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

[lanejudy]

May I make a suggestion for people to consider please. Consider hiring a lawyer to present your case to the CM.

I am concerned that some DAS applicants, whether acting for themselves or as a parent/caregiver for the disabled person, are being denied because they lack sufficient skills to be as articulate as they need to be in these interviews. Maybe they are too anxious or some other reason that impedes their best communication with the CM.

Perhaps you should hire a professional advocate to speak on your behalf? A lawyer could do that for you. It would not have to cost much. They would become familiar with Disney requirements, the condition of the DAS applicant and organize the presentation of how the condition impacts tolerating the queue. The CM is a fact finder and decision maker very similar to a judge. Lawyers are used to communicating with decision makers in court, government and private industry. I am not talking about suing Disney. Just being a friendly, effective and professional spokesperson for the DAS applicant. Then, if you watch them do it once, you may be better able to handle the interview for the next trip or in 120 days.

Lawyers are also really good negotiators too. You might get a better result.

That's likely a non-starter. I suspect the CM would terminate the call with notation of why. They want to speak to the individual, parent/guardian or maybe a close family member. A random Accessibility Team CM isn't authorized to speak on behalf of Disney with a guest's legal representative.

 

[Unity]

Have you watched any Ear Scouts videos on G+? I find his videos to be very calm and matter-of-fact with good screenshots/videos of what MDE looks like when booking.

I'll definitely give them a watch when we're closer to the travel date!

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Well, since you have not made any effort to actually talk to a lawyer and get an estimate it does not appear you would actually know that. It might be considerably less than you assume.

For some people it might be worth a try. That would be their decision. Further, some people can already interview very well without professional assistance and they may also have limited budgets. So it is not a wealth or class issue. Disney does not require professional representation. There is no new threshold being established. So there is no rich/poor or “classist” barrier at all.

And the CM would be well within their rights to end the call, as they should, IMO.

 

[KrzyKtty101]

Well, since you have not made any effort to actually talk to a lawyer and get an estimate it does not appear you would actually know that. It might be considerably less than you assume.

For some people it might be worth a try. That would be their decision. Further, some people can already interview very well without professional assistance and they may also have limited budgets. So it is not a wealth or class issue. Disney does not require professional representation. There is no new threshold being established. So there is no rich/poor or “classist” barrier at all.

That's a lot of assumptions. I have used a lawyer many times for many different things. Many disabled families already have ridiculous medical debt. It would be an unfair barrier to throw legal debt on top of it for a vacation.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Respectfully, I do not agree. There is no restriction on who can speak on behalf of the disabled person — often a child. This is not adversarial and the lawyer can make that understanding known to the CM. Lawyers often speak to non-lawyer decision makers in government and industry. The parent or other family member would still be on the zoom call and participate. The CM’s need for detailed first person experience would be met. It is non-adversarial. So, what happens when the parent on the phone is also a licensed attorney. What if both of the kid’s parents are licensed attorneys? What if the disabled applicant is a licensed attorney? Of course CMs can talk to people who are lawyers in the interview. The lawyer is a participant in the interview. They could not later litigate a case because they cannot be a participant witness and later a trial attorney in that case.

Yeah, not gonna happen. No way will (or should) Disney allow that.

 

[KrzyKtty101]

Respectfully, I do not agree. There is no restriction on who can speak on behalf of the disabled person — often a child. This is not adversarial and the lawyer can make that understanding known to the CM. Lawyers often speak to non-lawyer decision makers in government and industry. The parent or other family member would still be on the zoom call and participate. The CM’s need for detailed first person experience would be met. It is non-adversarial. So, what happens when the parent on the phone is also a licensed attorney. What if both of the kid’s parents are licensed attorneys? What if the disabled applicant is a licensed attorney? Of course CMs can talk to people who are lawyers in the interview. The lawyer is a participant in the interview. They could not later litigate a case because they cannot be a participant witness and later a trial attorney in that case.

There is no way that disney would allow any of these conversations to happen with any legal representative on the other side. They just would not be comfortable with the cast member speaking on behalf of the company at that point.

They're not even allowed in the call unless they agree to not join a class action law suit. One hint of a lawyer and they will hang up.

 

[GoingSince1990]

May I make a suggestion for people to consider please. Consider hiring a lawyer to present your case to the CM.

I am concerned that some DAS applicants, whether acting for themselves or as a parent/caregiver for the disabled person, are being denied because they lack sufficient skills to be as articulate as they need to be in these interviews. Maybe they are too anxious or some other reason that impedes their best communication with the CM.

Perhaps you should hire a professional advocate to speak on your behalf? A lawyer could do that for you. It would not have to cost much. They would become familiar with Disney requirements, the condition of the DAS applicant and organize the presentation of how the condition impacts tolerating the queue. The CM is a fact finder and decision maker very similar to a judge. Lawyers are used to communicating with decision makers in court, government and private industry. I am not talking about suing Disney. Just being a friendly, effective and professional spokesperson for the DAS applicant. Then, if you watch them do it once, you may be better able to handle the interview for the next trip or in 120 days.

