. Not being able to go into stores/shops. Not being able to go by certain things, having to walk out of the way. Some with vastly different motor skills, slow walking. Not being able to be at a park for more than 2 hours. Having to ride attractions in a given order, ride the same ride 3 times. Coupled that it doesn't work for a number of character experiences or shows. Etc. etc. etc.

So even with DAS/Readmits/FP+, and I have been to WDW/DL with my daughter with autism and received all three of these and have been with typically developed children, I can promise you that it does not provide her with a "standard guest experience".

You are right your daughter is never going to be able to experience a standard guest experience unless some of the issues she experiences changes but the law balances what is realistically possible and what is not. If you are in the parks for only 2 hours it would be nearly impossible to give you the exact same experience as someone in the park from open to close and to expect that seems unreasonable.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Just reading the words you wrote. Saying that, oh, people with autism.. just wait somewhere. its easy. everyone else waits, why cant you. That is ridiculous and goes against the traditional understanding of autism. Want to know how that waiting goes sometimes? Try getting a DAS return time, having a child meltdown because they fail to understand the concept of delayed gratification or executive functioning, and then having to hunker down in a family bathroom for 40 minutes while a child has a violent, physical meltdown. Is it always the case, no. Does it happen, yes to me and many families, despite the best of planning. I live this on a daily basis, day in, day out, every day for years.

It isn't up to Disney or any other entity to make up for the difficulties your family faces on a daily basis.

 

[bpellis]

You are right your daughter is never going to be able to experience a standard guest experience unless some of the issues she experiences changes but the law balances what is realistically possible and what is not. If you are in the parks for only 2 hours it would be nearly impossible to give you the exact same experience as someone in the park from open to close and to expect that seems unreasonable.

Yes, and even with all of these items, I still feel she would fall short of the exact same experience. However, does providing readmission passes to those who need them, something easy that gets them closer to that experience? Sure. Disney already provides them, but its one of those things that they don't put out there. I've had CMs deny they do such thing, and others say, oh yeah, here you go. Does that sometimes require multiple visits to Guest Relations and considerable time, yes it does, but it shouldn't be a hassle every visit. So is it realistically possible? yes, they already do it. Do they help? Absolutely. If they can do it and it helps (and I believe required by ADA), then it should just be done. If someone doesn't want them, thats fine. No one is required to get them, use them, just like no one has to use the DAS.

 

[wilkeliza]

Also I want to be 100% clear I do think the DSA doesn't work for everyone and if that is the case the conversation needs to happen on an individual basis with Disney. It is awful what some families go through on a daily basis but I stand by saying coming with a legal letter is going to make the whole thing that much harder. It'll come off as a threat to Disney and they'all stop letting front line CMs help and send you to fight their lawyers. To me that seems like making the whole thing even more stressful for kids.

 

[bpellis]

It isn't up to Disney or any other entity to make up for the difficulties your family faces on a daily basis.

Umm.. I believe making accommodations for difficulties faced by individuals with disabilities, based on their disabilities, is what the ADA is about, and it therefore isn't "up to Disney", its required by a matter of law. They comply, no choice.

 

[Aladora]

Expecting to be able to enjoy the same in two hours as someone else does in 12+ hours is one way that the GAC was unsustainable.

Using your logic, a family with a toddler should also get readmits because their young child needs naps and can't be at the parks for a full day. Same with someone who is elderly, they should also get readmits because they have less stamina and can't stay as long at the parks. Pregnant women, they need to rest so they should also get readmits. So now there are thousands and thousands with readmits who are all going to the fp line creating longer and longer wait for everyone. But hey, it's fair because they'd also need to pack a full days worth of park time into a few hours.

 

[bpellis]

It'll come off as a threat to Disney and they'all stop letting front line CMs help and send you to fight their lawyers. To me that seems like making the whole thing even more stressful for kids.

Maybe that isn't such a bad thing. I've had to literally scream, scream and curse, at CMs due to their basic lack of understanding. And I believe myself to be a very calm person. Do CMs know ADA and what is required? Nope, and sometimes they don't even know everything that Disney can do in relation to ADA. To avoid that, i'll glady send a letter ahead of time to get resolution. I'd much prefer to deal with all this ahead of time and know what accommodations will be provided before I ever get to the park.

