Disney Being Sued by Visually Impaired Guests

[Bangerang]

As for question of whether this is a frivolous lawsuit or not... the answer is maybe not. My DM is President of the local chapter of the Federation of the Blind (FOB) and is pretty up-to-date on most of the litigation regarding accessibility although she hasn't heard of the Disney case. Despite the numerous laws out there, very few have any teeth when it comes to compliance. Examples: There is a federal law that says all federal websites must be accessible to readers, yet few are. VI school children constantly go without textbooks because suppliers won't convert the texts to large print or braille. Penn State is one of the worst offenders of the ADA.

Because there is little to no penalty for non-compliance, sometimes the only way to make companies sit up and take notice is by bringing a lawsuit. In this case, it sounds like the threat of one already has caused some improvements to be made. If though, Disney thought that it wasn't cost effective to add warning strips in the parking garages so VI people would know when a walkway ended and driving lane began, that's a problem.

How else do you propose to get them to change their mind and comply with the law?

 

[NotUrsula]

Oddly enough, I think accommodating for the parades would be one of the easier ones to implement since most of the systems are already in place. Disney could set up a separate viewing area away from Main Street and the hub (far too noisy) where an audio description could be piped to the handheld units already in place. Descriptions of the floats could be synchronized with the music and controlled from the parade control room. I'm not even sure the area would need to be roped off as long as the signal is strong enough.

Now see, that's thinking. I think that the area would need to be roped/walled off, at least for some time before the parade rolled, because if it were not, non-VI guests would probably fill the space. I think that the ropes could be removed around 30 minutes before the parade rolled, however, thus giving VI guests first dibs if they got there earlier.

I think that must be what is causing the confusion now is that if WDW is not specifically designating the current special viewing area as being for wheelchair users and their companions, then it would certainly appear on the face of it as though the decision to not allow VI guests to use it is arbitrary, until you give the explanation that it is designed to accommodate the chairs. (I know it is not arbitrary, but if the signage doesn't specify, then I understand why some initial confusion might ensue. Surely that could be avoided by creating better signage, and giving the VI guests their own space.)

 

[Bangerang]

Now see, that's thinking. I think that the area would need to be roped/walled off, at least for some time before the parade rolled, because if it were not, non-VI guests would probably fill the space. I think that the ropes could be removed around 30 minutes before the parade rolled, however, thus giving VI guests first dibs if they got there earlier.

I think that must be what is causing the confusion now is that if WDW is not specifically designating the current special viewing area as being for wheelchair users and their companions, then it would certainly appear on the face of it as though the decision to not allow VI guests to use it is arbitrary, until you give the explanation that it is designed to accommodate the chairs. (I know it is not arbitrary, but if the signage doesn't specify, then I understand why some initial confusion might ensue. Surely that could be avoided by creating better signage, and giving the VI guests their own space.)

The only problem with roping off a special area is that VI comes in different degrees. For example, do you rope off a side facing the sun. Wouldn't make a difference if you were totally blind but if you have a light sensitivity that could be painful. Do you rope off an area in the shade? Once again could cause issues for some looking from shade into light. If they designate an area (block?) then people could pick a spot that is optimum for their viewing needs.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

No no no no no. You shoot yourself in the foot by mentioning the McDonald's case. McD's was almost completely at fault (and the judgment that the public got to see reflected that, giving a certain percentage of the jury's amount, and calling the rest of the percentage not their fault).

Thank you for posting so I didn't have to!

 

[PaulaSB12]

If you want a frivolous law case, some years ago a british county council won the appeal against paying an 18 year old compensation for breaking his neck diving into a swimming pool with very little water. He scaled a 6 ft brick wall and broke into the swimming baths yet he claimed it was the councils fault (they owned the pool) for not doing enough to stop him breaking in in the first place. He got no money.

 

[iheartdisney]

Oddly enough, I think accommodating for the parades would be one of the easier ones to implement since most of the systems are already in place. Disney could set up a separate viewing area away from Main Street and the hub (far too noisy) where an audio description could be piped to the handheld units already in place. Descriptions of the floats could be synchronized with the music and controlled from the parade control room. I'm not even sure the area would need to be roped off as long as the signal is strong enough.

