Federal court sides with Disney in lead das lawsuit

[blondietink]

I agree also. I have 2 adult aged children with developmental disabilities. There are those of us who have fought FOR YEARS to have equal accommodations, not excess accommodations. The new system works fine for us.

I often wonder what the people who demanded front the the line access do when they are in the checkout line in the grocery store with their kids, or waiting to get on an airplane, etc. They are not doing their children, nor themselves, any favors.

 

[SueM in MN]

I agree also. I have 2 adult aged children with developmental disabilities. There are those of us who have fought FOR YEARS to have equal accommodations, not excess accommodations. The new system works fine for us.

I often wonder what the people who demanded front the the line access do when they are in the checkout line in the grocery store with their kids, or waiting to get on an airplane, etc. They are not doing their children, nor themselves, any favors.

actually, according to the response by the judge,

"D.L. testified that Plaintiff could wait for short periods of roughly five to ten minutes.
3(Doc. No. 159-3 p. 4, 95:5-16). However, D.L. has traveled by air and car to Cancun, Mexico and
North Carolina, U.S., respectively. (Id.)."
(From Orlando)

 

[OurBigTrip]

Good. Hopefully, the remaining plaintiffs will drop their suits, rather than get stuck paying what I'm guessing are substantial legal bills for Disney.

 

[Maggie'sMom]

Good. Hopefully, the remaining plaintiffs will drop their suits, rather than get stuck paying what I'm guessing are substantial legal bills for Disney.

My understanding is that the ruling awarded court costs to Disney but that did not mean the plaintiff was responsible for paying Disney's attorneys' fees. I could be wrong though.

 

[OurBigTrip]

My understanding is that the ruling awarded court costs to Disney but that did not mean the plaintiff was responsible for paying Disney's attorneys' fees. I could be wrong though.

That could well be - I'm hoping that it's attorney's fees as well though...one should have to pay a price for filing such a ridiculous suit when there are real cases that should have priority.

 

[HarleenQ]

This was in one of the articles (just from a quick google) but I've read the court docs and I believe it says the same thing. If Disney chooses to pursue compensation from the plaintiff is up to them though, I believe.

Disney can recover costs from the plaintiff, Conway ruled

 

[SueM in MN]

My understanding is that the ruling awarded court costs to Disney but that did not mean the plaintiff was responsible for paying Disney's attorneys' fees. I could be wrong though.

That is my understanding too.

I believe it includes things like serving summons and subpoenas, copying, stenographer fees, filing fees, court reporter fees (which I've read can be expensive), and costs for things like court transcripts.

 

[Gracie09]

That is my understanding too.

I believe it includes things like serving summons and subpoenas, copying, stenographer fees, filing fees, court reporter fees (which I've read can be expensive), and costs for things like court transcripts.

From my experience with litigation, the above can reach into the thousands of dollars easily.

 

[5kidsmommy]

I will also add as a parent of a child on the spectrum I agree with the court. We have not used either DAS or the GAC, we never really felt the need. We have never taken our son during busy seasons and honestly with him being the youngest of five children he's gotten used to waiting and not immediately doing what he wants. We've had trip though where he was miserable and that just meant my husband would take the other kids and I would find things to do with my youngest. I think Disney has done a great job of accommodating many special needs and honestly they seem to go above and beyond but some people will never be happy and that's just life.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

ADA is about equal access, not better access. They need to take reasonable steps to make their attractions accessible to persons with disabilities. A request to ride a certain ride over and over again without getting off doesn't have anything to do with equal access to the attraction. In the instant case, "no waiting" wasn't considered a reasonable accommodation to result in equal access. Someday, maybe, someone will be able to present a case where a court determines that a guest really "needs" instant and repeated access to an attraction to be equally accommodated, but it isn't this case. Apparently the plaintiff's son was able to wait on other occasions.

An award of court costs is not the same as an award of attorney's fees. What they really did was break apart the class action (stating that the plaintiffs could not sue WDW as a class.) They did rule on one case from the class, the case of the man with autism who it was alleged needed to be able to ride certain attractions again and again without waiting. This was adjudicated on the basis of that particular plaintiff's complaint only. Other cases can be brought, but not as a class.

There was also that lawsuit from a woman who demanded to be allowed to ride Tower of Terror over and over and over every Saturday because it allegedly helped with her medical condition. Finally it appears WDW had enough and told her she couldn't ride all day, of course she sued them. ADA didn't cover her attempt to use the ride as a medical device, only whether she had the same access to it that everyone else had.

