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

[brentm77]

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.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Both the wording of the posted policy and people's firsthand experiences of being immediately shut down when they mention a physical disability, told by the screener that DAS is only for autistic people, and often hung up on as soon as they are denied so they can't fully vet the decision, are sufficient evidence for me to be convinced otherwise.

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.

When you take away DAS from some people with physical disabilities, you are making it impossible for them to experience the same rides or the same number of rides as a regular visitor. They aren't looking for a handout; they are simply looking for equal access, as required by law in most circumstances.

It's not "much better." DAS users still wait the same amount of time as anyone else. Is waiting in that line that hard for physically able individuals compared to waiting outside of the line? Trust me, most of these families would give anything to have a healthy child, spouse, etc., and to stand in line like anyone else. I have been on both sides of this issue, and am extremely grateful to stand in line now.

Again, the lack of compassion here amazes me. Who cares that someone might sit near a bathroom for an hour while you have to stand in line. Others can't safely wait in some physical lines. Heaven forbid someone with a severe disability is a little more comfortable or a little more safe. I also support reasonable restrictions on DAS that curb abuse and lesson the burden on the parks, such as limiting party size, a cool off period, etc. Do you standby and fume as people in wheelchairs get on an airplane 10 minutes before you too?

Also, not everyone goes to the park with a group that can wait in line.

I say all this as someone who either buys Lightning Lanes or uses traditional lines for our family now. Even though my daughter would be a lot more comfortable with DAS, we accept that it isn't designed for her situation. Therefore, I actually benefit from the Lightning Lane entry being short, but would rather wait longer if it means equal access to the parks for those who really need it. I can get over the fact that someone with a severe disability doesn't have to do the exact same physical thing that I do to ride a ride.

Edit: Anyways folks, I think I have said enough. I will let the lawsuit play out and go from there. I wish everyone the best, hope those who truly needed get DAS for now, and hope Disney is a little more creative and puts a little more resources and thought into accommodations that work for each disability as the system is refined.

 

[CAPSLOCK]

They aren't looking for a handout; they are simply looking for equal access, as required by law in most circumstances.

It's not "much better." DAS users still wait the same amount of time as anyone else. Is waiting in that line that hard for physically able individuals compared to waiting outside of the line?

It's not an issue that waiting in a physical line is "that hard" for non-disabled families. Eating lunch in the shade or AC is much better than physically waiting in a 60min line. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

But I haven't yet heard a good argument why having the disabled family member (plus companion if required) rejoin is not an acceptable alternative to DAS. And provides a much closer park experience compared to a non-disabled individual while also reducing the negative impact on Disney operations. And "we'd rather spend the time together" is not an ADA valid argument.

I actually think that ALL the DAS should be restricted based upon party size first - it doesn't matter if the nature of the disability is physical or not; if a family makeup allows for some to stand in line, they should also be using non-DAS accommodations (rejoin your party at the merge).

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

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.

But Disney IS allowing this, which is why we aren’t hearing hourly horror stories of trampled children as people race out of the standby lines in their ECVs to go to the bathroom. They just don’t call it DAS anymore. That’s why people are being directed to speak to CMs at the beginning of the queue. In this case the CM will likely allow the guest in the ECV to wait outside the line, and when the rest of their party reaches the merge point they are allowed to enter through the LL. Or if the regular queue is short they might all be directed into the LL. Or perhaps they are all given an attraction return time. Or the guest might not know that Disney has made the exit for this ride quite simple now (lift a rope and drive out an empty passageway rather than fighting your way back through the queue) so they should enter and if they need to leave, just come back to the CM at the front AFTER going to the bathroom to discuss reentry options.

Your example is actually pretty easy to accommodate. It’s when people are traveling alone or only with young children (i.e. have no one else to wait in the queue) where things become more gray.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

It's not an issue that waiting in a physical line is "that hard" for non-disabled families. Eating lunch in the shade or AC is much better than physically waiting in a 60min line. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

But I haven't yet heard a good argument why having the disabled family member (plus companion if required) rejoin is not an acceptable alternative to DAS. And provides a much closer park experience compared to a non-disabled individual while also reducing the negative impact on Disney operations. And "we'd rather spend the time together" is not an ADA valid argument.

I actually think that ALL the DAS should be restricted based upon party size first - it doesn't matter if the nature of the disability is physical or not; if a family makeup allows for some to stand in line, they should also be using non-DAS accommodations (rejoin your party at the merge).

It’s entirely possible that this is the direction where things will go, especially if Disney is forced to offer DAS to accommodate needs that they thought were addressed in other forms. I’m not sure what age to draw the line here. Perhaps 14/15, whatever the age that one is allowed to enter the park on your own?

