Outside the Box Proposal to Assist Disabled WDW Guests

[Schmeck]

I too have read a lot of speculation by people here, however, I have never seen anything that indicates that the GAC system was "illegal" either by Disney, news reporters or the ADA. As you said, it is an opinion. Mine is as valid as anyone else's. You, of course, are free to reach your own conclusion.

Section 12182 (b)(1)(A)(ii) of the ADA

 

[bedogged]

The GAC was unsustainable as it was issued. Rumors backstage state that The Company leaked the "hiring disabled tour guides" stories to bring the reforms faster.

Front Line Employees have known GAC was an issue for a long time, but after the major problems at RSR, Corporate finally admitted it could not work long term as it was being issued/used.

IMHO this post should be moved to the rumor board.

 

[SueM in MN]

This is the one complaint I've heard about the DAS that I find to be completely valid. Like you, I'm not sure how it can be addressed, other than providing return times for the rides that require the special vehicles.

Guests who need a special vehicle needing to wait longer is one of the valid complaints against the DAS.
When we went last to WDW, in October-November 2013, our 'extra waits' were shorter than on previous trips at the same time of the year. We generally did not wait more then one ride cycle. I personally don't consider that unreasonable and I hope that becomes closer to the norm.
We remember when there were no accessible vehicles, so we had to lift DD on and off each attraction. Our longest extra wait was 40 extra minutes at the Safari. It was annoying, but better than trying to lift DD on and off the tram and keep her sitting up during the ride.

Isn't the 3ish near front of the line experiences something that can be achieved with the use of FP+?

I have a problem with guests needing to tack on a few extra hours of wait time a few days out of their vacation. That's not a reasonable request. Many non disabled families have limitations on their time as well. That's one of the reasons the GAC was eliminated in the first place.

According to Disney, DAS is meant to use along with Fastpass (or Fastpass Plus when it is available). It is also meant to be used with being aware of heat current waits are and going on things with short waits, resting , eating, etc. in between. (This is on Disney's page about the DAS and their Guidebook for Guests with Cognitive Disabilities).
http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/disney-parks-disability-access-service-card-fact-sheet/

That is how we always used the GAC, saving it for when those other things were not enough. We found that our experience with DAS was not that different than how things worked with the GAC for us. But, we used the GAC sparingly, not for every attraction as some people did.

As the system stands now, not all disabled people are eligible for FP+.

As was pointed out, Fastpass Plus is not an accommodation for people with disabilities. It is a feature that will eventually be available to all guests (even those staying off-site or who are day visitors.
So, it's not against the ADA to not have it available to guests with disabilities.

The ADA was meant to end discrimination and allow people with disabilities to participate in the mainstream as much as possible ( so change to make things more mainstream, not give special benefits)
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12101

The GAC was unsustainable as it was issued. Rumors backstage state that The Company leaked the "hiring disabled tour guides" stories to bring the reforms faster.

Front Line Employees have known GAC was an issue for a long time, but after the major problems at RSR, Corporate finally admitted it could not work long term as it was being issued/used.

I have heard that, but I don't think there is a way to confirm it. Although many people think the DAS came about only because of the 'tour guide abuse' from early in 2013, I have very good information that the new program has been in planning for more than 2 years.

In the early days of the GAC (Guest Assistance Card), it was very needs based; based on needs for accommodation a person had related to their disability.

Can't walk up stairs? there was a specific GAC stamp for that.
Can't wait in the sun or heat? There was a specific GAC stamp for that.
Need front row seating because of vision related disabilities? There was a specific stamp for that.
GACs were never intended to cut waits, just to give access based on a person's actual need; those stamps gave access, not faster access.

There was also a stamp for alternate entry, which at one point was a quieter waiting spot or an accessible entrance for the attractions that were not accessible.
As Fastpass rolled out, that stamp started to be used for entry into the Fastpass line without a Fastpass.

As time went on and people heard about some GACs getting access to the Fastpass line, that was the one everyone wanted, even if that was not what they needed.
I have seen things like:
- "Autism has the most benefits" (in an article for people who just did not want to wait in line on how to get the 'best' GAC)
- "If you go to Guest Relations and tell them you are pregnant, you can get a pass that lets you go in all the Fastpass lines"
- People with disabilities calling their GAC the "Golden Ticket" or forgetting that once you post it on the internet, it's there for anyone to find and they can use that information to get a GAC whether they were disabled or not.