 

[paisleys]

^I just Googled that Tower or Terror suit--wow. Unfortunately, Disney settled with her. http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/Pain-Patient-Sues-Disney-over-Thrill-Ride-Therapy.html

 

[Gracie09]

^I just Googled that Tower or Terror suit--wow. Unfortunately, Disney settled with her. http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/Pain-Patient-Sues-Disney-over-Thrill-Ride-Therapy.html

settling doesn't mean monetary. It could be that she gets her annual pass reinstated.

 

[wilkeliza]

ADA is about equal access, not better access. They need to take reasonable steps to make their attractions accessible to persons with disabilities. A request to ride a certain ride over and over again without getting off doesn't have anything to do with equal access to the attraction. In the instant case, "no waiting" wasn't considered a reasonable accommodation to result in equal access. Someday, maybe, someone will be able to present a case where a court determines that a guest really "needs" instant and repeated access to an attraction to be equally accommodated, but it isn't this case. Apparently the plaintiff's son was able to wait on other occasions.

An award of court costs is not the same as an award of attorney's fees. What they really did was break apart the class action (stating that the plaintiffs could not sue WDW as a class.) They did rule on one case from the class, the case of the man with autism who it was alleged needed to be able to ride certain attractions again and again without waiting. This was adjudicated on the basis of that particular plaintiff's complaint only. Other cases can be brought, but not as a class.

There was also that lawsuit from a woman who demanded to be allowed to ride Tower of Terror over and over and over every Saturday because it allegedly helped with her medical condition. Finally it appears WDW had enough and told her she couldn't ride all day, of course she sued them. ADA didn't cover her attempt to use the ride as a medical device, only whether she had the same access to it that everyone else had.

The way I read it actually was about the fact that being able to ride rides with no wait was making a better experience. I feel like it would be hard for someone to claim that they ADA would allow them no wait for an attraction because the standard guest who buys a single day ticket will have to wait. So I imagine based on the wording of the ruling anything regulated to wait times would be a no go any more. I really thought Disney would just end up settling all of these but I imagine if they had it would have opened a slippery slope up to more lawsuits.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

DAS gives persons with disabilities who would have difficulty waiting in a queue, the opportunity to go somewhere else other than waiting in the queue. What the plaintiffs were alleging was that this arrangement was untenable for the persons in their parties with disabilities. The court appears to have believed that allowing a disabled guest to wait elsewhere was a better experience than that afforded to non-disabled guests who had to wait in the queue. And Disney wasn't obligated under ADA to offer a better experience, just equal access. They might or might not have taken into account that the previous experience under the GAC was widely seen as being an even better experience than that offered under the DAS (which is why it got abused), but DAS is still better than waiting in the queue, and may be sufficient for equal access in many if not most cases.

The plaintiffs appear to be alleging that they need immediate and sometimes repeated access to attractions for their access to be considered equal, not the opportunity to go away and come back later. Which the court said they wouldn't be able to allege as a class, but they can individually on a case by case basis.

 

[buffettgirl]

DAS gives persons with disabilities who would have difficulty waiting in a queue, the opportunity to go somewhere else other than waiting in the queue. What the plaintiffs were alleging was that this arrangement was untenable for the persons in their parties with disabilities. The court appears to have believed that allowing a disabled guest to wait elsewhere was a better experience than that afforded to non-disabled guests who had to wait in the queue. And Disney wasn't obligated under ADA to offer a better experience, just equal access. They might or might not have taken into account that the previous experience under the GAC was widely seen as being an even better experience than that offered under the DAS (which is why it got abused), but DAS is still better than waiting in the queue, and may be sufficient for equal access in many if not most cases.

The plaintiffs appear to be alleging that they need immediate and sometimes repeated access to attractions for their access to be considered equal, not the opportunity to go away and come back later. Which the court said they wouldn't be able to allege as a class, but they can individually on a case by case basis.

Even if they came back individually, repeated access to an attraction is never going to be equal access, and there's no way the plaintiffs can make a case for it. Going to Disney and riding rides is not a right, and riding over and over again may be something your child wants to do, or even needs to do, but being prevented from doing so is not taking away your right to access. I can just imagine what will happen when we decide that every private business, even while open to the public, is mandated to provide for every want of every individual. We don't require restaurants to have every item on their menu in allergy free form, covering every allergy (they serve pizza; we don't require them have gluten free pizza, pizza with no dairy, pizza with no onions, pizza with no tomato). We don't even require every restaurant to be able to accommodate any food allergies.

