Disney Being Sued by Visually Impaired Guests

[chartle]

I suppose they could rent devices with audio descriptions of things as the pass based on GPS or technology similar to those Pal Mickeys which were popular a few years back.

Already have one, the suit seems to an issue with the way it works. One article describes that the user just needed a little more training on it and now loves it.

 

[larryz]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read about the lawsuit was "why on earth would anyone who's blind want to go to WDW?" For the life of me, I don't understand what they would get out of a trip. Same goes for a trip to the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite, or any other visually stunning tourist location.

There, but for the grace of God, I guess.

Maybe someone who's blind and visits this board can explain...?

 

[chartle]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read about the lawsuit was "why on earth would anyone who's blind want to go to WDW?" For the life of me, I don't understand what they would get out of a trip. Same goes for a trip to the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite, or any other visually stunning tourist location.

There, but for the grace of God, I guess.

Maybe someone who's blind and visits this board can explain...?

Not blind but know someone who is.

Why, same reason they watch TV or see a movie.

Yes I know I used watch and see, those are the terms she uses and makes it easier to have a normal conversation.

Oh and though I never asked her but pretty sure she sees nothing as in she was no sensation of any light.

 

[raidermatt]

Like a lot of laws, the ADA addressed a very real and serious problem. However, it goes way to far in what businesses are required to do. In many cases it requires businesses to allow disabled guests to do things that the rest of the public is not allowed to do.

In general Disney bends over backwards to accomodate the disabled, so I highly doubt that they are neglecting the blind. Some of the things listed are BS.

That said, pretty much any suit based on the ADA has a decent chance of winning. What's more, since it's a class action suit, the lawyers aren't concerned with merely fixing the problems, they want the case to go to court since that's how they make the most money. The victims, if there even are any REAL victims, will never see a significant amount of money.

Bottom line is that knowing how Disney handles things like this, I am sure that any legitimate concerns can be worked out. But the suit is about getting paid, not fixing problems.

 

[shalom]

if you don't feel that disney is going to provide you with an adequate vacation experience - DONT GO! No one NEEDS to go to Disney.

This is my gut response as well. Although for me, Disney vacation is largely a visual event. While of course the other senses are stimulated, no one goes to Disney for the joys of Monorail scent. I'm sure some visually impaired people go because their families want to rather than because it's something they're dying to do, but so do a lot of others who don't actually enjoy much about the experience.

While I am fine with regulations that make it easier for disabled people to hold down a job or get around town or go to the grocery store, I'm less enthused about laws that force entertainment industries and other organizations that are less necessary to accommodate everyone. Everyone has to eat, so restaurants should have to show they've made an effort to accommodate everyone; but not everyone gets to go to Disney. Why should Disney be forced to accommodate the blind, but not forced to accommodate those too poor to pay for an entrance ticket?

McD's had coffee that was LONG KNOWN to be literally SCALDING hot, served in styrofoam cups that insulated the customer's hand from the heat so well they had no idea how hot the coffee was inside of it.

I agree that the McDonald's case is a poor example of sue abuse. McDonalds had been sued before by other elderly (mostly) people who'd been severely burned, which I suspect was part of the reason the jury kicked the fine up way beyond what the woman was asking -- they wanted to send McD's a message to cut it out.

I'm far less convinced in this case, though, that anyone has been severely harmed by Disney's actions (or lack of action). We do not live in a perfect world, so there will always be more Disney could do to accommodate various disabilities. The needs are nearly infinite; the money to accommodate them, not. Which is why I protest to defining as a "need" the right to go to an amusement park.

But what I really want to know is how Disney's costumed characters are discriminating against people with guide dogs.

 

[jsilvers]

I'm not sure I understand what can be done to make a live parade or show more accomodating...

According to the complaint, the problem is:

Maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments.​

http://www.forizs-dogali.com/cms/uploads/D16-1st%20Amnd%20Complaint.pdf

 

[larryz]

Why, same reason they watch TV or see a movie.

I think I can understand why a story would appeal -- there's still the compelling human interest that doesn't rely solely on visuals...

I'm not so young I don't remember radio serials...


But a visit to a resort like WDW -- to me, that's a primarily visual experience. If someone was sighted then lost their vision, maybe there's the memories factor.

But if someone has never been sighted, how can even the most descriptive narration do Wishes justice... hope to convey the wonder and whimsey of Peter Pan's flight... deign to describe the depth of color and detail in Pirates...?