After WDW changed attractions to mainstream lines, some people with only mobility needs kept going to the exit for all attraction. When they were told the regular line was accessible and they could not enter thru the exit, they wrote about going to guest relations and yelling at the CMs until they got a GAC that 'let me use the handicapped access' (the one they wanted was 'alternate entry')
It became the only stamp people wanted and instead of being rare, just given out for need, it became an expectation for some people.

Even if everyone using GACs for alternate entry needed that access, there were just too many. Looking only at autism, there are statistics that say one in 88 children are affected with autism. Add all the other disabling conditions that guests might have requested a GAC for and it's easy to see that GACs could not continue as they were.

This proposal seems as prone to problems as the GAC was at the end.

 

[SueM in MN]

Section 12182 (b)(1)(A)(ii) of the ADA

This is the text from that section:
Sec. 12182. Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations

(a) General rule

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

(b) Construction

(1) General prohibition

(A) Activities

(i) Denial of participation

It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.

(ii) Participation in unequal benefit

It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.

(iii) Separate benefit

It shall be discriminatory to provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others.

(iv) Individual or class of individuals

For purposes of clauses (i) through (iii) of this subparagraph, the term "individual or class of individuals" refers to the clients or customers of the covered public accommodation that enters into the contractual, licensing or other arrangement.

(B) Integrated settings

Goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall be afforded to an individual with a disability in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual.

(C) Opportunity to participate

Notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or activities that are not separate or different.

People can decide what they think it means, but my understanding is that it is prohibiting programs that were "separate, but equal" that were common at the time the ADA went into effect.
There were places that did not want people with disabilities in their facilities/businesses, so they set up 'special programs' that were meant to segregate people with disabilities, not integrate them into the mainstream.

 

[Schmeck]

This is the text from that section:
Sec. 12182. Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations

(a) General rule

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

(b) Construction

(1) General prohibition

(A) Activities

(i) Denial of participation

It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.

(ii) Participation in unequal benefit

It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.

(iii) Separate benefit

It shall be discriminatory to provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others.

(iv) Individual or class of individuals

For purposes of clauses (i) through (iii) of this subparagraph, the term "individual or class of individuals" refers to the clients or customers of the covered public accommodation that enters into the contractual, licensing or other arrangement.

(B) Integrated settings

Goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall be afforded to an individual with a disability in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual.

(C) Opportunity to participate

Notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or activities that are not separate or different.

People can decide what they think it means, but my understanding is that it is prohibiting programs that were "separate, but equal" that were common at the time the ADA went into effect.
There were places that did not want people with disabilities in their facilities/businesses, so they set up 'special programs' that were meant to segregate people with disabilities, not integrate them into the mainstream.

(iii) deals with this - the separate but equal not being ok. (i) deals with denying access, and (ii) deals with providing equal but not superior access.

 

[aaarcher86]

Who is trying to "to get that illegal access back?" AND just who decided that the GAC was "illegal'? IMHO the GAC was discontinued mostly because of the bad publicity caused by the disabled tour guide in DL. It had nothing at all to do with it being "illegal." One of the "wonky ideas" here was that FP+ could be used to gain "near front of the line access" without causing any additional wait for non-disabled families. My remarks concerning FP+ were in response to that. In my opinion, nothing is gained by an adversarial attitude or name calling. I think that the non-disabled as well the disabled need to learn to treat each other with respect.

I was the person bringing up FP+. It wasn't really an idea. The OP had suggested providing the disabled with 3 FOTL experiences or so etching like that. I was basically just saying using the DAS in conjunction with FP+ would accommodate that (when available to everyone) general idea instead of doing something that would tack on a few hours wait for non disabled guests.

 

[SueM in MN]

(iii) deals with this - the separate but equal not being ok. (i) deals with denying access, and (ii) deals with providing equal but not superior access.

You and I will have to disagree.
My understanding is that it was to prevent less access! not more.
Looking at the time it was written, less access was being provided in many cases (i.e. "We don't allow people with disabilities to do this", "wheelchairs are not allowed here")
I don't know of cases before the ADA where more access was being provided.

Entities can choose to provide more than the ADA requires (such as discounts some places give to people with disabilities). These types of things don't fit under the ADA and the entity can choose to require proof.
I don't know if Sea World still does this, but they did provide discounts for guests with certain disabilities. Those tickets could not be arranged ahead of time, only at the park.

