DAS changes coming WDW May 20/ DL June 18, 2024

[RamblinWreck]

So your son will hurt someone if he has to stay in a 20 minute line. But is fine ina dark boat for 7 minutes, or a high speed coaster in the dark?

It intrigues me how so many people are like that, where a quiet line is horrific, but a jerky ride is fine.

I don’t see how someone can even visit any part of WDW if a 20 minute wait is a deal breaker.

There are so many reasons why someone with a developmental disorder would have a harder time with lines than the attractions themselves.

This one isn’t even remotely challenging to understand for the average person. But it’s so “intriguing” to you for some reason.

 

[Betty Rohrer]

Ahhh, so everyone else can wait in standby all day for the popular rides, but you should get to reride them all day.

Gotcha

You can reride but you have to make a DAS ressie for each ride which is about the same amount of time as stand by. Does not get you to the front of the line

 

[dbriggsq]

Lots of thoughts about this. Haven’t read the whole thread but just some musings.
Was the start of this problem the introduction of paid Genie+?
Disney profits have been increasing - did they need to do this?
Long lines are sometimes a result of partial running of attractions, less other entertainment available etc etc - all in Disney’s hands
Genie+ is now stated as an ‘option’ for people to use and I would think that it’s only cost effective if folks can use it for a full day.
Our situation
Rare condition makes it impossible to stay for more than 3ish hours so Disney+ is a waste of money.
Drugs for said condition are immunosuppressive (long time in crowds bad) and sun sensitivity .
If free FP was still available it absolutely wouldn’t be a problem for us but now it is.
As out of country visitors we really need to know before we arrive what the situation is- we have no way of accessing the online chat before arrival.

 

[notatallmagic]

Have you reached out to them on the situation that you have with out of state and passes?

You have 5 trips in two months to wdw so it's worthwhile to get a direct official response from them

Thank you for asking.

I've been pain shopping and reading this forum and a couple others and planning what to say.

Our current old style DAS expires in late June and covers one 2 day trip. We may try to ask questions while we're there (M/TU) and report back.

Once that DAS expires, we will try to renew; if granted as an AP, that would cover the rest of our trips and the expiration of our passes. We will likely not renew (we had planned on renewing) until we see some progress or changes. Very sad, as my DAS kiddo was actually planning on moving to Florida next year and living close to Disney. It's been a special respite for her post diagnosis; as many have stated, it was one place where she WAS able to feel almost "normal".

If renewal is not granted, we will write letters, try phone calls, and attempt to advocate for the folks who NEED these services. As mentioned, this summer's costs are sunk, so we will spend a few hours in the parks riding whatever has a 20ish minute or shorter wait, see some shows...my other kid will likely sulk in the room, as that type of day will be miserable for him. Shaded pool time and Skyliner rides...will do my best to put up a positive front.

And then we will purchase Universal APs, where I was told today that they "can't wait to have us back" and that with her ICBES (or whatever it's called) is still good and she will be granted her previously granted accommodations. If that falls through or they pull a Disney, we can still book a Deluxe Resort at an AP rate and get the free Express passes, so we will have a backup plan. Just not at Disney.

We have treasured Disney's immersion, beauty, and years of memories there, but we won't and can't continue to visit a place that places so little value on guest safety and plain decency. Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.

 

[RamblinWreck]

You can reride but you have to make a DAS ressie for each ride which is about the same amount of time as stand by. Does not get you to the front of the line

To be fair, it gets you in the lightning lane as many times as the park hours allow for. Being able to do anything else you want in the park while you wait is not the same as sacrificing 2 hours of your day in line.

It couldn’t be any more different from waiting in standby. To any average person it’s way better even than Genie+ and ILL’s combined.

 

[Evita_W]

What is a common accommodation and what the ADA actually requires are two totally separate things. The law requires reasonable accommodations that do not unduly impact business operations— so as a higher and higher percentage of American theme park goers cannot tolerate lines over 15-20 minutes, what theme parks will be expected to do for each family that falls into that category will change.

