Class-action Lawsuit Filed Over Changes to Disney’s Disability Access Service (DAS)

[Evita_W]

My response was to you mentioning how comfortable people would be to release medical records to Disney or how they would handle it. I thought when I submitted my paperwork I was doing so to a Government Agency, but it seems that was not the case as lanejudy mentioned on the post above yours.

Yeah, I think most would not be comfortable if they truly understood there were no safeguards in their system.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

Once a company starts handling or storing medical records, they have to meet a whole new set of regulations around security and privacy, which adds more cost. A lot of companies want no part of that.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

My response was to you mentioning how comfortable people would be to release medical records to Disney or how they would handle it. I thought when I submitted my paperwork I was doing so to a Government Agency, but it seems that was not the case as lanejudy mentioned on the post above yours.

Yes, but the more important point is that even if people are 100% comfortable with releasing their medical records, it still wouldn’t matter because accommodations are based on needs, not diagnosis. So I don’t understand what benefit you think it would have to release them.

 

[brentm77]

This lawsuit is specific to DISNEYLAND in California. It may have some impact to WDW, if it ever makes it very far. It's a very poorly worded argument right from the start -- complete with multiple typos that should never have gotten past.

Are you referring to the article or the complaint?

Admittedly, I did not read the complaint line-for-line, and it may contain some typos. However, this is not a fair representation of the complaint. The arguments are well-worded, and most are legally sound.

When the new DAS system was implemented, I immediately noted that it was ripe for a class action lawsuit. I am only surprised it took this long. Disney has some of the best and brightest lawyers, but they either made a critical mistake or took a high risk, knowing the company had the resources to defend it and it was worth increased lightening lane sales. Specifically, the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (a California state law) do not allow a company to cherry-pick which disabilities will be uniformly excluded from certain accommodations, as Disney did here. By messaging to the public that DAS would be essentially granted to those with Autism, while those with physical disabilities need not apply, they violated the law. Instead, Disney was required to assess each disability on a case-by-case basis and provide reasonable access for that disability.

The law is unequivocal in this area: 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(i) states that it is unlawful for a business to impose 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."

That is exactly what Disney did, which is why I was so shocked when they openly stated this on their website.

The complaint further addresses why the alternative accommodations offered by Disney are insufficient for some physical disabilities, and it does a good job, in my opinion. But I won't get into the details unless there is interest.

Yes, this is a money-hungry firm looking for a big payout. However, it's an important part of our legal system because it incentivizes someone to step up and represent individuals who rarely have several hundred thousand dollars at their disposal for legal fees to take on a company like Disney. The end result is that a huge group of physically disabled guests now have a voice.

Regarding comments from others that disabled individuals don't need to go to Disneyland, that opinion is irrelevant unless they petition their representatives to change the law. Currently, the law states that Disneyland must provide reasonable access. It's a law I support, and I am grateful that thousands of disabled individuals have been able to experience the parks due to our unique U.S. and state laws. What reasonable access is, of course, where the debate is to be had, but not whether it should be given at all.

This does not mean there isn't room for improvement to curb abuse. As the parent of a disabled child, I would fully support changes to the ADA that allow for a formal designation, similar to obtaining a handicap placard, that indicates certain categories of disabilities. Then, the focus of accommodation would be on what accommodation to provide, not whether to provide one. It would be more efficient and more friendly to the disabled community. Yes, that could be abused. No, it would not be as easy to abuse as the current system, where anyone can lie without a professional making at least a medical determination. It would also help quell rising disability discrimination, as the abuse we have seen at Disney, on airlines, and in other places by non-disabled individuals, is creating backlash where people are suspicious of whether those using accommodations are really disabled. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than what we have now. Between a doctor and a cast member, I would trust the doctor more.

I would invite anyone to explain exactly which arguments in the complaint they think are poor and why. Generic statements, without substance, are awfully dismissive, giving those who don't look further an excuse to brush the lawsuit off as meaningless. In fact, I believe the lawsuit holds significant meaning for those in the disability community who don't have autism.

On another note, I am always a little surprised when I visit this section of the DIS Boards. There is a lot of gatekeeping and infighting among a group that should have a common interest in ensuring people of all disabilities are properly accommodated. I see a lot more harshness than kindness. It has been sad to see and has kept me from participating much. I am sure it stems from the hardcore fandom of Disney itself, making some individuals feel like they must protect an almost 100 billion-dollar-a-year empire. But I would ask for a little more compassion, a little less gatekeeping, and a little more attempt to understand. For example, let's not dismiss out of hand people who say they have tried the other accommodations unsuccessfully, or their husband has. I expect more from a community holding itself out as a resource and safe place for those with disabilities or those of us here for family members.

In the end, Disney broke federal and state law in my opinion, and I hope the lawsuit invites change that benefits everyone in the disabled community while still curbing abuse. There are better ways to do this than what Disney did, and frankly, with 100 billion dollars a year in revenue and $200 park tickets, I couldn't care less if it requires spending significantly more to properly accommodate disabled guests.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Are you referring to the article or the complaint?

Admittedly, I did not read the complaint line-for-line, and it may contain some typos. However, this is not a fair representation of the complaint. The arguments are well-worded, and most are legally sound.

When the new DAS system was implemented, I immediately noted that it was ripe for a class action lawsuit. I am only surprised it took this long. Disney has some of the best and brightest lawyers, but they either made a critical mistake or took a high risk, knowing the company had the resources to defend it and it was worth increased lightening lane sales. Specifically, the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (a California state law) do not allow a company to cherry-pick which disabilities will be uniformly excluded from certain accommodations, as Disney did here. By messaging to the public that DAS would be essentially granted to those with Autism, while those with physical disabilities need not apply, they violated the law. Instead, Disney was required to assess each disability on a case-by-case basis and provide reasonable access for that disability.