 

[Schmeck]

You and I will have to disagree.
My understanding is that it was to prevent less access! not more.
Looking at the time it was written, less access was being provided in many cases (i.e. "We don't allow people with disabilities to do this", "wheelchairs are not allowed here")
I don't know of cases before the ADA where more access was being provided.

Entities can choose to provide more than the ADA requires (such as discounts some places give to people with disabilities). These types of things don't fit under the ADA and the entity can choose to require proof.
I don't know if Sea World still does this, but they did provide discounts for guests with certain disabilities. Those tickets could not be arranged ahead of time, only at the park.

(ii) Participation in unequal benefit

It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.

Still trying to figure out how this could cover lesser than equal, when they use the words benefit from and privilege. To me, a benefit or privilege is something given above standard. So we definitely disagree.

 

[SueM in MN]

(ii) Participation in unequal benefit

It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.

Still trying to figure out how this could cover lesser than equal, when they use the words benefit from and privilege. To me, a benefit or privilege is something given above standard. So we definitely disagree.

To clarify a little more, if you look at the full part of the ADA I quoted, you will see that benefit from and privilege are part of each point, not just the one about unequal benefit.
This is from the ADA Title III technical manual.
http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html
.....part of the introduction of the technical manual:
"The purpose of this technical assistance manual is to present the ADA's title III requirements in a format that will be useful to the widest possible audience. The guidance provided in the Department's regulations and accompanying preambles has been carefully reorganized to provide a focused, systematic description of the ADA's requirements. The manual attempts to avoid an overly legalistic style without sacrificing completeness. In order to promote readability and understanding, the text makes liberal use of questions and answers and illustrations."

So, this is the document that puts the ADA in clear language. It defines goods, services, privileges and advantages in the first part.

"III-3.0000 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Regulatory references: 28 CFR 36.201-36.213.

III-3.1000 General. A public accommodation may not discriminate against an individual with a disability in the operation of a place of public accommodation. Individuals with disabilities may not be denied full and equal enjoyment of the "goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" offered by a place of public accommodation. The phrase "goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" applies to whatever type of good or service a public accommodation provides to its customers or clients. In other words, a public accommodation must ensure equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities.
So, privileges and advantages are just part of the goods or service provided by a public accommodation, not the literal dictionary definition.
In the next section, I bolded the part about unequal benefit.

"Several broad principles underlie the nondiscrimination requirements of title III. These include --

1) Equal opportunity to participate;

2) Equal opportunity to benefit; and

3) Receipt of benefits in the most integrated setting appropriate.

The specific requirements discussed below in III-4.0000 are all designed to effectuate the general requirements. The specific provisions furnish guidance on how a public accommodation can meet its obligations in particular situations and establish standards for determining when the general requirement has been violated. Where a specific requirement applies, it controls over the general requirement.

ILLUSTRATION: Public accommodations are only required to remove architectural barriers in existing facilities if removal is "readily achievable" (see III-4.4200). If making the main entrance to a place of public accommodation accessible is not readily achievable, the public accommodation can provide access to the facility through another entrance, even though use of the alternative entrance for individuals with disabilities would not be the most integrated setting appropriate.

III-3.2000 Denial of participation. The ADA prohibits discriminatory denial of services or benefits to individuals with disabilities. Just as under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a restaurant cannot refuse to admit an individual because of his or her race under the ADA, it cannot refuse to admit an individual merely because he or she has a disability.

ILLUSTRATION: A theater cannot refuse to admit an individual with mental retardation to a performance merely because of the individual's mental disability.

III-3.3000 Equality in participation/benefits. The ADA mandates an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods and services offered by a place of public accommodation, but does not guarantee that an individual with a disability must achieve an identical result or level of achievement as persons without disabilities.

ILLUSTRATION 1: Persons with disabilities must not be limited to certain performances at a theater.

ILLUSTRATION 2: An individual who uses a wheelchair may not be excluded from an exercise class at a health club because he or she cannot do all of the exercises and derive the same result from the class as persons without disabilities."
These are the kinds of things I have seen about 'unequal benefits'.
Some other examples I have heard addressed by the unequal benefit included things like:
- use of a swimming pool was a privilege of belonging to a health club, but people with disabilities were not allowed to use the pool during regular hours; they were required to go during special 'disability' hours.
- a child with a disability in a day care center who was not allowed to go on outings with the rest of the children in the day care because he was disabled.