 

[Aladora]

Umm.. I believe making accommodations for difficulties faced by individuals with disabilities, based on their disabilities, is what the ADA is about, and it therefore isn't "up to Disney", its required by a matter of law. They comply, no choice.

They do comply and they do as much if not more that other parks do. Universal has a similar program as does any number of other parks around the country.

 

[bpellis]

Expecting to be able to enjoy the same in two hours as someone else does in 12+ hours is one way that the GAC was unsustainable.

Using your logic, a family with a toddler should also get readmits because their young child needs naps and can't be at the parks for a full day. Same with someone who is elderly, they should also get readmits because they have less stamina and can't stay as long at the parks. Pregnant women, they need to rest so they should also get readmits. So now there are thousands and thousands with readmits who are all going to the fp line creating longer and longer wait for everyone. But hey, it's fair because they'd also need to pack a full days worth of park time into a few hours.

A toddler isn't a disability. Elderly, if they have a disability, sure they should be provided reasonable accommodations. Pregnancy, well I don't think they are allowed to ride most rides, but if thats considered a disability, then sure, figure out what accommodations are needed and let them have them. Not sure why you are so against accommodating the disabled. Again, the purpose of the ADA isn't at argument.

 

[bpellis]

They do comply and they do as much if not more that other parks do. Universal has a similar program as does any number of other parks around the country.

Again, I believe the judges in the Disney Autism cases ruled that they complied because both readmissions and DAS were provided. So yes, it seems they do comply, and I believe the lawyer in this case is just making sure people are aware of what compliance looks like now that there has been legal rulings on the matter.

And yes, Universal has a similar program, as does BG, Seaworld, Dollywood, etc. I would argue that without readmission, Disney's is actually far worse for certain individuals with autism. And that also doesn't mean that those parks programs comply with ADA.

 

[lanejudy]

We will not re-hash the DAS debate. I am closing this thread, at least until I get a chance to to read the posts and clean it up.

 

[SueM in MN]

I am going to leave the thread closed, but am responding to some of the statements made

I'm not a lawyer either, but I do spend considerable amount of time in a legal environment (for work), and at least from my reading of the orders and the specific language contained therein, I believe there was confirmation that Disney's disability system, as it pertains to autism, provides reasonable accommodations if it contains both the DAS and Readmission passes. That I believe was clear to me from the plain language. I suppose with anything, someone can reach a different legal conclusion, but I see the logic and reasoning in the orders for this position. Perhaps Disney at some point will answer this question.

I am on vacation, so don't have time to look up quotes...
I would disagree with your interpretation.
The person bringing the first lawsuit settled alleged that:
- they could not experience the Disney parks under DAS
- the only way they could experience Disney parks would be with Guest Assistance Card the way it existed in the past (present the card, enter the attraction)
- that Disney was not doing individual assessments of need

The judge ruled for Disney on all those points and dismissed the case.
The reason that DAS AND readmission passes are mentioned are that is what the person had available to them, not that both were required in order to meet the ADA.

Providing both DAS and 8 re-admission passes to all guests with autism would mean no individual assessments of need were done. Different people who filed some of the other lawsuits got different numbers of readmission passes and some got none at all, which further points to readmission passes not being part of the DAS program.
Readmission passes are a Guest recovery tool, given out for various reasons.
For example, we are at WDW right now and were given readmission passes twice during this trip.
Both times were when the wheelchair accessible ride car, which my daughter needs to ride, was broken so we could not use our Fastpasses. We were NOT given anytime-any attraction Fastpasses on those occasions. We were given Fastpasses for nearby things with short waits (Turtle Talk, Mickey's Philharmagic).
The only time I can remember getting one (not multiple) we could use any time was after the bus we were on got sideswiped by a car trying to turn into the lane the bus was already in. Between the accident, waiting for police, getting reports from each rider, getting a new bus and getting a wheelchair off the bus without using the ramp, it took over 2 hours of our time. Each passenger was given one anytime re-admission pass, and there were some limits on what it could be used for.

This isn't always the case. As mentioned in a earlier post, I know from personal experience that accommodations can be given in advance.