The law is unequivocal in this area: 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(i) states that it is unlawful for a business to impose 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."

That is exactly what Disney did, which is why I was so shocked when they openly stated this on their website.

The complaint further addresses why the alternative accommodations offered by Disney are insufficient for some physical disabilities, and it does a good job, in my opinion. But I won't get into the details unless there is interest.

Yes, this is a money-hungry firm looking for a big payout. However, it's an important part of our legal system because it incentivizes someone to step up and represent individuals who rarely have several hundred thousand dollars at their disposal for legal fees to take on a company like Disney. The end result is that a huge group of physically disabled guests now have a voice.

Regarding comments from others that disabled individuals don't need to go to Disneyland, that opinion is irrelevant unless they petition their representatives to change the law. Currently, the law states that Disneyland must provide reasonable access. It's a law I support, and I am grateful that thousands of disabled individuals have been able to experience the parks due to our unique U.S. and state laws. What reasonable access is, of course, where the debate is to be had, but not whether it should be given at all.

This does not mean there isn't room for improvement to curb abuse. As the parent of a disabled child, I would fully support changes to the ADA that allow for a formal designation, similar to obtaining a handicap placard, that indicates certain categories of disabilities. Then, the focus of accommodation would be on what accommodation to provide, not whether to provide one. It would be more efficient and more friendly to the disabled community. Yes, that could be abused. No, it would not be as easy to abuse as the current system, where anyone can lie without a professional making at least a medical determination. It would also help quell rising disability discrimination, as the abuse we have seen at Disney, on airlines, and in other places by non-disabled individuals, is creating backlash where people are suspicious of whether those using accommodations are really disabled. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than what we have now. Between a doctor and a cast member, I would trust the doctor more.

I would invite anyone to explain exactly which arguments in the complaint they think are poor and why. Generic statements, without substance, are awfully dismissive, giving those who don't look further an excuse to brush the lawsuit off as meaningless. In fact, I believe the lawsuit holds significant meaning for those in the disability community who don't have autism.

On another note, I am always a little surprised when I visit this section of the DIS Boards. There is a lot of gatekeeping and infighting among a group that should have a common interest in ensuring people of all disabilities are properly accommodated. I see a lot more harshness than kindness. It has been sad to see and has kept me from participating much. I am sure it stems from the hardcore fandom of Disney itself, making some individuals feel like they must protect an almost 100 billion-dollar-a-year empire. But I would ask for a little more compassion, a little less gatekeeping, and a little more attempt to understand. For example, let's not dismiss out of hand people who say they have tried the other accommodations unsuccessfully, or their husband has. I expect more from a community holding itself out as a resource and safe place for those with disabilities or those of us here for family members.

In the end, Disney broke federal and state law in my opinion, and I hope the lawsuit invites change that benefits everyone in the disabled community while still curbing abuse. There are better ways to do this than what Disney did, and frankly, with 100 billion dollars a year in revenue and $200 park tickets, I couldn't care less if it requires spending significantly more to properly accommodate disabled guests.

Any lawyer filing a lawsuit purportedly based on HIPAA violations that misspells HIPAA multiple times, even after spelling out what it stands for, shouldn’t be taken seriously, IMO.

To me, this filing reads a lot like the GAC lawsuit filed in 2014 by the slip & fall attorney in Florida.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

On another note, I am always a little surprised when I visit this section of the DIS Boards. There is a lot of gatekeeping and infighting among a group that should have a common interest in ensuring people of all disabilities are properly accommodated. I see a lot more harshness than kindness. It has been sad to see and has kept me from participating much. I am sure it stems from the hardcore fandom of Disney itself, making some individuals feel like they must protect an almost 100 billion-dollar-a-year empire. But I would ask for a little more compassion, a little less gatekeeping, and a little more attempt to understand. For example, let's not dismiss out of hand people who say they have tried the other accommodations unsuccessfully, or their husband has. I expect more from a community holding itself out as a resource and safe place for those with disabilities or those of us here for family members.

In the end, Disney broke federal and state law in my opinion, and I hope the lawsuit invites change that benefits everyone in the disabled community while still curbing abuse. There are better ways to do this than what Disney did, and frankly, with 100 billion dollars a year in revenue and $200 park tickets, I couldn't care less if it requires spending significantly more to properly accommodate disabled guests.

Can you pls expand on this a little more? I’m not sure what you mean by gatekeeping. Also, if you have ideas to improve the DAS system that do not involve getting a doctor’s note I’d definitely be curious to hear what they are. Hopefully good ideas will eventually make their way back to Disney decision makers.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

I wonder if perhaps what one might view as gatekeeping is someone else trying to explain how a process has changed, and how the user might still be able to enjoy Disney - perhaps not like they used to but how they used to was unsustainable - using the new tools that are available to them? e.g. there was a lot of fear upfront about people having bathroom accidents while being forced to stand in line, but so far I haven’t heard of many reports of people not being able to exit, or having accidents while waiting in line. So what one might perceive as an attack (“how dare they say I don’t deserve DAS anymore”) might be someone else’s way of comforting them in this new reality (“it’s probably not going to be as bad as you fear”)?

 

[brentm77]

Any lawyer filing a lawsuit purportedly based on HIPAA violations that misspells HIPAA multiple times, even after spelling out what it stands for, shouldn’t be taken seriously, IMO.

To me, this filing reads a lot like the GAC lawsuit filed in 2014 by the slip & fall attorney in Florida.

The lawsuit's core wasn't HIPAA. It was a peripheral claim, typical in complaint drafting.

Admittedly, in addition to looking really bad, the HIPAA argument was weak. Disney, isn't a covered entity here. I also concede that it's a fairly mediocre writing. But I see a lot of that type of work lately.