 

[RF536]

I actually think that ALL the DAS should be restricted based upon party size first - it doesn't matter if the nature of the disability is physical or not; if a family makeup allows for some to stand in line, they should also be using non-DAS accommodations (rejoin your party at the merge).

I agree, there is no reason if the party size allows it, that the disabled person can't wait with a caregiver/family member outside of the line and rejoin.
I have a feeling this might be where the DAS program is headed and this is a test to see how it works.

 

[Evita_W]

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.

But that is NOT equal access (especially under California law), as someone who is not disabled does not have to be separated from their party and under California law that is a no go, not positive about federal. Additionally, how do they do this when they need an assistant and are only a party of two?

But ultimately, we can go back and forth on this, we aren't going to be the ones deciding this, the courts are, well hopefully the courts will be. Remember Disney does have the arbitration and no class-action clauses, both of those will have to be invalidated for the lawsuit to proceed as is. In California, again it is highly likely that will be the case, but they could also uphold one clause and not the other. This would make for an interesting situation if they say the class-action is allowed, but it has to be arbitrated, then all laws are thrown out the window completely, because an arbitrator doesn't have to follow the law. Hopefully if this happens though, the judge forces a way to keep the arbitration fair and not biased towards Disney who normally gets to select the arbitrator and thus set the rules.

 

[TCRAIG]

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?

Yes I have had to leave a line on my ECV and nope - it was NOT a huge problem.

 

[CAPSLOCK]

But that is NOT equal access (especially under California law), as someone who is not disabled does not have to be separated from their party.

It is equal access to the ride/attraction - the point of the accommodation is to allow the disabled person to experience the attraction. They're already not being treated equally if they're not physically in the line, it's just unequal in their favor.

I'm not familiar with CA law specifically - does it state that parties can't ever be split while waiting? They still experience the ride together.

Additionally, how do they do this when they need an assistant and are only a party of two?

That's a unique party size issue, so it would be up to Disney to determine the alternative alternative accommodation. But the same is true regardless of what the nature of the disability is. My point was, if the party size/makeup allow rejoining in the queue, then no family should be granted DAS. ONLY parties with small/unique makeup such as that should be considered for DAS, since rejoining the rest of the party at the merge would work for everyone else.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

But that is NOT equal access (especially under California law), as someone who is not disabled does not have to be separated from their party and under California law that is a no go, not positive about federal. Additionally, how do they do this when they need an assistant and are only a party of two?

But ultimately, we can go back and forth on this, we aren't going to be the ones deciding this, the courts are, well hopefully the courts will be. Remember Disney does have the arbitration and no class-action clauses, both of those will have to be invalidated for the lawsuit to proceed as is. In California, again it is highly likely that will be the case, but they could also uphold one clause and not the other. This would make for an interesting situation if they say the class-action is allowed, but it has to be arbitrated, then all laws are thrown out the window completely, because an arbitrator doesn't have to follow the law. Hopefully if this happens though, the judge forces a way to keep the arbitration fair and not biased towards Disney who normally gets to select the arbitrator and thus set the rules.

Given that we had years of DAS being limited to 6 without issue, it’s unlikely that in CA Disney would have to grant DAS regardless of party size - just so that people won’t be separated, even though families are separated at Disney all the time for a hundred different reasons. DAS is for the benefit of the individual, not the party.

 

[Evita_W]

Yes I have had to leave a line on my ECV and nope - it was NOT a huge problem.

It depends on the attraction and where in line you are at the time. Disneyland certainly has more issues with this than Disney World.

 

[Evita_W]

Given that we had years of DAS being limited to 6 without issue, it’s unlikely that in CA Disney would have to grant DAS regardless of party size - just so that people won’t be separated, even though families are separated at Disney all the time for a hundred different reasons. DAS is for the benefit of the individual, not the party.

There can be reasonable limits based on physical space, which is why 6 was acceptable, but anything 4 or smaller being forced to split up will likely be seen as unreasonable, again from a California perspective, not federal. But again, the courts are the ones figuring this out.

 

[lanejudy]

There can be reasonable limits based on physical space, which is why 6 was acceptable, but anything 4 or smaller being forced to split up will likely be seen as unreasonable, again from a California perspective, not federal. But again, the courts are the ones figuring this out.

I don't see that in Unruh. Is it another piece of legislation?

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

There can be reasonable limits based on physical space, which is why 6 was acceptable, but anything 4 or smaller being forced to split up will likely be seen as unreasonable, again from a California perspective, not federal. But again, the courts are the ones figuring this out.

By this logic Disney could just as easily argue that 4 is too many given space constraints and therefore it must be 1 (or 2 only if a companion is needed)

 

[Evita_W]

It is equal access to the ride/attraction - the point of the accommodation is to allow the disabled person to experience the attraction. They're already not being treated equally if they're not physically in the line, it's just unequal in their favor.

