Disney Being Sued by Visually Impaired Guests

[Dustykins]

I've gotta say, I'm always skeptical every time I hear the words "class action law suit." Before my son was born, I was an underwriter for lawyers malpractice insurance and we wouldn't touch lawyers who participated in class action lawsuits with a ten foot pole.

I'm sure there is some truth to the allegations, but I'd bet Disney will be shown to be making reasonable attempts to accommodate visually impaired persons on the parts that aren't ridiculous (like kennels for guide dogs at rides they're not allowed on and reduced cost admission for companions - both not required by law). I'd also bet, when this is all over, the named plaintiffs are going to be suing the lawyer currently representing them for malpractice.

 

[BeerMe]

And of course everyone knows the lady in question had been drinking heavily before the alleged incident.

 

[jsilvers]

Our resident bickering lawyers (is that redundant?) will correct me on that, I'm sure, if I'm wrong.

You appear to be correct, although I've only checked secondary sources. For example, a textbook (William Shaw, Business Ethics) states:

before Liebeck's accident, the company had received over seven hundred complaints about burns from its coffee. In response to the complaints, McDonald's had in fact put a warning label on its cups and designed a tighter-fitting lid for them. Ironically, the new lid was part of the problem in the Liebeck case because she had held the coffee cup between her legs in an effort to pry it open.​

 

[brunette8706]

OH MY GOSH!

Now THEY HAVE A FACEBOOK PAGE regarding the Class Action Suit! What makes this EVEN WORSE is that their lawyer is solicitating client/victims on FACEBOOK!

Some ambulance chaser is going to get rich!

Like I said in my launch post, I do think some things do need to be more accessible such as the WDW website so that it can be read by accessible technology tools such as JAWS, MAGIC and DRAGON. I also think (which Disney has already done) to provide braille on menu's etc. And I'm sure a few other things could be accomodated. But to me, I find this class action suit frivolous, self centered and opportunistic!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Disne...s/Disney-Class-Action-Lawsuit/197626193588939

 

[MissionMouse]

It all comes down to what is defined to be reasonable accommodation and ADA is so poorly written it depends heavily on case law to iinterpret it. Overall, there is no way a business come reach out and respond to every accommodation demanded by people with disabilities and still be in business. Many times people want and expect more than intended by ADA. It all comes back to what is reasonable and some of the items in the filing make you think their looking to take advantage of Disney.

 

[emcclay]

Oy vey. Some people will do anything for a buck. I could quote some Lampanelli jokes right now. But, I'll refrain from doing so because I know the wrath of the DIS will get me.

 

[iluvwesties]

Interesting aguments from all points of view

Fortunately, I do not have a disability, but do have a mother in a wheelchair, so can appreciate inequities I encounter with her in normal, everyday life.

But I was impressed with the accomodations I have seen at WDW for the disabled

Here's a pic of the braille map at AK

(I'm sure these are in every park)

 

[mattsdragon]

This thread is why society hates lawyers.

Until they need one.

 

[raidermatt]

I'll take that as an implicit admission that you don't have any legal credentials.

There's no basis for that, but take it however you wish. No sweat off my back.

And, even if true, that again doesn't mean that guests with disabilities don't encounter problems; only that few actually complain about it.

Of course guests with disabilites encounter problems. Every guest subset encounters problems. That's why knowledge regarding Disney's complaint system and the number of complaints received is key. It is the best way to understand whether less than one complaint a month is significant.

By your reasoning, I doubt that many class actions ever would be approved.

Maybe they shouldn't be. That said, no, my reasoning has nothing to do with other cases. It has to do with this specific case and whether, in this case, the number of complaints received is significant.

In a different case, with a different business, understanding THAT business would be key.

 

[raidermatt]

Except that would be illegal, as others have already noted. For example, for service animals, the Justice Department's Q&A explains:

Yes, it is illegal. My point is that the law puts the business in the position of being forced to allow abuse, and in some cases incur additional expenses due to the abuse.