(Edited to remove rogue Quote)

Can you or anyone else link to where in the law it states that reasonable accommodations can be avoided if the unduly impact business operations? I see this often said, but I can find no evidence of this as it relates to customers, guests or the public in general, only if the accommodations are needed for an employee and cause an undue hardship on the business would this apply and the level of proof required is quite high, even for small businesses and gets next to impossible for a business the size of Disney, as what is an undue hardship for a mom and pop shop to accommodate an employees needs is usually something the likes of Disney can easily handle. But again, this only seems to apply in relation to employees. But I could be wrong, if anyone has a link to official ADA law and can highlight exactly where it says otherwise, I would appreciate it. I will admit even I thought it read that way, but it doesn't appear to from what I can see.

 

[WeatherLights]

Can you or anyone else link to where in the law it states that reasonable accommodations can be avoided if the unduly impact business operations? I see this often said, but I can find no evidence of this as it relates to customers, guests or the public in general, only if the accommodations are needed for an employee and cause an undue hardship on the business would this apply and the level of proof required is quite high, even for small businesses and gets next to impossible for a business the size of Disney, as what is an undue hardship for a mom and pop shop to accommodate an employees needs is usually something the likes of Disney can easily handle. But again, this only seems to apply in relation to employees. But I could be wrong, if anyone has a link to official ADA law and can highlight exactly where it says otherwise, I would appreciate it. I will admit even I thought it read that way, but it doesn't appear to from what I can see.

Here is a link to the Court of Appeals decision from a previous Disney ADA lawsuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/16-12647/16-12647-2022-10-04.html
Start on page 17 for an analysis of "reasonable accommodations" for a theme park. It cites to the relevant portions of the ADA. Hope that is helpful!

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Can you or anyone else link to where in the law it states that reasonable accommodations can be avoided if the unduly impact business operations? I see this often said, but I can find no evidence of this as it relates to customers, guests or the public in general, only if the accommodations are needed for an employee and cause an undue hardship on the business would this apply and the level of proof required is quite high, even for small businesses and gets next to impossible for a business the size of Disney, as what is an undue hardship for a mom and pop shop to accommodate an employees needs is usually something the likes of Disney can easily handle. But again, this only seems to apply in relation to employees. But I could be wrong, if anyone has a link to official ADA law and can highlight exactly where it says otherwise, I would appreciate it. I will admit even I thought it read that way, but it doesn't appear to from what I can see.

I can, and in fact already have on this very thread. It’s at least 200 pages back, and there is a link to the ruling where the court spelled this out in the most famous WDW DAS suit, and also referenced a similar (even more favorable) suit for Disneyland.

The general principle is similar to the employment context but requires a lower threshold for operational disruption because everyone is entitled to have a job if they can do the essential functions but, as a matter of public policy, the government is less willing to force a recreational business to seriously disrupt their business model because an increasing segment of society (myself included!) cannot tolerate waiting in a line to access recreational opportunities. It is a heavily fact-based inquiry, and I suspect if Disney lost at the district court level, they would appeal to the circuit court, and possibly SCOTUS… the current SCOTUS is very unlikely to hold that Disney must accommodate people who can handle 15-20m lines but not 60m lines in the vast majority of cases. My subjective belief is that Disney knew they were going to get sued, and they have the data to make their case (and they’re offering alternatives), so they decided to aggressively cut down DAS access as long as they’re going to have to litigate their decisions anyway.

 

[Evita_W]

Here is a link to the Court of Appeals decision from a previous Disney ADA lawsuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/16-12647/16-12647-2022-10-04.html
Start on page 17 for an analysis of "reasonable accommodations" for a theme park. It cites to the relevant portions of the ADA. Hope that is helpful!

Actually, if you read it, it says unless the accommodations fundamentally alter their operations, that is a lot different threshold.

 

[Evita_W]

I can, and in fact already have on this very thread. It’s at least 200 pages back, and there is a link to the ruling where the court spelled this out in the most famous WDW DAS suit, and also referenced a similar (even more favorable) suit for Disneyland.

The general principle is similar to the employment context but requires a lower threshold for operational disruption because everyone is entitled to have a job if they can do the essential functions but, as a matter of public policy, the government is less willing to force a recreational business to seriously disrupt their business model because an increasing segment of society (myself included!) cannot tolerate waiting in a line to access recreational opportunities. It is a heavily fact-based inquiry, and I suspect if Disney lost at the district court level, they would appeal to the circuit court, and possibly SCOTUS… the current SCOTUS is very unlikely to hold that Disney must accommodate people who can handle 15-20m lines but not 60m lines in the vast majority of cases. My subjective belief is that Disney knew they were going to get sued, and they have the data to make their case (and they’re offering alternatives), so they decided to aggressively cut down DAS access as long as they’re going to have to litigate their decisions anyway.