But then you might as well open up the Slippery Slope water park.
If we are going to designate a special area and narrated experience for the visually impaired, won't we also need a special viewing area for the hearing impaired? Where the parade cast signs instead of sings? And what of the sensory processing issues crowd? Don't they deserve a special section of the parade where the music is not quite so loud and the lights don't blink quite as brightly? And of course the foreign tourist crowd. Why can't a stretch of the parade be broadcast in Spanish for the non-English speaking guess? How can a public company which caters to so many different audiences simultaneously possibly provide an equal experience for all? The answer- quite plainly- is that they can't.
The only purpose that lawsuits like this accomplish is to continue to strip away the experience for the non-special-needs guest. (I don't want to get flamed for using a term like AVERAGE or REGULAR or anything else that can be misinterpreted)For example, the first time we ever went to Toontown at DL we noticed that the front steps to Mickey's house was roped off. Assuming it was closed, we asked a CM. Nope, even though there was a ramp, the steps were not ADA compliant so they could not be used. That is government intervention at work folks!
Another poster several pages back used an example of "if I had no hands, I don't expect to use the monkey bars." What lawsuits like this accomplish is not to make monkey bars for those without hands. The purpose is to take away all of the monkey bars so the world is "fair."
But like I tell my 8 year old on a daily basis: Life isn't fair.

 

[NotUrsula]

But then you might as well open up the Slippery Slope water park.
If we are going to designate a special area and narrated experience for the visually impaired, won't we also need a special viewing area for the hearing impaired? Where the parade cast signs instead of sings? And what of the sensory processing issues crowd? Don't they deserve a special section of the parade where the music is not quite so loud and the lights don't blink quite as brightly? And of course the foreign tourist crowd. Why can't a stretch of the parade be broadcast in Spanish for the non-English speaking guess? How can a public company which caters to so many different audiences simultaneously possibly provide an equal experience for all? The answer- quite plainly- is that they can't.
[snip]

To address part of that, the foreign tourist business is a red herring: the ADA has nothing to do with language parity.

As for the deaf, we're mostly good for parades, thanks. The songs are piped in, and most Deaf experience music as vibration. Besides that, eliminating a barrier to experience requires the experience to be categorized first, and in the case of parades, it is pretty universally accepted that a parade is normally a visual experience: the goal is to "see" it. (Otherwise you would never see a kid on a parent's shoulders or a person sitting on a curb to reserve a spot -- a hearing person can enjoy the music just fine when 50 feet back and facing the other way.)

Sensory issues are a matter of eliminating something, not adding it. Any time your disability requires you to lessen some type of sensory experience, then it is up to you to know how to do it and take your own steps. (Except in the case of students in school, but that is covered by a different law, not ADA.) The purpose of the ADA is to try to eliminate barriers that cannot readily be eliminated by action on the part of the affected individual. (For example: it is incumbent on the blind person to learn to read braille, but it is not reasonable to expect blind people to make their own braille signs and permanently post them in public places. The blind have met the sighted halfway by adopting a standarized alternative system and learning to use it; places of public accomodation meet them halfway by adding the braille, or large print, to the signs and the menus.)

I'll grant that the law is more vague than I'd like, but the slope isn't nearly as slippery as your post implies.

Issues of access to sights and sounds (or technologically adapted facsimiles of them) end up affecting almost all of us as we age. People who fall into these two categories of disability are by no means a small minority. It makes absolute sense that institutions like the Disney parks, which like to advertise themselves as an integral part of the experience of being American, would try to make the experience attractive to folks whose hearing or vision isn't all that it could be. It just makes good business sense, because that is a huge market.

 

[kaytieeldr]

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.

Is it reasonable for the business they choose to patronize to provide that personalized service in any format when it's not done for the general public?

The answer is no.

There's reasonable accommodation, and there's taking responsibility for yourself.