I can imagine that there's entertainment value in the sounds, music, and smells alone -- and a trip to WDW would sure beat staying in an apartment dwelling on the mundane aspects of life -- but at some point, the lack of visuals must significantly diminish the experience. Imagine visiting the Osborne Family lights with your eyes closed.

Please, everyone, don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not questioning anyone's right or desire to do WDW. I just wonder what the visually impaired would enjoy about a trip to Disney.

 

[chartle]

But what I really want to know is how Disney's costumed characters are discriminating against people with guide dogs.

This has to refer to some very specific one time event with one or two people, like the character was maybe allergic and could great the guest.

There should be a separate line so the kids in line don't bother the dogs.

Also for all these points that are brought up, visually impaired doesn't always mean total blindness. My DN's boy friend is legally blind but still sees.

I see a lot of people with canes in stores, looking at things but still needs a cane to move around.

I still can't figure out exactly why some of these issues are included though.

 

[jsilvers]

Some of them seem easy to meet such as the request for printed material, providing for the needs of service animals and putting some lockers in a more accessible area in DL (how are they inaccessable? I have never been to DL)

According to the complaint, the locker problem is:

Renting lockers to park visitors which are inaccessible to persons with visual impairments because the lockers 1) utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented locker.
​

http://www.forizs-dogali.com/cms/uploads/D16-1st%20Amnd%20Complaint.pdf

DL must have a handicapped parking area, don't they?

According to the complaint:

Violating the following provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") at the Disneyland parking structure and parking lot: 4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3., 4.7.7., 4.29.2, and 4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.​

Note that the ADAAG can be found at http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm.

How are they discriminated against by costumed characters?

According to the complaint:

Maintaining a policy of refusing to allow costumed Disney characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service animals at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and Disneyland/California Adventure in California.​

Of course, the allegations made in a complaint are not necessarily true, and are not necessarily illegal even if true.

 

[Bonnie151]

How are they discriminated against by costumed characters?

I was wondering that. I've just started reading through the (45 page long!) order re the motion and it states:

"maintaining a policy of refusing to allow costumed Disney characters
to interact with visually impaired patrons with service animals at their
theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops;"

So it appears you can't meet/interact with the characters if you have a service animal?


ETA: lol, or I could have just quoted the poster above!

 

[nytimez]

I think I can understand why a story would appeal -- there's still the compelling human interest that doesn't rely solely on visuals...

I'm not so young I don't remember radio serials...


But a visit to a resort like WDW -- to me, that's a primarily visual experience. If someone was sighted then lost their vision, maybe there's the memories factor.

But if someone has never been sighted, how can even the most descriptive narration do Wishes justice... hope to convey the wonder and whimsey of Peter Pan's flight... deign to describe the depth of color and detail in Pirates...?

I can imagine that there's entertainment value in the sounds, music, and smells alone -- and a trip to WDW would sure beat staying in an apartment dwelling on the mundane aspects of life -- but at some point, the lack of visuals must significantly diminish the experience. Imagine visiting the Osborne Family lights with your eyes closed.

Please, everyone, don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not questioning anyone's right or desire to do WDW. I just wonder what the visually impaired would enjoy about a trip to Disney.

I'm sure many go simply to enjoy time with their family, who are going. No one wants to sit home alone, right?

Maybe others have been many times -- when they could see -- and can relive those memories simply by being there and hearing the sounds and smelling the smells.

And I'm sure some visually impaired people can get things from trips/places with their other senses that maybe the rest of us can't.

In addition, most big tourist destinations are places to "see." That's why it's called sightseeing. But I don't think being unable to see would necessarily stop someone from wanting to see those things. There's certainly a "being there" element to all these places and I think that desire will always be there for many people.

 

[NLD]

Interesting. On our last trip I was just wondering how the Disney experience would be for people who are blind or vision-impaired.

The website does seem to be particularly bad. Not that I'm a web designer, but I had to set up a website for a program I coordinated and the designer we hired was very particular about making it accessible, in terms of font and layout. Disney's sure doesn't seem like it's accessible.

As for lockers, menus, and parking garages... I know nothing about the parking garages but if they're not ADA compliant, they should be. And braille and large print menus certainly should be available at every restaurant. (And really how hard is that?) And the lockers, too.