However, dismissing the entire complaint based on that error, however obvious and stupid, is unwarranted. It doesn't negate the substantive legal points. I hope Disney's 12(b)(6) motion isn't predicated on a typo-level error. Your response is borderline ad hominem, dismissing substantive arguments due to a stupid mistake of the drafter.

The primary claim—that blanket denial of the same accommodations provided for developmental disabilities if you are physically disabled violates the ADA—was immediately apparent to me when Disney announced the policy. I assumed they anticipated the legal risk but deemed the risk acceptable.

I will be interested to read Disney's answer. I am open to changing my mind as have hardly researched the case law on this issue and am just taking the plain meaning of the CFR at face value. I can confidently say this would be prohibited by the ADA in the employment law space. From a non-legal approach, I also found Disney's new DAS policy to be arbitrary, lazy, and short-sighted.

 

[brentm77]

I wonder if perhaps what one might view as gatekeeping is someone else trying to explain how a process has changed, and how the user might still be able to enjoy Disney - perhaps not like they used to but how they used to was unsustainable - using the new tools that are available to them? e.g. there was a lot of fear upfront about people having bathroom accidents while being forced to stand in line, but so far I haven’t heard of many reports of people not being able to exit, or having accidents while waiting in line. So what one might perceive as an attack (“how dare they say I don’t deserve DAS anymore”) might be someone else’s way of comforting them in this new reality (“it’s probably not going to be as bad as you fear”)?

I will elaborate on my concern tomorrow due to the late hour. The pattern I observe is that individuals accommodated by DAS readily dismiss the valid concerns of those who are not, even when presented with compelling arguments for their need for DAS. This dismissal is easy when unaffected, plus they have a vested interest in limiting the pass. It's also often done in a harsh enough way to shut down the other person and isn't the supportive discussions I would prefer to see in a space dealing with sensitive issues like disabilities.

To be clear, I am not seeking DAS for my daughter; we manage with Lightning Lanes and have reduced park visits for other reasons. My observation stems from seeing the immediate minimization of others' concerns, even when they report failed alternative attempts. This thread is not the most egregious example. It's mostly a pattern I have observed in other threads. I think we would all be better off assuming people know their disabilities and know when something doesn't work for them, as well as not gaslighting them when they share how their in park experience actually went.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The law is unequivocal in this area: 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(i) states that it is unlawful for a business to impose 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."

That is exactly what Disney did, which is why I was so shocked when they openly stated this on their website.

That actually isn't what Disney did - Disney didn't "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"; had they said "No accommodations unless you have autism or similar", then I could see the argument.

But they didn't. They have limited one accommodation, while offering many others.

There is no question that the other accommodations aren't as easy as DAS, but quite frankly, there is no such thing as an easy day in Disney for anyone, disabled or not. And accommodations aren't, or at least aren't supposed to be, in place to make things as easy as possible for disabled guests - they're supposed to be to make access possible.

 

[lanejudy]

Are you referring to the article or the complaint?

Yes, I was referring to the complaint, which reads very unprofessionally as a formal document from a legal professional. As to the actual arguments, I also do not believe those will stand, though I'll be the first to admit that I am not well-versed on Unruh in California. However I do believe Disney anticipated a lawsuit and has been preparing for such, likely since prior to the changes last year.

The only argument that might have merit, in my opinion, is about the statement on Disney's websites. I agree it's poorly wordly (and modified recently) and taken as specifics instead of examples. I do believe Disney has the documentation to prove they have continued to grant DAS and other accommodations to various disabilities, not just those noted on the website, both physical or non-physical in nature. Would it be appropriate for people with hearing disabilities to be offered a wheelchair? Should a person with vision disabilities be encouraged to request an assistive listening device? Different accommodations meet different disability needs. Why should anyone be lead to believe DAS is the only accommodation and therefore they must be granted it? Is it inappropriate to have a ramp instead of an elevator? Maybe not preferred, especially if someone is in a manual wheelchair with limited arm strength to push themselves up a ramp. But a properly built ramp is considered a reasonable accommodation and the individual cannot insist on access to an elevator simply because they'd prefer it.

The pattern I observe is that individuals accommodated by DAS readily dismiss the valid concerns of those who are not, even when presented with compelling arguments for their need for DAS. This dismissal is easy when unaffected, plus they have a vested interest in limiting the pass. It's also often done in a harsh enough way to shut down the other person and isn't the supportive discussions I would prefer to see in a space dealing with sensitive issues like disabilities.

As a reminder, tone is very hard to convey through the written word which is all we have here on DISboards. What you perceive as "dismissive" may simply be the other individual explaining and offering suggestions. Most posters here have or travel with someone with some kind of disability. We have a wide assortment of disabilities represented and with there is a vast knowledge base of ideas, suggestions, tips and hints to help people manage their park experience. Unfortunately, some folks don't want to be told "X" is the better option for you instead of "Y" accommodation that someone thinks they should use. And I would venture to guess -- based on posting history -- that many posters do NOT necessarily qualify for the current DAS nor does a member of their immediate family. So you are making a assumption about others and dismissing their information because it's not what you want to hear.

I'm not sure what supportive discussions you feel are shut down. Feel free to report any threads and I will review. Explaining why DAS isn't granted for a certain need, doesn't mean shut down. However we aren't going to debate what does qualify for DAS because that's a decision out of our purview and one golden rule on the disABILITIES Forum is that we don't declare one disability to be "worse" or "more deserving" than another. Disabilities are different, manifest differently in each individual, and we must respect that.

 

[brentm77]

That actually isn't what Disney did - Disney didn't "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"; had they said "No accommodations unless you have autism or similar", then I could see the argument.

But they didn't. They have limited one accommodation, while offering many others.