That's a flawed law, and unfortunately not the only flaw in the ADA.

It has nothing to do with this case, but it is a related subject brought up in the thread.

 

[heyitsmejosh]

imo laws like these aren't right, what a private company wants to offer on private land is their own business they shouldn't have to make accommodations for anyone they don't want to as long as they do not receive tax payer money.

but don't worry the US is a "free country" as long as you don't want to use a round door knob.

 

[heyitsmejosh]

This type of stuff in inevitable.

Any time you empower the government to say what a private property owner can and cannot do, you ultimately come down this path.

Private property rights in America are a joke today.

The ADA is a joke when it comes to private property. You guys heard about people in wheel chairs suing the mexican place because, while they could reach the counters to pay and get their food, they couldn't actually SEE the food being prepared like those who were standing.

The federal government is completely out of control. They have ZERO say in how a private property owner in Florida decides to accommodate (or not) anyone.

In todays day and age, consumers will vote with the money and are (or have no excuse not to be) well educated on a company and how they treat people and accommodate everyone.

I can't believe someone (or in this case group of people) have the nerve to even suggest Disney doesn't go out of it's way to accommodate everyone.

I'm personally Appalled!

exactly, disney bends over backwards for people with disabilities, even though they really shouldnt have to.

i think i might have to go sue the NBA because they wont let me play pro basketball, due to my disability of not being born 7 feet tall.

 

[raidermatt]

Not everything at WDW is perfect, and there is lots of room for improvement. But many with disabilities do feel that Disney is making a good faith effort to make things as accessible as possible. So, at least I feel, it makes more sense to try to work with them than to sue them.

This has also been the feeling of anyone with a disability that I have talked with in the past, and it's one reason why I am highly skeptical of the real motives behind the suit.

 

[jsilvers]

There's no basis for that, but take it however you wish. No sweat off my back.

In other words, no legal credentials. Again, courts can make mistakes, but you've offered nothing to back-up your claim that the decision to certify a class against Disney was in error. If it's your word against a federal judge, guess who wins by default?

Of course guests with disabilites encounter problems. Every guest subset encounters problems. That's why knowledge regarding Disney's complaint system and the number of complaints received is key. It is the best way to understand whether less than one complaint a month is significant.

Once again, you ignore the fact that the size of the subset is significant, and we have no information about how many guests have visual disabilities.

 

[Schmeck]

Check out the fb page, and feel free to report it if you feel it is inappropriate.

 

[kwitcherkicken99]

This has also been the feeling of anyone with a disability that I have talked with in the past, and it's one reason why I am highly skeptical of the real motives behind the suit.

Here's the deal... do you know anyone who is VI??

I'm guessing no.

There are several valid points to their suit. There are also several frivilous points to their suit.

My two former students (who check in with me regularly) have taught me about the type of "go-getting" VI personalities that are behind this suit. They believe that the world should be as accessible to them as it is to a sighted person. While most of the is true, it should be, there are parts of the lawsuit that stretch FAR beyond reasonable expectations for WDW or any other place in the world.

The fact of the matter is, there are several things that WDW could do better for VI impairment. The accomodations for VI aren't near what they are for those with mobility impairments. Widened aisles, alternate entrances, wheelchair seating at shows, etc. won't help VI like it helps other disabilities. Being VI is a whole.new.ballgame.

The Braille maps in the parks are crap. They are so vague and so poorly constructed that they are useless. There is also only 1 Braille map per park. How often do you use the maps that are handed to you at the front gates to find your way around? Think about what it would be like if you needed to navigate your way around back to that 1 spot if you needed to find an attraction. What about needing to locate a CM and you can't see... how well would that work out for you?

The mobility devices that they offer do work, but are glitchy.

Having a service animal only helps them the way a cane would help, dogs can't navigate to get from point A to point B. You can't just look at Fido and say, "Take me to Dumbo."