I do know that in the beginning of DAS in October of 2013 thru early 2014, Disney was giving additional accommodations ahead of time when people contacted them. That was meant to be a temporary accommodation to help people as they learned how to use the new DAS program.
My understanding is that they stopped giving them to NEW people who requested them after that point because people were using them to simulate how GAC worked and were not even trying DAS.

I believe the judgements/orders referenced by the Dogali letter are the existing ones. From my own legal experience, dismissals are not always the same as losing a case, it really depends on the specific language involved. Looking at some specific language of one of the orders, it states that the:

"existing disability program - a combination of the DAS and distribution of readmission passes – does not violate the ADA"

This language is repeated in multiple instances. Does this mean that in order to not violate ADA the system must include both DAS and readmission passes? That is clearly what that judge believes comprised the existing disability program when the ruling was made, and which led them to conclude it doesn't violate ADA. Again, that is one way all of this can be read and I believe logical.

No - it does not mean that both DAS plus readmission passes are necessary to meet the ADA.
It only means that the DAS and readmission passes the plaintiff could have used did not violate the ADA. The plaintiff was alleging that DAS and/or DAS plus readmission passes did NOT meet the ADA and the only way to meet it would be to return to GAC and allow the plaintiff immediate access. The judge did not agree with that.

I am not sure where your quote is from (? the appeal written by the attorney?), but Disney testified that readmission passes were not part of the DAS program and that quoted wording is not part of the Judge's rulings that I read.
Many people on the Disboards, Facebook groups and other forums have been able to work with DAS, including people with autism. Most did not use readmission passes or used them early in the process until they learned how DAS worked.
Not all people with the same condition, including autism, have the same needs. So, it would be an unreasonable accommodation to say that only DAS plus readmission passes meets ADA.

On the one you are quoting it only pertains to that plaintiff and actually says that the readmit passes plus the DAS gives them a greater experience then the standard patron. It also goes on to say that since the defendant can enter another line while holding a DAS return time again they are having an experience that another guest can not have by default.

That is an accurate summary from reading the decision.
The decision actually said "a combination of DAS and readmission passes could have afforded Plaintiff access to the attractions on his preferred list"

 

[SueM in MN]

Update on court action December 2, 2016 (thank you jcb)
Readmission passes are not part of DAS and are not required.

On Friday, the court denied the motion to reconsider which argued that readmission passes were required. Here is what the court said about the argument:

Plaintiffs misconstrue the Court’s summary judgment analysis, arguing that the Court “has ruled that Disney’s disability program includes readmission passes” and in the future, “Disney will have no basis for refusing to grant readmission passes” or “for continuing to refuse to acknowledge that its disability program includes readmission passes.” Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Court’s Order is a significant mischaracterization of the Court’s ruling.

* * *

The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ requested accommodation of “revising DAS is not necessary for Plaintiffs to have equal access to Defendant’s parks.” The Court found that Defendant had provided Plaintiffs an opportunity to gain a like benefit from its parks as was enjoyed by nondisabled individuals because Plaintiff was given an opportunity to experience Defendant’s attractions in a manner similar to guests that did not need accommodations. The Court found that “DAS and readmission passes afforded Plaintiff a similar, or better, experience as those not needing accommodation.” But the Court more narrowly described only DAS in assessing how Defendant’s DAS compared to the experience of the majority of nondisabled guests visiting Defendant’s parks, who must wait more than an hour for rides and attractions: DAS allowed Plaintiffs to access to the same rides after “virtually waiting” anywhere in the park and visiting other rides.


In their Motion to Alter or Amend, Plaintiffs focus on the Court’s use of the conjunction of “DAS and readmission passes,” arguing that both were essential to the Court’s determination. However, Plaintiffs’ argument ignores the remainder of the Court’s summary judgment analysis which made it clear that the Court was referring only to DAS—which did not require physically standing in line during the wait—as being the “similar, or better, experience as those not needing accommodation.” Id at 12. Given that readmission passes grant nearly immediate access to the rides or attractions, the Court need not have referred to them at all, except that some of the Plaintiffs had been given readmission passes (and two-thirds of the others had not).