This is the rest of that section and clearly shows things that in some situations people with disabilities are offered things that are not equal (i.e. more) to what was offered to the general public as a way to meet needs related to their disabilities (bolded).
"III-3.4000 Separate benefit/integrated setting. A primary goal of the ADA is the equal participation of individuals with disabilities in the "mainstream" of American society. The major principles of mainstreaming include the following:

1) Individuals with disabilities must be integrated to the maximum extent appropriate.

2) Separate programs are permitted where necessary to ensure equal opportunity. A separate program must be appropriate to the particular individual.

3) Individuals with disabilities cannot be excluded from the regular program, or required to accept special services or benefits.

III-3.4100 Separate programs. A public accommodation may offer separate or special programs necessary to provide individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from the programs. Such programs must, however, be specifically designed to meet the needs of the individuals with disabilities for whom they are provided.

ILLUSTRATION 1: Museums generally do not allow visitors to touch exhibits because handling can cause damage to the objects. A municipal museum may offer a special tour for individuals with vision impairments during which they are permitted to touch and handle specific objects on a limited basis. (It cannot, however, exclude a blind person from the standard museum tour.)

ILLUSTRATION 2: A private athletic facility may sponsor a separate basketball league for individuals who use wheelchairs.

III-3.4200 Right to participate in the regular program. Even if a separate or special program for individuals with disabilities is offered, a public accommodation cannot deny an individual with a disability participation in its regular program, unless some other limitation on the obligation to provide services applies. See, e.g. , III-3.8000 (direct threat); III-4.1000 (eligibility criteria).

ILLUSTRATION: An individual who uses a wheelchair may be excluded from playing in a basketball league, if the recreation center can demonstrate that the exclusion is necessary for safe operation.

Individuals with disabilities are entitled to participate in regular programs, even if the public accommodation could reasonably believe that they cannot benefit from the regular program.

ILLUSTRATION: A museum cannot exclude a person who is blind from a tour because of assumptions about his or her inability to appreciate and benefit from the tour experience. Similarly, a deaf person may not be excluded from a museum concert because of a belief that deaf persons cannot enjoy the music.

The fact that a public accommodation offers special programs does not affect the right of an individual with a disability to participate in regular programs. The requirements for providing access to the regular program still apply.

ILLUSTRATION: A public accommodation cannot exclude a person who is blind from a standard museum tour, where touching objects is not permitted, if he or she prefers the standard tour.

Individuals with disabilities may not be required to accept special "benefits" if they choose not to do so.

ILLUSTRATION: ABC theater offers reduced rate tickets for individuals with disabilities and requires appropriate documentation for eligibility for the reduced rates. ABC cannot require an individual who qualifies for the reduced rate to present documentation or accept the reduced rate, if he or she chooses to pay the full price.

III-3.4300 Modifications in the regular program. When a public accommodation offers a special program for individuals with a particular disability, but an individual with that disability elects to participate in the regular program rather than in the separate program, the public accommodation may still have obligations to provide an opportunity for that individual to benefit from the regular program. The fact that a separate program is offered may be a factor in determining the extent of the obligations under the regular program, but only if the separate program is appropriate to the needs of the particular individual with a disability.

ILLUSTRATION: If a museum provides a sign language interpreter for one of its regularly scheduled tours, the availability of the signed tour may be a factor in determining whether it would be an undue burden to provide an interpreter for a deaf person who wants to take the tour at a different time.

BUT: The availability of the signed tour would not affect the museum's obligation to provide an interpreter for a different tour, or the museum's obligation to provide a different auxiliary aid, such as an assistive listening device, for an individual with impaired hearing who does not use sign language."

 

[OurBigTrip]

Great info Sue, and the examples are very helpful.

Thank you!

 

[bookwormde]

Thanks Sue,

"ILLUSTRATION: An individual who uses a wheelchair may be excluded from playing in a basketball league, if the recreation center can demonstrate that the exclusion is necessary for safe operation.

Individuals with disabilities are entitled to participate in regular programs, even if the public accommodation could reasonably believe that they cannot benefit from the regular program"

The gaps are getting filled slowly but surely. Now in schools and soon in many other setting, if an individual is denied participation in sports teams or other "standard" opportunities, an alternate opportunity which as closely as possible offers similar benefits must be created.

 

[wheels on fire]

Also what about people coming from other countrys how do we proove that our wheelchairs are not just for show?