I think they will find the current SCOTUS will go the other way on this one, they have been proving very pro disabled community overall.

 

[mcall12]

Can you or anyone else link to where in the law it states that reasonable accommodations can be avoided if the unduly impact business operations? I see this often said, but I can find no evidence of this as it relates to customers, guests or the public in general, only if the accommodations are needed for an employee and cause an undue hardship on the business would this apply and the level of proof required is quite high, even for small businesses and gets next to impossible for a business the size of Disney, as what is an undue hardship for a mom and pop shop to accommodate an employees needs is usually something the likes of Disney can easily handle. But again, this only seems to apply in relation to employees. But I could be wrong, if anyone has a link to official ADA law and can highlight exactly where it says otherwise, I would appreciate it. I will admit even I thought it read that way, but it doesn't appear to from what I can see.

I think it’s this section:
“(a) General. A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. (b) Specialties –”

Title III section 36.302

Just adding, not a lawyer/have never played one on tv. I trust those who have spent years in the study and practice of law, specializing in this field to be able to speak to it much more clearly than I ever could.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Actually, if you read it, it says unless the accommodations fundamentally alter their operations, that is a lot different threshold.

Did you read the opinion and not understand it? It specifically held that the requested accommodation would increase wait time for other guests, which would be detrimental to guest satisfaction and that was enough to deny the accommodation as a fundamental alteration of Disney’s business.

 

[Evita_W]

Did you read the opinion and not understand it? It specifically held that the requested accommodation would increase wait time for other guests, which would be detrimental to guest satisfaction and that was enough to deny the accommodation as a fundamental alteration of Disney’s business.
View attachment 862219

There is a lot packed in there, note that changes would have to be applied uniformly to all DAS holders, this change has not been or at least a good lawyer could make that case......it will be interesting to see where this goes and there is a difference between impacting business operations and a fundamental alteration of Disney's business from a legal perspective. This ruling could actually leave Disney in not such a great spot with the new changes from a legal standpoint.

 

[Chuckdlc]

Did you read the opinion and not understand it? It specifically held that the requested accommodation would increase wait time for other guests, which would be detrimental to guest satisfaction and that was enough to deny the accommodation as a fundamental alteration of Disney’s business.
View attachment 862219

I'll just add a small bit of comic relief here for fun:

....but if DAS guests are told to buy Genie+ instead of using DAS and as Disney (with complete integrity) maintains, Genie+ is limited in availability, then when those DAS users buy genie+ it will also impact "non-DAS guests' ability to access Disney's services" because Disney will just have to (again with complete integrity) sell out of genie+ on many, many more days than they do now.

I'm just sayin....

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I'll just add a small bit of comic relief here for fun:

....but if DAS guests are told to buy Genie+ instead of using DAS and as Disney (with complete integrity) maintains, Genie+ is limited in availability, then when those DAS users buy genie+ it will also impact "non-DAS guests' ability to access Disney's services" because Disney will just have to (again with complete integrity) sell out of genie+ on many, many more days than they do now.

I'm just sayin....

If I was plaintiffs’ lawyer I would absolutely try that argument (probably one of their better arguments even) but it’s just not a winning argument because Genie+ capacity is static per ride per window (and almost always sells out for the top tier rides!) and DAS is unlimited and results in surges that can blow up wait times for guests already in line— which impacts guest satisfaction. I do think Disney is likely to open up some additional ride capacity for Genie+ but waits would become more predictable for standby guests and shorter for everybody in the LL.

Also, the plaintiff would have to win on necessary and doesn’t fundamentally alter operations and the vast majority of DAS users are going to have a real uphill battle establish that rider switch or return to attraction aren’t sufficient accommodations such that DAS is necessary.

 

[nalababybear]

Thank you for asking.

I've been pain shopping and reading this forum and a couple others and planning what to say.

If renewal is not granted, we will write letters, try phone calls, and attempt to advocate for the folks who NEED these services. As mentioned, this summer's costs are sunk, so we will spend a few hours in the parks riding whatever has a 20ish minute or shorter wait, see some shows...my other kid will likely sulk in the room, as that type of day will be miserable for him. Shaded pool time and Skyliner rides...will do my best to put up a positive front.