There is no question that the other accommodations aren't as easy as DAS, but quite frankly, there is no such thing as an easy day in Disney for anyone, disabled or not. And accommodations aren't, or at least aren't supposed to be, in place to make things as easy as possible for disabled guests - they're supposed to be to make access possible.

That's exactly what they did. They even modified the wording recently to attempt to correct it. The original wording explicitly excluded individuals with physical disabilities from DAS by saying it was "only" for individuals with developmental disabilities. After the lawsuit was filed, Disney removed the word "only."

The provided alternatives fail to adequately accommodate certain physical disabilities, as detailed in the complaint and many posts here and elsewhere. By preemptively excluding all physical disabilities from DAS, Disney denied reasonable accommodations. The issue is not difficulty, but inadequacy. While you may find the alternatives sufficient, I disagree. Numerous accounts demonstrate their insufficiency. People have the legal right to full and equal access, unless it creates an undue burden or fundamentaly alters the nature of the service.

It is going to be an uphill battle for Disney to argue that those with physical disabilities somehow burden DAS more than those with developmental disabilities. Yes, the sheer numbers could (and even did) overwhelm the system, but that doesn't mean you get to categorically use it for one specific class of disability and not others. Particularly when the alternatives offered for other disabilities are inadequate. The law doesn't allow that. Disney would have been in a stronger position had it completely eliminated DAS and argued it was too burdensome entirely. Or, better yet, assessed each individually, as required by the law, even if they improved their screening process to move more people to alternatives when they would actually work.

But they knew what they were doing and we're sure to clearly send the message to the physically disabled community to not even bother asking to be approved for DAS.

Again, we can disagree that the alternatives are sufficient for every physical disability, but I tend to believe those with the disability more than someone not in their shoes and have read some compelling arguments for some physical disabilities.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

That's exactly what they did. They even modified the wording recently to attempt to correct it. The original wording explicitly excluded individuals with physical disabilities from DAS by saying it was "only" for individuals with developmental disabilities. After the lawsuit was filed, Disney removed the word "only."

The provided alternatives fail to adequately accommodate certain physical disabilities, as detailed in the complaint and many posts here and elsewhere. By preemptively excluding all physical disabilities from DAS, Disney denied reasonable accommodations. The issue is not difficulty, but inadequacy. While you may find the alternatives sufficient, I disagree. Numerous accounts demonstrate their insufficiency. People have the legal right to full and equal access, unless it creates an undue burden or fundamentaly alters the nature of the service.

It is going to be an uphill battle for Disney to argue that those with physical disabilities somehow burden DAS more than those with developmental disabilities. Yes, the sheer numbers could (and even did) overwhelm the system, but that doesn't mean you get to categorically use it for one specific class of disability and not others. Particularly when the alternatives offered for other disabilities are inadequate. The law doesn't allow that. Disney would have been in a stronger position had it completely eliminated DAS and argued it was too burdensome entirely. Or, better yet, assessed each individually, as required by the law, even if they improved their screening process to move more people to alternatives when they would actually work.

But they knew what they were doing and we're sure to clearly send the message to the physically disabled community to not even bother asking to be approved for DAS.

Again, we can disagree that the alternatives are sufficient for every physical disability, but I tend to believe those with the disability more than someone not in their shoes and have read some compelling arguments for some physical disabilities.

In a world where there is no incentive for one outcome vs. another I’d agree with you. But in the case of being granted DAS vs. a less appealing alternative, if self-certification is all that is required then there is a massive incentive to say that alternatives are insufficient. We saw that pretty clearly during the DAS 1.0 era, and there is no reason to think that people’s behavior has somehow improved.

To be clear, I don’t think that there is NEVER a case where DAS might be the appropriate accommodation for someone who only has physical disabilities, just like not everyone with a developmental disability requires DAS-level accommodations. But I do think that Disney has tried its best to define a structure which it believes is fair, and the CMs are tasked with follow this structure. And I’d also say that given the prevailing need to try to ensure that operations function for as many guests as possible, some (modest) additional burden for someone who does not qualify initially probably isn’t completely unreasonable - e.g. try out the recommended accommodations first and if they still don’t work call back and explain exactly what you tried and why it was insufficient for your use case. CMs will likely be a lot more receptive to that vs. granting DAS because a guests thinks/believes that lesser accommodations won’t work at all for them. Also there is a huge difference between not wanting to split up a party and being unable to split up a party (e.g. I’d argue that someone who requires a full time caregiver shouldn’t be expected to wait alone, and obviously little kids shouldn’t be expected to enter lines alone, whereas a group with multiple adults wanting to “vacation together” probably isn’t going to cut it).

As others have pointed out, there is a huge difference between impossible, difficult, and possible but challenging, and a lot of users who are unhappy about no longer being granted DAS are in the latter categories.

 

[brentm77]

First, let me say, it sounds like we have some common ground and clearly share the same interests in advocating for those with disabilities.

Yes, I was referring to the complaint, which reads very unprofessionally as a formal document from a legal professional. As to the actual arguments, I also do not believe those will stand, though I'll be the first to admit that I am not well-versed on Unruh in California. However I do believe Disney anticipated a lawsuit and has been preparing for such, likely since prior to the changes last year.

I don't know - as far as complaints go, it's pretty run of the mill. Not an amazing piece of writing, but also not the worst I have seen lately either. The most egregious and embarrassing error was the one pointed out by @OurBigTrip, where they didn't use the right acronym for HIPAA. I would have been particularly careful knowing I wanted the media to pick up coverage of this case, but unfortunately, I think it mirrors the general decline of writing quality in the profession as a whole. But I will concede that I was a little too defensive of the complaint since I have a bias towards supporting its purpose. It could be greatly improved.