 

[Friend of a Mouse]

As for question of whether this is a frivolous lawsuit or not... the answer is maybe not. My DM is President of the local chapter of the Federation of the Blind (FOB) and is pretty up-to-date on most of the litigation regarding accessibility although she hasn't heard of the Disney case. Despite the numerous laws out there, very few have any teeth when it comes to compliance. Examples: There is a federal law that says all federal websites must be accessible to readers, yet few are. VI school children constantly go without textbooks because suppliers won't convert the texts to large print or braille. Penn State is one of the worst offenders of the ADA.

How else do you propose to get them to change their mind and comply with the law?

We are going through this right now in my school. Many of my students qualified for iPads under a technology grant. They are a great tool and there are apps like Read2Go specifically for the visually impaired. However, it has literally been a three month ordeal to get a textbook for one of my students. By the time we get it, I'm afraid school will be out. It is ridiculous. It takes months to get books in. I am already ordering for next year. That's fine for the kids I know I'll have, but it sucks when we get a kid mid year because we have to wait so long for materials.

But then you might as well open up the Slippery Slope water park.
If we are going to designate a special area and narrated experience for the visually impaired, won't we also need a special viewing area for the hearing impaired? Where the parade cast signs instead of sings? And what of the sensory processing issues crowd? Don't they deserve a special section of the parade where the music is not quite so loud and the lights don't blink quite as brightly? And of course the foreign tourist crowd. Why can't a stretch of the parade be broadcast in Spanish for the non-English speaking guess? How can a public company which caters to so many different audiences simultaneously possibly provide an equal experience for all? The answer- quite plainly- is that they can't.
The only purpose that lawsuits like this accomplish is to continue to strip away the experience for the non-special-needs guest. (I don't want to get flamed for using a term like AVERAGE or REGULAR or anything else that can be misinterpreted)For example, the first time we ever went to Toontown at DL we noticed that the front steps to Mickey's house was roped off. Assuming it was closed, we asked a CM. Nope, even though there was a ramp, the steps were not ADA compliant so they could not be used. That is government intervention at work folks!
Another poster several pages back used an example of "if I had no hands, I don't expect to use the monkey bars." What lawsuits like this accomplish is not to make monkey bars for those without hands. The purpose is to take away all of the monkey bars so the world is "fair."
But like I tell my 8 year old on a daily basis: Life isn't fair.

Actually, there is already accommodation for the deaf. There is a rotating schedule of interpreters at the parades and shows. A couple days a week, I would see interpreters by the Liberty Bell as I went down the parade route. I used to get a kick out of watching them do the voices (particularly Goofy's.) I don't know if they have a section roped off on those days so that deaf people can easily see the interpreters, but the point is, they are already accommodating for thsoe guests.

 

[kaytieeldr]

All of this put under the heading of IMHO.

The ADA, although well intentioned, contains a vital flaw, one that keeps popping my more and more often. The flaw is that the ADA takes the approach that freedom means everything is for everybody, and that is not what the framers of the constitution intended.
I would love to be a PGA Golfer, but the good Lord gave no ability to play golf. According to a strict interpretation of the ADA (whch lawyers do), the PGA is not in compliance with the ADA act because I have a sports disability, in that I'm no good at them, and that I can't compete against Tiger, Phil and others.
Of course, that is ridiculous. But, looking at the lawsuit (what has been published), almost makes me want to think that the bringers of the lawsuit want Disney to solve their blindness. That is crux of it. Now, I would never, ever wish blindness or any disability on anyone. But, the fact of life is that disabilities exist and people have them. My DW has diabetes, but I'm not suiing Disney to make them stop selling sugary high carb foods. We just make other choices and deal with the issue ourselves (oh, look, personal responsbility, sure wish more people would take this approach but that is likely another topic for a different board).
So, this may be America, where you should be able to "pursue happiness", but actually experiencing happiness and having everything ever done available to all the people, is just not part of the deal.

I also totally agree that with the class in this suit being so broad (all people aflicated with sight disorders), that no one, other than the law firm, will see a penny. And, that is the deepest shame of the whole affair.