MODERATOR NOTE: I fixed the formatting, so the post shows up without needing to expand it.

 

[SueM in MN]

DAS gives persons with disabilities who would have difficulty waiting in a queue, the opportunity to go somewhere else other than waiting in the queue. What the plaintiffs were alleging was that this arrangement was untenable for the persons in their parties with disabilities. The court appears to have believed that allowing a disabled guest to wait elsewhere was a better experience than that afforded to non-disabled guests who had to wait in the queue. And Disney wasn't obligated under ADA to offer a better experience, just equal access. They might or might not have taken into account that the previous experience under the GAC was widely seen as being an even better experience than that offered under the DAS (which is why it got abused), but DAS is still better than waiting in the queue, and may be sufficient for equal access in many if not most cases.

The plaintiffs appear to be alleging that they need immediate and sometimes repeated access to attractions for their access to be considered equal, not the opportunity to go away and come back later. Which the court said they wouldn't be able to allege as a class, but they can individually on a case by case basis.

The judge was actually looking at 5 issues according to the ruling.

"Based on the arguments identified by each party’s motion, there are five issues to be considered:
1. Whether Defendant sufficiently provided an individual assessment of Plaintiff’s impairment in providing him with accommodations;
2. Whether Plaintiff’s requested modification is necessary to afford him access to Defendant’s parks; 

3. Whether Plaintiff’s requested modification is reasonable; 

4. Whether Plaintiff’s requested modification would fundamentally alter the services provided by Defendant; and 

5. Whether Plaintiff has standing to pursue his claim. 

The subsequent analysis covers issues one, two, and five."

The Court assesses the “necessary” inquiry first because a showing that Plaintiff did not need the accommodation obviates further discussion regardless if it is reasonable. Martin, 532 U.S. at 682..........

However, nondisabled guests will inevitably have to wait to experience an attraction regardless of the order they choose to visit them. Thus, DAS and readmission passes afford Plaintiff a similar, or better, experience as those not needing them.......

The Plaintiff did not prove #2, that "the requested modification was necessary", so the judge did not go on to assess whether or not the request was reasonable or whether it would fundamentally alter the services provided.

From reading all of the lawsuits and this judgement, IMHO, the plaintiffs in the other claims would also have a difficult time proving necessity and, even if they did, (again IMHO) they would have a lot of difficulty proving that the requested modifications were reasonable and would not fundamentally alter the services provided.
From what is in the judgement, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff to prove.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

Plaintiff does have the burden of proof in a civil case.

so, once the court determined that the plaintiff's requested modification (get on the ride without waiting and ride it as many consecutive times as he wished) wasn't necessary to afford him access, it didn't matter whether or not it was reasonable. If they'd found it a necessary modification, they would have then determined whether it was reasonable.

Plaintiffs are going to have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested modification is necessary for equal access, and it'd be tough to show that sort of necessity for immediate or repeated access requests.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

Plaintiffs are going to have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested modification is necessary for equal access

And, required alterations for "access" is not always retroactive.

 

[SueM in MN]

Plaintiff does have the burden of proof in a civil case.

so, once the court determined that the plaintiff's requested modification (get on the ride without waiting and ride it as many consecutive times as he wished) wasn't necessary to afford him access, it didn't matter whether or not it was reasonable. If they'd found it a necessary modification, they would have then determined whether it was reasonable.

Plaintiffs are going to have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested modification is necessary for equal access, and it'd be tough to show that sort of necessity for immediate or repeated access requests.

and, they would also need to prove that the modification thru request would not fundamentally alter the services provided by the defendant - again, that's not going to be easy to prove when Disney had data about how GAC affected lines and waits for other guests.

 

[buffettgirl]

and, they would also need to prove that the modification thru request would not fundamentally alter the services provided by the defendant - again, that's not going to be easy to prove when Disney had data about how GAC affected lines and waits for other guests.

And in other cases with other amusement parks, the parks simply needed to outline how the park operates for every other guest. The service that is provided to every other guest; for the price of entry admission, the guest will ride on the ride after waiting his/her turn for the ride.

So, "fundamentally alter the services provided by the defendant" is really easy for a park to show. Allowing immediate access to a ride is not the service that the park provides to anyone.

And with Disney, the DAS is providing the same service.