Judge rejects settlement allowing segways at WDW

[jsilvers]

The lawsuit has been discussed before, but this appears to be a new development. See http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/pl/mas/20091104/20091104_aultdisney.html. I don't think I know enough about the case or the use of segways to comment.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

So not only has the tentative agreement (which DRAFT hates) been thrown out, but so has the entire case. Basically the judge said that (1) the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, and (2) that just because they would prefer to use Segways, the fact that wheelchairs and ECVs are allowed is sufficient for compliance by Disney with the ADA.

 

[bookwormde]

CF is correct the case was never even close to having proper class standing.

If you can believe the press reports (I have not read the actual ruling yet) the core “essential for access” basis is not the standard used in most federal districts or in any supreme court case (or is it in the ADA), so I suspect that it is likely that this portion will be sent back down on appeal.

bookwormde

 

[OneLittleSpark]

Thank you for posting this up, I've been wondering how this case has been progressing!

 

[dclfun]

I'm really happy to hear this. I never thought the case had merit.---Kathy

 

[toocherie]

So not only has the tentative agreement (which DRAFT hates) been thrown out, but so has the entire case. Basically the judge said that (1) the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, and (2) that just because they would prefer to use Segways, the fact that wheelchairs and ECVs are allowed is sufficient for compliance by Disney with the ADA.

Hurrah! While in WDW last week I saw a couple of cast members on Segways and didn't think even they were that stable on them. Although I use a scooter in the parks, I recognize the danger of even that activity and was not happy about the original Segway ruling.

 

[SueM in MN]

CF is correct the case was never even close to having proper class standing.

If you can believe the press reports (I have not read the actual ruling yet) the core “essential for access” basis is not the standard used in most federal districts or in any supreme court case (or is it in the ADA), so I suspect that it is likely that this portion will be sent back down on appeal.

bookwormde

I have seen "essential for access" in ADA publications, so I don't think using that term is a problem. The ADA Guidelines for things like building access are basically setting out the minimum parameters that make a facility accessible, so they are the items that are "essential for access", whether or not that exact term is used.

I have not read the actual lawsuit claims by the plaintiffs in a while, but I believe the term comes from their lawsuit. They could not claim that WDW was not accessible because the parks do meet the ADA Guidelines. The claim (as I understood) was that an accessible park was not enough, and that using a Segway in the park was essential for them to access because they felt the other alternatives (wheelchairs and ECVs) were demeaning.
So, the whole case was based on the claim that Segways were essential for access for the people who brought the lawsuit.