Lawyers are also really good negotiators too. You might get a better result.

I'm not sure that paying $300 or so per hour for a consultation with a lawyer, in which you tell the lawyer the answers to questions like "what are your concerns with waiting in the regular line?", then paying the lawyer again to answer those questions on your behalf in the interview with the CM, is a sensible thing to spend your money on, even if Disney allowed it.

 

[Jdavidm]

Sadly. I have been accommodated for over 10 years with DAS and now because of people abusing the system my freedom has been taken away. I remember going to an attraction and getting a return time. That’s the old way it was done. I had no problem doing that. Imagine if you had to give up your right to drive a car. Crossing the street is a treacherous event. I hope no one has to deal with my disability. GAC and DAS was meant to level the playing field. Disney is now failing miserably.

I don’t drive because of my disability so trust me on one thing if nothing else - I’m not trying to belittle the challenges you face due to your disability. There are plenty of things I can’t do and other things I struggle to do because of my disability. I was only trying to offer perspective as to where Disney might be coming from. They might not see being in the queue as a true impossibility for you since you have ways to make it safer (being guided by someone else, etc.)

This, in reality, may not be the case for you personally but I have a feeling they believe most people with vision related issues would be able to manage as long as they have someone to guide them. Just like they might need assistance to get through overly crowded sections of the park.

I understand you’re worried about your safety in the queue and I do think Disney should take that into consideration, however, I think they might simply be looking at the bigger picture of it not being any more of an inherent danger than other areas in their parks.

I hope you’re still able to enjoy the parks and find some way to access the rides in a way that works for you. I wish everyone with a disability could use DAS and it not result in the return lanes being backed up to the point of it no longer being accessible for certain people who the LL’s have been becoming too long for, but sadly that’s just not possible. There’s too many people with all kinds of disabilities and needs so Disney is having to re-evaluate the way they accommodate different needs. I’m hopeful they’ll learn and adjust throughout this process.

 

[lanejudy]

This is not adversarial and the lawyer can make that understanding known to the CM.

You may intend it to be non-adversarial, but I fully expect Disney would see it from a different perspective. A family can certainly consult whomever they wish to plan their request, but just like the earlier suggestions that were floated to do the call with your own doctor -- it's overkill and honestly appearing to intimidate. Know your needs, use bullet point notes, practice in front of a mirror, have a supportive family member present, etc.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[KrzyKtty101]

So a lawyer’s qualified, disabled child who otherwise would be approved for DAS will never get the chance because the child’s parent is a lawyer? I think not. The prohibition against joining a class action suit would still be there. I do not think they can refuse to talk to a disabled person’s advocate just because they are a lawyer. They may choose to add their own, but again, I said this would be just an advocacy role for the lawyer — not an adversarial role. There is a big difference. It is not an argument. It is enabling a thorough presentation for the benefit of the disabled client. Disney is not afraid of lawyers.

There is clearly a difference between the parent being a lawyer and just being there for their child, and a completely unrelated person being there as a consulted, hired lawyer. The parent is just there as a parent and has the benefit of skills on top of that. But they are not there representing as a lawyer.

 

[OurBigTrip]

So a lawyer’s qualified, disabled child who otherwise would be approved for DAS will never get the chance because the child’s parent is a lawyer? I think not. The prohibition against joining a class action suit would still be there. I do not think they can refuse to talk to a disabled person’s advocate just because they are a lawyer. They may choose to add their own, but again, I said this would be just an advocacy role for the lawyer — not an adversarial role. There is a big difference. It is not an argument. It is enabling a thorough presentation for the benefit of the disabled client. Disney is not afraid of lawyers.

A parent who happens to be a lawyer advocating for their child in their role as parent is very different than a lawyer being paid to try to intimidate a CM in order to get accommodations, but of course you know that.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Jdavidm]

I think this is the craziest topic this thread has reached in all 350+ pages. Someone absolutely has the right to attempt this method if they so wish but I agree that I don’t think it would go over well and I really don’t think you should suggest that others attempt it as well.

If they don’t want to speak to your doctor, they certainly won’t want to speak to your lawyer.

If you pushed the issue, they’d likely state you can choose to bring it to court but they’re not going to speak to a lawyer to determine what accommodations you or your family member could receive. If someone attempts this, they’ll likely just push out an adjustment to the agreement stating that they must speak only directly to the individual, family member, caretaker etc. to determine accommodations.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[KrzyKtty101]

No. This is a non-adversarial role. There is no place in it for intimidation. It is just being an articulate advocate.

At the end of the day this is not a realistic suggestion for the average person. Not really sure.It's worth fighting over because it's probably not going to really get traction and become an average thing.

What would become a potential legal problem for Disney is the notion that their process was so complicated it required legal representation to achieve simple accommodations.

The reality is for the majority of families that feel they did not represent themselves well, they were probably not going to be approved either way because they no longer met the definitions of what Disney is accommodating with that service, right or wrong.