I also agree that Disney anticipated this lawsuit. That doesn't make them right. There was a lot of money to be made by moving people out of the DAS lines and moving more paid Lightning Lane users in. Disney obviously decided the lawsuit was worth the increased revenue, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether they will prevail or indicate that useful changes won't be made to benefit those with physical disabilities. America has a long history of companies bending the limits of the law, or even breaking it, after looking at the risk to reward ratio.

The only argument that might have merit, in my opinion, is about the statement on Disney's websites. I agree it's poorly wordly (and modified recently) and taken as specifics instead of examples. I do believe Disney has the documentation to prove they have continued to grant DAS and other accommodations to various disabilities, not just those noted on the website, both physical or non-physical in nature.

I am glad we agree that it might have some merit. However, I think that's the point. To me, this is the central issue of the lawsuit and a solid foundation for it. I also agree with you that Disney has documentation that they continued to grant some accommodations for physical disabilities, however, there are many reports here, on reddit, and elsewhere where pretty serious physical disabilities, where DAS was warranted, were denied. So the lawsuit will focus on the denials, not the handful of exceptions they make in any given month. I also agree that every disability is different, but that's part of the point of the lawsuit, as addressed more below.

Would it be appropriate for people with hearing disabilities to be offered a wheelchair? Should a person with vision disabilities be encouraged to request an assistive listening device? Different accommodations meet different disability needs. Why should anyone be lead to believe DAS is the only accommodation and therefore they must be granted it? Is it inappropriate to have a ramp instead of an elevator? Maybe not preferred, especially if someone is in a manual wheelchair with limited arm strength to push themselves up a ramp. But a properly built ramp is considered a reasonable accommodation and the individual cannot insist on access to an elevator simply because they'd prefer it.

No, it wouldn't be appropriate. That's the point. Disney didn't conduct the analysis on a case-by-case basis when it categorically denied physical disabilities in the description of the program, and apparently often in practice too. I agree with the plaintiffs that this breaks the law.

This isn't about people not getting the accommodation they want; it's about some people being excluded from any reasonable accommodation that gives them equal access because Disney predetermined that an entire category of disabilities would not be considered for one of the options that might be the only option that works for their unique disability.

Discovery will shed a lot of light on this issue, but it appears that many cast members quickly jumped to a denial if a physical disability was mentioned, some even explicitly stating the new program was only for people with autism. If the screening cast members are doing that, then not only are they actually discriminating against a certain class of disabilities, but Disney has also somehow given cast members the impression that they should. My hunch is that the training is pretty explicit in this regard. If not in writing, then at least verbally. But that's what discovery is for.

As a reminder, tone is very hard to convey through the written word which is all we have here on DISboards. What you perceive as "dismissive" may simply be the other individual explaining and offering suggestions. Most posters here have or travel with someone with some kind of disability. We have a wide assortment of disabilities represented and with there is a vast knowledge base of ideas, suggestions, tips and hints to help people manage their park experience. Unfortunately, some folks don't want to be told "X" is the better option for you instead of "Y" accommodation that someone thinks they should use. And I would venture to guess -- based on posting history -- that many posters do NOT necessarily qualify for the current DAS nor does a member of their immediate family. So you are making a assumption about others and dismissing their information because it's not what you want to hear.

I'm not sure what supportive discussions you feel are shut down. Feel free to report any threads and I will review. Explaining why DAS isn't granted for a certain need, doesn't mean shut down. However we aren't going to debate what does qualify for DAS because that's a decision out of our purview and one golden rule on the disABILITIES Forum is that we don't declare one disability to be "worse" or "more deserving" than another. Disabilities are different, manifest differently in each individual, and we must respect that.

I will respectfully decline the invitation to go back through hours of posts to identify particular individuals for this behavior. I can just tell you that it's the impression I have come away with, and it has kept me away from this section of the DisBoards for months.

I will say, go back and read this thread. While it's not the most egregious example, it has hints of what I am talking about. On the very first page, there is someone assigning bad faith motives to those advocating for themselves, claiming people just want nobody to have DAS. Where I come from, it's rude to assume bad motives with no evidence. There is also a woman who points out the difficulties her husband has had talking to each cast member at each ride, and people dismiss her concerns, saying cast members are trained not to do what she said they did, that she surely is wrong that it took 15 minutes, etc. Gaslighting and dismissing her concerns isn't a great way to start in a community where I would hope to see more understanding and compassion. I would prefer we at least start by believing people's experiences when given first hand. Finally, there is someone who essentially dismisses concerns by saying nobody needs to go to Disneyland. That speaks for itself. I think most here support equal access to the world for those we advocate for. It's fine to have that opinion, but is a disability community really the place to be telling disabled people they should be satisfied with only accessing necessary services?

Also, it was not people offering suggestions or even being frank about the fact that DAS would not be approved for individuals. I am good with that and don't think it helps anyone to give them false hope. It was a common theme that actually broke your golden rule, where people would be dismissive about the difficulties faced by some people with physical disabilities, which notably was often done by those who had family members who still qualified for the program. Like I said above, it's really easy to be dismissive when equal access was not taken from you. But I appreciate your general approach and do not think people like you are the problem.

Honestly, I feel like I have made my point clear. So I hope to politely bow out of these discussions soon and let you and others have the last word (if I can help myself), since I don't see much value in beating a dead horse.

It will be interesting to watch the case. I only ask that those who immediately dismiss the idea consider genuinely if they are coming from a place of understanding of others' disabilities, particularly if they still have access to DAS and benefit greatly from its current more exclusionary form, or if they are letting their love of Disney bias their opinions on this issue. If not, fine, but some self-reflection never hurts.

 

[brentm77]

In a world where there is no incentive for one outcome vs. another I’d agree with you. But in the case of being granted DAS vs. a less appealing alternative, if self-certification is all that is required then there is a massive incentive to say that alternatives are insufficient. We saw that pretty clearly during the DAS 1.0 era, and there is no reason to think that people’s behavior has somehow improved.