It does get expensive for companion travellers to come along BUT, like my student's say, the companions will be enjoying WDW the same as the VI individual and therefore SHOULD pay full price. VI shouldn't receive discounts either. There is as much to enjoy at WDW for VI as there is sighted.

I don't think they need reserved seating areas - it's the same as the rest of us... want a good seat? Get there early.

You have to realize there are people in this world that who are VI and are tired of the need to rely on others to complete daily tasks. Especially on vacation. Trust me, I bet you there is a large majority of those who are VI that would gladly give up another sense than their eyesight. They shouldn't need to rely on asking for assistance more often than the rest of us need to ask "Where's the nearest restroom?" or "What time is the 3 o'clock parade?" Everyone is entitled to a relaxing vacation and more COULD be done to make WDW more navigate-able for VI.

Until you know what it's like to be VI, you shouldn't ask what the real motivation behind the suit it. VI is completely different than mobility or auditory disabilities. Walk a mile in their shoes first before casting that stone.

 

[kwitcherkicken99]

Another item to consider is, if a VI FAMILY (where more than 1 person in the unit) want to travel and they don't have a companion to go with them? Is it reasonable to expect them to pay for a VIP tour guide to get around?

The answer is no.

 

[PrincessBrianna]

I'm sorry that one is ridiculous No flames please.

Yes I agree there are a ton of sue happy people out there. Some people will find ANY excuse to get a few million dollars (if you remember a woman sued McDonald's because she spilt coffee ON HERSELF and sued because it was hot and she won) so it would make sense that people would sue because in most cases they win

Although I completely agree that this class action suit is completely selfish and ridiculous, I actually studied the McDonald's coffee case in my business law class at MSU and there are a lot of things about that case that most people dont' realize. The reason why McDonald's lost the case is because the woman was elderly and received SEVERE (like 3rd or 1st degree, whichever one is the worst) burns. Now, obviously she was an idiot for holding the cup between her legs, but McDonald's was found at fault because the reason their coffee was too hot was helping them save money. They heat their coffee at a MUCH higher temperature because it allows them to use less beans or something, therefore saving them a lot of money. Also there were no warning lables on the cup at the time, which again is common sense that coffee is HOT, but because all these things were cost savers for McDonald's, that is why they lost. They chose a larger profit margin over the safety of their customers.

Now, I still think the coffee burn suing was RIDICULOUS, and actually, it's kind of an urban legend that she made millions because it was a settlement which does not specify how much someone earns from the result, but yeah.. there were reasons why McDonald's lost that case.

These blind people have a tough life and I get that but seriously, they are being entitled selfish jerks for suing Disney for not being accomodating "enough". What is "enough"?? It will never end.

 

[PrincessBrianna]

this is why I find this whole thing complete bull.

They're not "discriminating" against anyone.

You choose to pay Disney to entertain you at your own risk.

If you think you won't be getting your money's worth, then simply DON'T GO THERE. It's just common freaking sense.

It's not like Disney isn't letting blind people in, they're welcoming them with open arms, but expecting them to bend over backwards to accomodate such a very small percentage of people is ridiculous. They already HAVE braille maps, guide dogs are allowed, and companions should pay full price- I really think that the rest of their claims are just a ploy for money.

If this was something in which they HAD to go to and it wasn't accomodating, then I'd understand. But if they don't feel they can get around and enjoy Disney, then they simply shouldn't go there.

Ridiculous.

 

[raidermatt]

In other words, no legal credentials. Again, courts can make mistakes, but you've offered nothing to back-up your claim that the decision to certify a class against Disney was in error. If it's your word against a federal judge, guess who wins by default?

In other words, I choose not to disclose certain personal information. You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth.

And again, nobody's "word" is up for discussion here. It's a matter of interpretation and if you wish to blindly trust every decision made by a judge, that's your preogative. Makes for a short discussion though.

Regardless, since your concern is not WHAT is being said but rather WHO is saying it, and you only want to discuss the issue with someone whose credentials you can verify, I'm not your guy.