ADA is in part about making sure people with disabilities have equal opportunity. If lockers can't be accessed by people who are blind, then they don't have equal opportunity to those lockers. If menus aren't in braille and large print (and no assistant is provided to read the menu), then they don't have equal opportunity to ordering from the menu.

Sounds to me like they have a case.

It doesn't really matter whether others would or wouldn't want to go to Disney if they were visually impaired... what matters is that people who are visually impaired, who do want to go to Disney, should be afforded equal opportunity when they are there.

 

[ILoveToRun]

First of all, I cannot even imagine having a disability that limits my everyday function like being blind.

I have yet to see somewhere as accommodating as the Disney parks. There's only so much that can be done realistically. If you have a disability, you can expect everything to be twisted to fit your needs, what about other peoples' needs? If I was missing my hands, I wouldn't sue the city because I couldn't go on the monkey bars in the park. There are just things that certain people cannot do.

But it's all a moot point because WDW and DLR are private institutions and they should be able to do what they want in terms of accessibility.

The world isn't fair. Get over it.

 

[nytimez]

First of all, I cannot even imagine having a disability that limits my everyday function like being blind.

I have yet to see somewhere as accommodating as the Disney parks. There's only so much that can be done realistically. If you have a disability, you can expect everything to be twisted to fit your needs, what about other peoples' needs? If I was missing my hands, I wouldn't sue the city because I couldn't go on the monkey bars in the park. There are just things that certain people cannot do.

But it's all a moot point because WDW and DLR are private institutions and they should be able to do what they want in terms of accessibility.

The world isn't fair. Get over it.

You can't imagine it... but get over it anyway? So you're telling people to get over something that you admit you have no concept of? Interesting idea.

Not sure what monkey bars and hands have to do with it, though.

 

[Schmeck]

Disneyland was built before the ADA - how old is the parking garage?

Since WDW does provide braille menus, maps, etc, that part should be dismissed, and it will make the rest of the case look bad.

If a service dog is unruly, then WDW has the right to refuse interaction. I've seen photos online of guests with service dogs and characters.

The GAC has a stamp for the vision-impaired, so that is accommodation as well.

This lawsuit reminds me of "Harrison Bergeron"...

 

[lan3]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read about the lawsuit was "why on earth would anyone who's blind want to go to WDW?" For the life of me, I don't understand what they would get out of a trip. Same goes for a trip to the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite, or any other visually stunning tourist location.

There, but for the grace of God, I guess.

Maybe someone who's blind and visits this board can explain...?

Perhaps they want to bring their children to visit WDW.

 

[ILoveToRun]

You can't imagine it... but get over it anyway? So you're telling people to get over something that you admit you have no concept of? Interesting idea.

Not sure what monkey bars and hands have to do with it, though.

I can imagine having a disability that has affected my life more than once but I don't get offended at everything and I don't expect everyone to bend over backwards for me. In reality, on my parents and boyfriend (and doctor of course) know what my disability is because I don't use it as a tool to get special treatment while many others have.

You can swing on monkey bars (in the way they're intended to be used at least) without hands. It's not going to happen. There are somethings that are limited when someone is blind. I'm not sure how that is hard to relate?

 

[MickeysBFF]

I agree that the McDonald's case is a poor example of sue abuse.

Yeah sorry about that I would have said something else but that was really the only one I could think of.

 

[flortlebap]

I find these types of cases very interesting, as a lawyer. Mainly because, whilst the general public jump on the bandwagon of how wrong it all is, from a legal perspective, there's almost always an actionable point of negligence in these cases.

If the cases were truly spurious, they'd be thrown out, but they're not. Although I appreciate, legal interest aside, some of the cases do take the mickey ever so slightly...

 

[nytimez]

I can imagine having a disability that has affected my life more than once but I don't get offended at everything and I don't expect everyone to bend over backwards for me. In reality, on my parents and boyfriend (and doctor of course) know what my disability is because I don't use it as a tool to get special treatment while many others have.

You can swing on monkey bars (in the way they're intended to be used at least) without hands. It's not going to happen. There are somethings that are limited when someone is blind. I'm not sure how that is hard to relate?

So your unspecified disability that has affected your life more than once means you can tell blind people where to stick it, even though you admit that you can't imagine what they go through?

That's even more interesting than your first post.

But I still don't see what this has to do any potential lawsuit by handless people against monkey bar owners.