To be clear, I don’t think that there is NEVER a case where DAS might be the appropriate accommodation for someone who only has physical disabilities, just like not everyone with a developmental disability requires DAS-level accommodations. But I do think that Disney has tried its best to define a structure which it believes is fair, and the CMs are tasked with follow this structure. And I’d also say that given the prevailing need to try to ensure that operations function for as many guests as possible, some (modest) additional burden for someone who does not qualify initially probably isn’t completely unreasonable - e.g. try out the recommended accommodations first and if they still don’t work call back and explain exactly what you tried and why it was insufficient for your use case. CMs will likely be a lot more receptive to that vs. granting DAS because a guests thinks/believes that lesser accommodations won’t work at all for them. Also there is a huge difference between not wanting to split up a party and being unable to split up a party (e.g. I’d argue that someone who requires a full time caregiver shouldn’t be expected to wait alone, and obviously little kids shouldn’t be expected to enter lines alone, whereas a group with multiple adults wanting to “vacation together” probably isn’t going to cut it).

As others have pointed out, there is a huge difference between impossible, difficult, and possible but challenging, and a lot of users who are unhappy about no longer being granted DAS are in the latter categories.

I don't disagree with you on adverse incentives motivating some comments. But I have heard many disabilities described here and elsewhere where that is obviously not a the case. Also, there are better ways to screen for abuse. Part of that may include changes to the law. I know there is a knee-jerk rejection of the idea of some sort of medical certification on these boards (for reasons I don't fully understand), but that would be a good first step. Disney has the resources to lobby for changes, as do airlines, and would greatly benefit from a change to the law in this area. The second place to curb abuse would be to improve screening, while not categorically saying that all physical disabilities will be excluded from DAS. I have zero issue with Disney's goal of curbing abuse, and pushing people to alternatives that actually work, but have serious issues with how they did it, elevating one class of disability above another as the starting point. I don't think it was reasonable or grounded in reality. I also think it violates the ADA.

As for trying out the other systems and then calling back if they didn't work, that simply isn't practical for the average family who visits Disney once a year or less. If you have one day at Disneyland, for example, it takes much of that day to experience most of the park. Do you honestly expect a family to spend the morning unsuccessfully navigating other accommodations, then stopping, waiting for a call and going through the screening process, again sharing sensitive information in a crowded public space, and hoping it works out? That really isn't practical or a reasonable ask. It also doesn't recognize just how debilitating some disabilities are. The sheer amount of energy, emotionally and physically, that you are asking some people to expend to try and fail before getting something that was obviously needed from the start (and was denied because of a label) isn't reasonable. We wouldn't ask a paraplegic person to try to walk up the stairs before we give them access to a ramp.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

I don't disagree with you on adverse incentives motivating some comments. But I have heard many disabilities described here and elsewhere where that is obviously not a the case. Also, there are better ways to screen for abuse. Part of that may include changes to the law. I know there is a knee-jerk rejection of the idea of some sort of medical certification on these boards (for reasons I don't fully understand), but that would be a good first step. Disney has the resources to lobby for changes, as do airlines, and would greatly benefit from a change to the law in this area. The second place to curb abuse would be to improve screening, while not categorically saying that all physical disabilities will be excluded from DAS. I have zero issue with Disney's goal of curbing abuse, and pushing people to alternatives that actually work, but have serious issues with how they did it, elevating one class of disability above another as the starting point. I don't think it was reasonable or grounded in reality. I also think it violates the ADA.

As for trying out the other systems and then calling back if they didn't work, that simply isn't practical for the average family who visits Disney once a year or less. If you have one day at Disneyland, for example, it takes much of that day to experience most of the park. Do you honestly expect a family to spend the morning unsuccessfully navigating other accommodations, then stopping, waiting for a call and going through the screening process, again sharing sensitive information in a crowded public space, and hoping it works out? That really isn't practical or a reasonable ask. It also doesn't recognize just how debilitating some disabilities are. The sheer amount of energy, emotionally and physically, that you are asking some people to expend to try and fail before getting something that was obviously needed from the start (and was denied because of a label) isn't reasonable. We wouldn't ask a paraplegic person to try to walk up the stairs before we give them access to a ramp.

No one is asking a paraplegic to try to walk before going up a ramp. That is a silly example and one where it’s easy to prove why an accommodation is needed. That’s not the case for a lot of these disabilities - as we know not all disabilities are visible, and needs vary greatly even among people with “similar” conditions. We need to remember that Disney has spent a lot of time thinking about what kind of accommodations people need (they have to have a lot of data on this), and how they might provide them in a way that isn’t disruptive to operations. I’m trying to think back on reasons why (without being too specific) people have said that they should be granted DAS but now no longer qualify, and what Disney’s recommended accommodation would be under that circumstance.

Mobility/stamina issues - use a wheelchair or ECB, midday breaks, etc. This has been the rule for a long time but CMs got lax about it at some point. Also just because a guest gets tired out and can’t do a full day in the park doesn’t mean that they should be granted DAS. A lot of able bodied people have the same issues.
Bathroom issues - enter/leave the line and return, or have your party wait in line and join at the merge point
Bathroom issues while in an wheelchair/ECV - get the attention of a CM or exit out the side…this is one that people were totally freaked out about in the beginning but I have yet to hear reports of wide-spread chaos in line as people are frantically trying to exit with their scooters to get to the bathroom
Sun issues - I still don’t know what to say about that one
Not wanting to be separated from your party - not actually something that needs to be accommodated, as accommodations are for the person, not the party.