We have treasured Disney's immersion, beauty, and years of memories there, but we won't and can't continue to visit a place that places so little value on guest safety and plain decency. Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.

Retail therapy is real.

Disney has been our happy place for decades - even prekids. Son had his first haircut at 7 months at the Harmony Barber shop on the way to meet his great grandma.

When he was diagnosed with ASD, we were fearful of what our happy place would mean for him and it was realized during his 3 year old trip. A kind CM pointed us to City Hall and GAC entered our lives. It made the remainder of that trip possible.

Over the years, he's changed with different sensitivities and behaviors and we've adapted with him -- as has our visit patterns to Disney and utilization of their services. They will continue to change. He may not qualify for the next round of DAS renewals as he's grown and learned coping skills to stay 'in the moment' through the triggers for a limited time -- all depending on what Disney decides are the factors. LL wait times have blossomed over the years so even now many rides simply are out of reach, even on weekdays. - so silly swings is our go-to ride.

We've expanded to become avid DVC owners too now that we have more time and resources to do so. With that, we've learned to advocate for him as he cannot for himself.

Disney to date has been very responsive and accommodating without the need to saber rattle of threats. Explain the request for reasonable accommodation based on your child's need to successfully experience Disney. Disney has shown up every time. -- sometimes not to our satisfaction; but always with an explanation and a try to meet the need.

The shine certainly has come off the penny over the years as competition and corporate need to seek the mighty dollar has eroded some of that rock solid confidence in Neverland always being there for us; but it's still enough that we often forgo Seaworld in our backyard and our lifetime Legoland membership in favor of our Disney Ohana.

Give Disney a chance to find a way forward for your family. Hold them to it if they don't rise to meet the moment and persist if they don't again. I'm hopeful that they will find a reasonable accommodation. If not, sounds like you have a solid plan and backup too.

 

[Chuckdlc]

If I was plaintiffs’ lawyer I would absolutely try that argument (probably one of their better arguments even) but it’s just not a winning argument because Genie+ capacity is static per ride per window (and almost always sells out for the top tier rides!) and DAS is unlimited and results in surges that can blow up wait times for guests already in line— which impacts guest satisfaction. I do think Disney is likely to open up some additional ride capacity for Genie+ but waits would become more predictable for standby guests and shorter for everybody in the LL.

Also, the plaintiff would have to win on necessary and doesn’t fundamentally alter operations and the vast majority of DAS users are going to have a real uphill battle establish that rider switch or return to attraction aren’t sufficient accommodations such that DAS is necessary.

I appreciate the compliment. Years of creative argumentation. lol. I have another one that actually focuses on "fundamentally" but I'm saving it.

On that point, here's where I'm at (after many years of accommodations), I'm willing to spend a few hours, draft my complaint and pay the filing fee on principle. I'm also crafty enough to probably survive an initial notice of motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, etc. That would be my goal. They don't want class action suits, that's fine. Then there is an absolute need for there to be enough people that are willing to file and potentially take an L in the long (or short) run just to have them be mildly inconvenienced and lose a little of their inclusivity public perception.

They were good to me for many years and I have always appreciated that. It is why I have defended them to friends or neighbors who claimed they would never go because it's too expensive, too crowded, too etc., etc. etc. For me though, they are undoing that loyalty and that appreciation in one instance. Maybe that's my issue and not theirs but it is nonetheless my current sentiment.

Do I think I'd win the lawsuit? That's not motivation. Nor is it the end goal for me. The motivation is to prompt change. To me, that's drawing attention to complete ineptness of individuals making financially motivated accommodation determinations for people with autism while also having the audacity to tell autistic people to work on their coping mechanisms or have their children wait in lines unattended under the guise of striving for improved guest satisfaction. Is that minor child that is waiting in a line without their parent not a guest? Is that child satisfied with waiting in line without their parent?

If they wanted guest satisfaction, they might start by cleaning the damn bathrooms which are a common criticism from guests on social media.