Dolby1000

The inability to succeed or be proficient in an activity, action, sport, avocation, etc., isn't a disability and should never be confused with one, facetiously or not.

There actually was a disabled pro golfer who (successfully) sued the PGA several years ago - to be allowed to use a golf cart

 

[Friend of a Mouse]

The inability to succeed or be proficient in an activity, action, sport, avocation, etc., isn't a disability and should never be confused with one, facetiously or not.

There actually was a disabled pro golfer who (successfully) sued the PGA several years ago - to be allowed to use a golf cart

Exactly. One of the major defining points of a disability is that it must "limit a major life activity." (For example, vision). Playing a specific sport is not a major life activity.

 

[Nyrina4life]

I just wonder if they understand that no matter what not all of their accommodation's are going to be met. It is tragic that they are unable to fully experience the vivid colors, and sights you see at Disney.

The one thing I don't really agree with is a discounted price for the person guiding the blind or almost completely blind person around. They could use them as an excuse to get in to the park at a cheaper rate.

 

[SueM in MN]

Actually, there is already accommodation for the deaf. There is a rotating schedule of interpreters at the parades and shows. A couple days a week, I would see interpreters by the Liberty Bell as I went down the parade route. I used to get a kick out of watching them do the voices (particularly Goofy's.) I don't know if they have a section roped off on those days so that deaf people can easily see the interpreters, but the point is, they are already accommodating for thsoe guests.

We've seen the interpreters for the parade at AK. They had the interpreters up on a little platform and a roped off area for those who were using the interpreters. They were pretty cool.

Number one: eliminate reliance on any public-service technology that is operated ONLY by means of a touchscreen. Everyone else just loves their touch screens, but to a visually-impaired person a touch screen is like a lock with no key. Witness the issue with newer e-readers -- ooh, they can read the book aloud to you, it's great for the blind, but how on earth is a blind person supposed to turn on the voice synthesizer if the control is only accesible via a touch screen?

The problem isn't touch screen devices - it's touch screen devices that are not designed with any disabilities in mind. A well designed touchscreen can be accessible to almost everyone.
For example, an iPad or an iPhone look very in-accessible for someone with visual disabilities, but the designers added things like being able to magnify the screen and a feature called Voice Over that lets even a totally blind person like Stevie Wonder use an iPhone (or iPad or iPod touch).
http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._for_making_ios_devices_fully_accessible.html
http://www.apple.com/accessibility/

Oregon also used iPads in a pilot voting program to give voters with multiple types of abilities the chance to vote independently.
http://bdmtech.blogspot.com/2011/11/oregon-using-ipad-to-assist-disabled.html

So, well designed touchscreens can be accessible to most people.

Second: get rid of reliance on dedicated devices for narration. Set up button and braille kiosks at the parks and resorts where the visually-impaired can download audio files and free voice-activated apps that can guide them through the parks, and make those files available online as well (on a friendlier website), so that they can determine in advance if the experience is likely to be enjoyable for them. Obviously, these should be available in formats for the most common personal translation devices used by the blind both here and abroad.

I would agree that WDW could do better here, and not just for people with VI.
They provide very little information about attractions other than warnings, which are quite general, lists of attractions where someone can stay in a wheelchair for the full attraction and lists of attractions where a transfer is required.

They could do much better on some of those things for all sorts of disabilities - for example, how about downloadable scripts in readable and screen readable format so that guests who are deaf or VI can download them ahead of time to their own preferred reading devices for use in the parks or Preview before they get to a park.

 

[MolonLabe]

How else do you propose to get them to change their mind and comply with the law?

I think you are asking the wrong question. The better question would be, where does the federal government get the authority in the Constitution to reach down upon private property and exert the willing of a handful of people over private property?

The answer is they don't.

Everyone has a RIGHT to fair and equal access to government and government services.

No one has a RIGHT to go to Disney. You don't think so? Put on a KKK outfit (or Erik Estrada costume) and try and walk into MK. It isn't going to happen.