Reasonable people can disagree here, but I personally fall in the camp that it is not unreasonable to at least TRY out these things first rather than throw up your hands and demand that they won’t’ work. And the option for 1 or 2 people to wait outside the line if needed and then rejoin through the LL to the merge point is already pretty generous, in my view.

What is the likelihood that someone who visits DL once every 2-3 years for 1 day will know all of the ins and outs of DAS anyway? That’s a pretty high level of sophistication when it comes to the user base.

 

[Evita_W]

In a world where there is no incentive for one outcome vs. another I’d agree with you. But in the case of being granted DAS vs. a less appealing alternative, if self-certification is all that is required then there is a massive incentive to say that alternatives are insufficient. We saw that pretty clearly during the DAS 1.0 era, and there is no reason to think that people’s behavior has somehow improved.

To be clear, I don’t think that there is NEVER a case where DAS might be the appropriate accommodation for someone who only has physical disabilities, just like not everyone with a developmental disability requires DAS-level accommodations. But I do think that Disney has tried its best to define a structure which it believes is fair, and the CMs are tasked with follow this structure. And I’d also say that given the prevailing need to try to ensure that operations function for as many guests as possible, some (modest) additional burden for someone who does not qualify initially probably isn’t completely unreasonable - e.g. try out the recommended accommodations first and if they still don’t work call back and explain exactly what you tried and why it was insufficient for your use case. CMs will likely be a lot more receptive to that vs. granting DAS because a guests thinks/believes that lesser accommodations won’t work at all for them. Also there is a huge difference between not wanting to split up a party and being unable to split up a party (e.g. I’d argue that someone who requires a full time caregiver shouldn’t be expected to wait alone, and obviously little kids shouldn’t be expected to enter lines alone, whereas a group with multiple adults wanting to “vacation together” probably isn’t going to cut it).

As others have pointed out, there is a huge difference between impossible, difficult, and possible but challenging, and a lot of users who are unhappy about no longer being granted DAS are in the latter categories.

No one is saying that the DAS is the only possible solution for these disabilities, what they are saying is to make a blanket statement that the DAS is not available for those with XYZ type of disability or is only for ABC type of disability, even when that would be the most appropriate solution is where it is wrong. There may be factors that when individually, a DAS would not be the most appropriate combination, but when looked at in total that would indeed be the most appropriate. For example, someone with a mobility device who also needs to leave the queue frequently and needs a companion to assist them. And let's say they are a party of two, that isn't going to work. Now, what if they are a party of four? Two have to wait in line, seperate from the rest of their party? Well, one could make a legitimate argument that such an accommodation is not equal access, as anyone who is not disabled would be able to wait in the queue with their entire family. Also, when they go to rejoin the queue, they get nasty comments from those in the queue and sets up for far more fights. Sorry, but age doesn't matter here, that still isn't equal access or at least that is legitimate argument that can be made for the courts to decide on.

And yes, there is a huge difference between impossible, difficult and possible, but challenging; however, the law doesn't allow for the access to be any of these things, especially in California (we do get more protections here as previously mentioned), it requires access to be equal, which out here has been previously defined as being able to access things as easily as non-disabled guests. It also prohibits things like putting all of the wheelchair seating in one section of a theater. Now there are obviously some logistical issues and the law allows for those, but I think it will be determined that the current setup does not meet the letter of the law and it certainly does not meet the spirit of the law. Now, depending on which judge(s) it ends up before, they may rule based off the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law. This is something that happens a lot in the California courts and the California supreme court tends to uphold such items, especially when it is in favor of the consumer, aka the guests in this case. My guess is this and the enhanced protections are why the class action lawsuit was filed against Disneyland instead of Disney World.

Now, the reality is this case, no matter the outcome, will have far reaching implications that could potentially set precedent for the following:

• Can a company make a clause that prohibits a class-action lawsuit?
  • Can they do so in order for you to even be able to utilize another right, such as equal access?
• Can a company mandate arbitration in order for you to even be able to attempt to use another right, such as equal access?
• Can they categorically deny any type of accommodation for a particular type of disability without looking at the individual needs?
• Can they partner with a medical company as they have done?
  • This could also have an effect on Universal's and Six Flag's systems, as if they can't partner with a medical company, then likely partnering with IBCCES would be a no go as well.
• Can they record the conversation you have about the disability?
  • In California, the answer is likely that there must be an option to avoid that, which is likely why Disney does allow speaking with someone in person at Disneyland, as we have a lot of data protection laws on the books here.
• Can they prohibit you from recording the conversation, even when they say they can record?

As for the DAS itself, there are options that could be used that would strike a better balance between needs and perceived abuse and the sheer number of disabled people. And it is the last part that is the most problematic, the number of disabled people has dramatically increased in the past 5 years or so and they are people who legitimately do need accommodations made, not abusing the system, so there needs to be a balance that prevents the system from being overwhelmed. And I have mentioned numerous times ways that this could be accomplished, such as bringing back more entertainment, making DAS only valid at attractions where a person's needs would be at issues, for example if someone has sun issues, then the DAS doesn't need to be valid for attractions with queues that are entirely indoors, increase the cool off period to 15 minutes after scanning into an attraction return time, make sure the 4 person limit is strictly enforced unless it is 1 or 2 adults with minor children and yes, a 4 person limit is reasonable, most other theme parks use that. There are additional items that can be done like putting up videos of how wheelchairs load and unload as well as how transfer devices work at every attraction, that way someone who uses a mobility device can look at the video and perhaps decide a ride isn't for them before even getting a DAS return time and arriving to find out it doesn't work. Make sure there are test vehicles at all attractions where restraints may be an issue for some guests. Make sure there are places to charge mobility devices throughout the parks, as not providing a DAS increases the amount of travelling they must do, which means the batteries may get depleted faster. Provide models of the attractions and characters that those who have limited vision can feel. Look at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, CA and see all of their accessibility accommodations, do them as well. All of these things, and I am sure more can be done relatively easily and provide better accommodations, minimize abuse and reduce the burden on operations.

