Disney (and any other park) isn't saying "you're blind, you're not welcome in our lines with your dog". They reason they bring you through an alternate entrance is so that you don't have to deal with the "unwashed masses" that would distract/annoy your SD or you. I know that most of you are used to answering questions, but think about it. You'd be crammed in a line with how many hundreds of people for who knows how long. Would you really want to spend your entire time in the line telling people to stop touching/distracting your SD? They're doing it to make it easier for you.
As for wheelchairs in lines, initially queues weren't accessible for wheelchairs, which necessitated the alternate entrances. For example, the old Kongfrontation ride had stairs in the queue, which a chair could not get past, so an elevator was installed. Once ECVs became available, they used the elevator, too, because again the queues weren't designed for their large turning radius. Many times I had to chase people into the queue at Earthquake because an
ECV either snuck past me while I was helping someone else or the driver and their party didn't speak English and couldn't understand I was trying to stop them, and they'd get the ECV wedged in the line and unable to move it, which then blocked up the entire line. As rides are being refurbished or replaced, the queues are becoming more wheelchair friendly, which means more chairs can go through the queues and be treated like a "normal" guest.
When we go in April we will have 2 visually impaired people in our group, one using an SD, the other using a cane. I will ask at each and every ride that we go on if they have a kennel available and if not if one could be obtained, and if possible have them show me where the kennel would be set up and the SD would be kept. I'll even take pictures if I can. The problem may simply be that Disney's definition of "secure" is different than your definition of "secure".
On a side note, I read the case file (or whatever it is called) and have some comments. I am by no means a lawyer or profess any level of legal knowledge, so if I've misunderstood something, please let me know.
I see some flaws in the class action lawsuit logic. First is their estimate of how many visually impaired people visit the parks and would be affected by the lack of accommodations for service dogs. To quote the case file:
This leads to the next faulty jump in logic:
Just because I claim to have a long-term disability doesn't mean I actually have one. Also, the number of people that visit the parks with a service animal is not necessarily equal to the percentage of the population that uses one. In the 5 years I worked at Universal, I saw maybe a dozen service dogs in the parks. I know I don't see every person that comes in through the gate every day, but if you figure I was there for 40+ hours a week, I would see most of them, so the actual number won't be far off.
This is the specific kennel information from the lawsuit:
d. Kennel Class
[12] The proposed kennel class members are persons who
either have paid a kennel fee or have been deterred from
visiting a Disney park because of (1) the kennel fee for
service animals; (2) a lack of reasonable designated area
for service animals to defecate; or (3) Defendants alleged
policy forbidding service animals from being tied to any
locations within the theme parks while the visually
impaired owners use park rides. Plaintiffs seek to compel
Defendants to provide reasonable accommodations for
service animals, designated places to defecate within
Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops ..., and
places where the service animal can be tied ... while the
visually impaired person uses rides. (Compl. at 37.)
Plaintiffs further request that the Court make a
determination as to the propriety of the fees [Defendants]
charge visually impaired visitors at Disney theme parks ...
for accommodations and auxiliary aids and services
including kennels. (Id. at 38.)
There is no evidence that Plaintiffs allegations about the
kennel fee are shared by sufficiently numerous visually
impaired individuals so as to make joinder impracticable.
Among visitor complaints made to Defendants between
May 1, 2005 and December 9, 2010, only one (other than
a complaint made by Plaintiff Shields) addresses the
propriety of the kennel fee. (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 29 at
585 ([A] fifteen-dollar fee gets the dog a cage to lie
down in while were in the park enjoying ourselves ....
[T]here are no discounts either for service animals or for
annual passport holders. This strikes us as somewhat
inflexible ....).)
Similarly, Plaintiffs allegations with respect to
Defendants alleged tying policyi.e., forbidding service
animals from being tied to any locations within the theme
parks while visually impaired owners use park ridesare
also not shared by enough other persons as to warrant
certification of the proposed kennel class. No patron
complaint directly mentions such a policy or requests the
ability to tie a service animal to a location near a ride. Nor
are visually impaired patrons likely to have such a
grievancethe ADA regulations specifically prohibit the
practice of leaving a service animal unattended. See 28
C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(4) (A service animal shall be under
the control of its handler.). In this respect, the merits of
Plaintiffs claim overlap with their Rule 23s
requirements of numerosity and typicality.
Complaints from several Disney park-goers bemoan the
inconvenience of the kennels location at the park
entrance and some suggest providing kennel or cage areas
near individual rides (as is apparently the practice at some
parks). (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 29 at 549, 578, 58485,
587, 593.) While these complaints may arise from the
same general *548 grievance underlying Plaintiffs goal
of modifying Defendants alleged tie-up policythat the
visually impaired need a place to leave their service
animals so that they may enjoy certain rides that prohibit
service animalsPlaintiffs claim and the park-goer
complaints are substantively different. Even if the Court
were to reformulate Plaintiffs proposed class definition
sua sponte to include all visually impaired individuals
needing to temporarily secure their service animals at
rides, such a proposed class would not be entitled to
relief. A public accommodation is not responsible for the
care or supervision of a service animal. 28 C.F.R. §
36.302(c)(5).
[13] The final component of Plaintiffs proposed kennel
class is visually impaired individuals who have been
deterred from visiting a Disney park due to a lack of
reasonable designated areas for service animals to
defecate. It appears that other visually impaired
individuals share Plaintiffs concern. Several complaints
express concern that Disney parks do not provide
acceptable locations for their service animals to defecate.
(See Cohen Decl., Ex. 29 at 549, 57980, 581.)
Accordingly, the Court finds that certification of the
proposed Kennel Class is appropriate. Modification of the
proposed class definition will be necessary, however, to
ensure that it meets both numerosity and typicality
requirements. Thus, the Court excludes from certification
Plaintiffs proposed definitions involving the kennel fees
and the alleged policy prohibiting animals from being
tied-up near rides.
Shields v Disney