I think this is a perfect example of how a well intentioned law runs afoul of everything that is moral or just. A company like Disney that goes out of their way to accommodate everyone and everything under the sun is drawn in to a legal battle based upon something that a 51% of politicians 1,000+ miles away decided was going to be the 'law of the land'.

It's absurd.

'The sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect property and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.'

As an aside, in todays information age, consumers are more educate than ever. If you don't like a company, vote with your wallet.

Don't send federal agents with machine guns to play big brother to the mouse we all love.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think you are asking the wrong question. The better question would be, where does the federal government get the authority in the Constitution to reach down upon private property and exert the willing of a handful of people over private property?

The answer is they don't.

Everyone has a RIGHT to fair and equal access to government and government services.

No one has a RIGHT to go to Disney

.
Substitute 'doctor's office', 'suoermarket', 'bank', 'concert venue'... really, any private enterprise that benefits (profits) from providing services or goods to the public in exchange for money - for 'Disney'.

These are all apparently private companies by your definition, but they serve/derive their business from the public. Would you like to not be able to patronize your bank because they're on the second floor of a building with no elevator and you can't manage stairs (thinking of "It's a Wonderful Life")? Or, on the same theme, pay 50% interest on your car loan?

Sometimes the government has to legislate sensibility.

While I don't agree with much/most of this lawsuit, when you're not seeing the obstacles from the aspect of the affected persons you don't realize they exist. I'd love to see the lawsuit's actual reasonably accommodating solutions for some of its complaints, notably the garage issue and relief for service dogs.

 

[akhenaten]

I think you are asking the wrong question. The better question would be, where does the federal government get the authority in the Constitution to reach down upon private property and exert the willing of a handful of people over private property?

The answer is they don't.

Everyone has a RIGHT to fair and equal access to government and government services.

No one has a RIGHT to go to Disney. You don't think so? Put on a KKK outfit (or Erik Estrada costume) and try and walk into MK. It isn't going to happen.


I think this is a perfect example of how a well intentioned law runs afoul of everything that is moral or just. A company like Disney that goes out of their way to accommodate everyone and everything under the sun is drawn in to a legal battle based upon something that a 51% of politicians 1,000+ miles away decided was going to be the 'law of the land'.

It's absurd.

'The sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect property and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.'

As an aside, in todays information age, consumers are more educate than ever. If you don't like a company, vote with your wallet.

Don't send federal agents with machine guns to play big brother to the mouse we all love.

Are you so short sighted that you can not imagine a loved one of yours becoming disabled and needing accommodations?
Would you tell your loved one... oh well we just can't go to Disney.. too bad so sad??

People "voted" in the past with lobbying and legislation.. they "voted" that people with special needs deserve to be able to live their lives and not have to be locked away into their houses....

 

[Jennasis]

My grocery store doesn't have a place for guide dogs to relieve themselves either. Nor does the bank, the public library, the courthouse. Are they all being sued too?

Has an advocacy group for the blind tried ASKING Disney to make some broader accommodations for their population, before resorting to a lawsuit?

 

[padams]

I think you are asking the wrong question. The better question would be, where does the federal government get the authority in the Constitution to reach down upon private property and exert the willing of a handful of people over private property?

The answer is they don't.

Everyone has a RIGHT to fair and equal access to government and government services.

No one has a RIGHT to go to Disney. You don't think so? Put on a KKK outfit (or Erik Estrada costume) and try and walk into MK. It isn't going to happen.


I think this is a perfect example of how a well intentioned law runs afoul of everything that is moral or just. A company like Disney that goes out of their way to accommodate everyone and everything under the sun is drawn in to a legal battle based upon something that a 51% of politicians 1,000+ miles away decided was going to be the 'law of the land'.

It's absurd.

'The sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect property and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.'

As an aside, in todays information age, consumers are more educate than ever. If you don't like a company, vote with your wallet.

Don't send federal agents with machine guns to play big brother to the mouse we all love.

 

[DizBelle]

I have a feeling that when Disney is unable to provide adequate maps for the visually impaired (according to the visually impaired), there will no longer be maps for anyone.

 

[manning]

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.

Need to sue to get that corrected!!