 

[brentm77]

No one is asking a paraplegic to try to walk before going up a ramp. That is a silly example and one where it’s easy to prove why an accommodation is needed. That’s not the case for a lot of these disabilities - as we know not all disabilities are visible, and needs vary greatly even among people with “similar” conditions. We need to remember that Disney has spent a lot of time thinking about what kind of accommodations people need (they have to have a lot of data on this), and how they might provide them in a way that isn’t disruptive to operations. I’m trying to think back on reasons why (without being too specific) people have said that they should be granted DAS but now no longer qualify, and what Disney’s recommended accommodation would be under that circumstance.

Mobility/stamina issues - use a wheelchair or ECB, midday breaks, etc. This has been the rule for a long time but CMs got lax about it at some point. Also just because a guest gets tired out and can’t do a full day in the park doesn’t mean that they should be granted DAS. A lot of able bodied people have the same issues.
Bathroom issues - enter/leave the line and return, or have your party wait in line and join at the merge point
Bathroom issues while in an wheelchair/ECV - get the attention of a CM or exit out the side…this is one that people were totally freaked out about in the beginning but I have yet to hear reports of wide-spread chaos in line as people are frantically trying to exit with their scooters to get to the bathroom
Sun issues - I still don’t know what to say about that one
Not wanting to be separated from your party - not actually something that needs to be accommodated, as accommodations are for the person, not the party.

Reasonable people can disagree here, but I personally fall in the camp that it is not unreasonable to at least TRY out these things first rather than throw up your hands and demand that they won’t’ work. And the option for 1 or 2 people to wait outside the line if needed and then rejoin through the LL to the merge point is already pretty generous, in my view.

What is the likelihood that someone who visits DL once every 2-3 years for 1 day will know all of the ins and outs of DAS anyway? That’s a pretty high level of sophistication when it comes to the user base.

It's not a silly example. Disney said if you have a physical disability, you would be excluded from DAS categorically (the metaphorical ramp for some people). You said, at least go to the parks and try it first (the metaphorical stairs), then spend your valuable park time repeating the DAS approval process, in a crowded public space no less, now that you have proved the "stairs" won't work. The example is spot on for illustrating exactly why categorically denying DAS for anyone with a physical disability is inappropriate, and telling someone to try an alternative that obviously won't work for them is nonsensical.

I am super hesitant to get into specific disability examples because, as has been pointed out by others, each disability is unique, and frankly, I don't want to debate individual disabilities. But against my better judgment, I will take one of your examples - the bathroom. Let's say someone is both in an EVC for mobility purposes and must take frequent and urgent bathroom breaks, for something like Crohn's disease. It isn't practical for that person to enter and leave the line. Have you tried to reverse out of some lines on foot? It's difficult enough without the EVC in some lines. I would argue that it's near impossible to do in some lines on an EVC in a timely manner, which is exactly what would be needed in this case. And then, after exiting the line, they would have to stop a cast member, explain their situation, get some sort of proof that they can reenter the line to their same spot, all while urgently needing to use the bathroom. Alternatively, Disney could simply grant DAS access for this person, who can then wait in the line virtually, just as long as others doing it physically, while using the restroom as needed.

One accommodation is simple and effective, giving the guest a comparable park experience to non-disabled guests, which is what the ADA requires; the other only works in the imagination of those who aren't being realistic about what reality is like in the actual in-park experience. One would result in the rider riding a similar number of rides in any given day as other guests, the other would probably keep many people from riding certain rides out of the reasonable fear that they can't get to a restroom in time. And the "try it first solution" would require that they have an accident to show the accommodation wouldn't work prior to then getting a DAS.

What is the hesitation here to just take each disability on its own and not categorically deny anyone with a physical disability? I am having a hard time understanding why people are opposed to just screening each disability. Is it the fear that a few cheaters will slip through? Because if that is the concern, you better believe the cheaters will simply learn which disabilities qualify and lie about those too. I already know one family that overrepresents their kid's mental limitations and gets approved under the new system. Or, is it some other concern I am not understanding?

 

[lanejudy]

Disney didn't conduct the analysis on a case-by-case basis when it categorically denied physical disabilities in the description of the program, and apparently often in practice too.

This seems to be where we disagree. I believe Disney HAS conducted individual interviews to determine accommodations on a case-by-case basis and did not simply follow the ill-worded blurb on the website. I don't see that the website description has "categorically denied physical disabilities" when it encouraged guests to contact and discuss. In fact, there is no mention of physical disability and DAS so you are adding interpretation to what Disney specifically stated.

How is the description of DAS that different from the description of accommodations for those with hearing disabilities or the description of accommodations for those with vision disabilities? Each are categories of disabilities.

Again, I agree the wording of the DAS description was (and still is even after the recent edit) poorly written. However practice doesn't seem to follow that wording and I believe what is actually occurring has more validity than a website blurb. I don't expect it will result in DAS rolling back or opening to more users; I expect Disney may be told to change the website. So it's a weak argument if arguing against the DAS limitations.

 

[CAPSLOCK]

Alternatively, Disney could simply grant DAS access for this person, who can then wait in the line virtually, just as long as others doing it physically, while using the restroom as needed.

One accommodation is simple and effective, giving the guest a comparable park experience to non-disabled guests, which is what the ADA requires;

No. The DAS accommodation gives a much better experience than a non-disabled guest receives. Which is why people abuse the system. A whole family shouldn't get to wait more comfortably & accomplish more than the average non-disabled family if they can be accommodated another less disruptive way.

Without DAS, this person can still wait outside of the line and rejoin their group. That is an appropriate accommodation, and is what is being offered.