As far as coping mechanisms go, I could literally kill over at any time from my disease. I haven't yet and I may not ever but that reality is something that I cope with every F'ing day so if they want to pay someone to address disabled individuals with that type of ignorance and disregard then they can bet their *** that I'm willing to sacrifice a filing fee and a little bit of my time while utilizing every ounce of knowledge and experience I have to temporarily inconvenience them. I can't let myself be fearful of my health and I sure as hell am not fearful of some $750 per hour attorney who has thousands of hours less courtroom time than me.

 

[KMP12]

I wish I could have video taped my son for Disney to see how badly DAS is needed. Last week we were at disney and mine train was down all morning. Finally opened and we got a DAS and we waited our hour wait. We scan In and the lightning lane long was INSANE. and then the ride was having issues again. Line wasn't moving. Our son starts melting down and we finally had to leave the line which then causes a MASSIVE meltdown because all he wanted to do was ride mine train. It was gut wrenching and we were screwed no matter what we did...it was the exact example why we need DAS so bad.

We did rise when we came back to MK after mid day breaks. The backed up lightning lanes finally cleared out

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I appreciate the compliment. Years of creative argumentation. lol. I have another one that actually focuses on "fundamentally" but I'm saving it.

On that point, here's where I'm at (after many years of accommodations), I'm willing to spend a few hours, draft my complaint and pay the filing fee on principle. I'm also crafty enough to probably survive an initial notice of motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, etc. That would be my goal. They don't want class action suits, that's fine. Then there is an absolute need for there to be enough people that are willing to file and potentially take an L in the long (or short) run just to have them be mildly inconvenienced and lose a little of their inclusivity public perception.

They were good to me for many years and I have always appreciated that. It is why I have defended them to friends or neighbors who claimed they would never go because it's too expensive, too crowded, too etc., etc. etc. For me though, they are undoing that loyalty and that appreciation in one instance. Maybe that's my issue and not theirs but it is nonetheless my current sentiment.

Do I think I'd win the lawsuit? That's not motivation. Nor is it the end goal for me. The motivation is to prompt change. To me, that's drawing attention to complete ineptness of individuals making financially motivated accommodation determinations for people with autism while also having the audacity to tell autistic people to work on their coping mechanisms or have their children wait in lines unattended under the guise of striving for improved guest satisfaction. Is that minor child that is waiting in a line without their parent not a guest? Is that child satisfied with waiting in line without their parent?

If they wanted guest satisfaction, they might start by cleaning the damn bathrooms which are a common criticism from guests on social media.

As far as coping mechanisms go, I could literally kill over at any time from my disease. I haven't yet and I may not ever but that reality is something that I cope with every F'ing day so if they want to pay someone to address disabled individuals with that type of ignorance and disregard then they can bet their *** that I'm willing to sacrifice a filing fee and a little bit of my time while utilizing every ounce of knowledge and experience I have to temporarily inconvenience them. I can't let myself be fearful of my health and I sure as hell am not fearful of some $750 per hour attorney who has thousands of hours less courtroom time than me.

This is not legal advice but a friendly reminder to all that it’s not just a filing fee—you could be subject to sanctions or ethics complaints for filing a frivolous case in light of prevailing 11th Circuit law. You haven’t even tried whatever accommodations Disney will ultimately offer you and are already publicly threatening to sue them in a case you acknowledge you’re unlikely to win because you’re mad about the changes. Even if you don’t care about legal and financial risk, bringing a weaker case and losing will make it harder for people with stronger cases to find lawyers and challenge the system.

Also, partners at the firms Disney hires for these kinds of cases are experts in the relevant law, and pure courtroom time is irrelevant if you’re going to lose the MSJ.

 

[Disneychick75]

I wish I could have video taped my son for Disney to see how badly DAS is needed. Last week we were at disney and mine train was down all morning. Finally opened and we got a DAS and we waited our hour wait. We scan In and the lightning lane long was INSANE. and then the ride was having issues again. Line wasn't moving. Our son starts melting down and we finally had to leave the line which then causes a MASSIVE meltdown because all he wanted to do was ride mine train. It was gut wrenching and we were screwed no matter what we did...it was the exact example why we need DAS so bad.

We did rise when we came back to MK after mid day breaks. The backed up lightning lanes finally cleared out

Sounds tough - I'm sorry your son got so upset. Sorry too for you because I know that seeing our children or grandchildren in pain of any kind is heart wrenching. Hope that your needs and his will be met. Hugs