I'm not familiar with CA law specifically - does it state that parties can't ever be split while waiting? They still experience the ride together.



That's a unique party size issue, so it would be up to Disney to determine the alternative alternative accommodation. But the same is true regardless of what the nature of the disability is. My point was, if the party size/makeup allow rejoining in the queue, then no family should be granted DAS. ONLY parties with small/unique makeup such as that should be considered for DAS, since rejoining the rest of the party at the merge would work for everyone else.

I am going to word this poorly, so I apologize in advance, please try to understand what I actually mean. California law states you must be provided the same opportunity as a non-disabled guest in a way that meets your needs. For example if someone who isn't disabled is allowed to get an unobstructed view, then those who are disabled must be able to get a similar view. This likely means a party has no disabled guests in it does not have to wait separately, the party that does have a disable guest would not be able to be required to wait separately. Now, there can be a reasonable limit on the number of guests in the disabled party due to say size restrictions, based on other theme parks, etc., it seems that number in California is considered to be 4 including the disabled person. As I said, this is actually going to be a very interesting case to see how it plays out and ramifications are going to be wide spread, as in general California leads the way in a lot of these things and other states will likely adopt similar measures.

 

[lowlight]

This thread is either going to 100 pages or getting locked at 20. This is probably the toughest legal situation Disney has to deal with, because it’s so contentious and attractive to law firms.

 

[Evita_W]

By this logic Disney could just as easily argue that 4 is too many given space constraints and therefore it must be 1 (or 2 only if a companion is needed)

No, they can't actually, because the physical space has already been demonstrated to handle up to 6 without issue; however, they could possibly go to 4, as that seems to be the standard across all other theme parks in California and there is likely a reason for that.

 

[Evita_W]

This thread is either going to 100 pages or getting locked at 20. This is probably the toughest legal situation Disney has to deal with, because it’s so contentious and attractive to law firms.

Now this is a point I think we can all agree on, the issue Disney really has is that this was filed in California and California is very pro-consumer overall and anything the courts can interpret in favor of the consumer, they usually do.

I also think that due to the nature of the issues, this may actually get fast tracked, so we may actually have answers sooner than we expect, but it could also get dragged out and prolonged. There could also be a settlement in the middle somewhere, especially if the courts grant a temporary injunction forcing Disney to make adjustments while the court case is ongoing. Anything is a possibility here.

 

[CAPSLOCK]

No, they can't actually, because the physical space has already been demonstrated to handle up to 6 without issue;

It wasn't handling 6 without issue. It wasn't handling DAS without issue at all. Hence the overhaul of DAS.

California law states you must be provided the same opportunity as a non-disabled guest in a way that meets your needs.

I understand what you're saying - however (again not being familiar with California law) the "opportunity" is to get on the ride/attraction. The "opportunity" isn't the pleasure of being in a line or standing around with someone for an hour. So guests have the same ride experience, and the same opportunity to go on the ride together. They just can't wait in exactly the way they'd like to. Well, no one can - otherwise no one would choose to wait in a line in the sun in FL.

I think this is a fine balance that Disney is trying to achieve - and if they're pushed to accommodate too many disabled parties or too large of disabled parties, they'll fall back to providing no DAS to anyone. I suspect they'll be able to prove that offering unfettered DAS significantly negatively impacts their operations and overall guest satisfaction, and that'll be the end of that.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

No, they can't actually, because the physical space has already been demonstrated to handle up to 6 without issue; however, they could possibly go to 4, as that seems to be the standard across all other theme parks in California and there is likely a reason for that.

They actually proved the opposite - that they cannot handle 6 without issue. That’s why DAS had to be overhauled. They also have the data to show that the total number of DAS/companions that they can handle is X without impacting operations (I think that whatever it is now seems to be a pretty good balance), so if the number of DAS people by dictate goes up the number of companions will have to drop to offset that increase.

 

[OurBigTrip]

It is equal access to the ride/attraction - the point of the accommodation is to allow the disabled person to experience the attraction. They're already not being treated equally if they're not physically in the line, it's just unequal in their favor.

I'm not familiar with CA law specifically - does it state that parties can't ever be split while waiting? They still experience the ride together.



That's a unique party size issue, so it would be up to Disney to determine the alternative alternative accommodation. But the same is true regardless of what the nature of the disability is. My point was, if the party size/makeup allow rejoining in the queue, then no family should be granted DAS. ONLY parties with small/unique makeup such as that should be considered for DAS, since rejoining the rest of the party at the merge would work for everyone else.

CA law doesn’t say anything like that…not even mentioned.