Response to ADA Suit

[ttintagel]

A lot of what's alleged in the lawsuit won't hold water, but there is still a lot more Disney really should be doing to make an equal experience for guests with disabilities. Unfortunately, if this suit goes badly, which it looks like it will, then there's not much chance that the legitimate problems with the new system will get addressed.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Yes, a special-needs family trip to Disney is certainly optional, just as any vacation is to any family. Reasonable accommodations are provided to ensure that special-needs families continue to have this option available to them -- just like any other family. It is a valid quality of life issue.

It appears that all the fighting, arguing and disagreement centers on that one very subjective word: reasonable. What seems reasonable to one person may, very naturally, appear to be unreasonable to another based upon their culture, value systems and individual life experiences.

It's unfortunate that the complaint was written the way it was; the language has been extremely divisive. It has only served to validate that ableism and egocentrism are alive and well in our society.


Kathy

You hit the nail on the head when you stated that the debate centers around the word "reasonable".

I would add that the language of the complaint also served to validate that an extreme sense of entitlement is alive and well among some members of the disabled community, specifically, the plaintiffs in the law suit and those that support the lawsuit.

 

[OurBigTrip]

A lot of what's alleged in the lawsuit won't hold water, but there is still a lot more Disney really should be doing to make an equal experience for guests with disabilities. Unfortunately, if this suit goes badly, which it looks like it will, then there's not much chance that the legitimate problems with the new system will get addressed.

Disney isn't required to provide an equal experience, they are required to provide equal access, which the DAS provides. It may not be the access that the plaintiffs want or are used to under the GAC, but it is equal.

 

[ttintagel]

Disney isn't required to provide an equal experience, they are required to provide equal access, which the DAS provides. It may not be the access that the plaintiffs want or are used to under the GAC, but it is equal.

Right; I guess I phrased that clumsily.

 

[Mrsjvb]

A lot of what's alleged in the lawsuit won't hold water, but there is still a lot more Disney really should be doing to make an equal experience for guests with disabilities. Unfortunately, if this suit goes badly, which it looks like it will, then there's not much chance that the legitimate problems with the new system will get addressed.

it is not about an equal experience..it's about equal ACCESS.

NO ONE'S experience will equal anyone else's

I'd love to 'experience' the fireworks show on par with anyone else. will never happen due to my issues, ( which are not sensory in nature)

there is no sane/reasonable accommodation that Disney can make that would allow me to do so. but they do let me sit in the WC accessible areas which is all the law requires.

 

[ttintagel]

it is not about an equal experience..it's about equal ACCESS.

NO ONE'S experience will equal anyone else's

I'd love to 'experience' the fireworks show on par with anyone else. will never happen due to my issues, ( which are not sensory in nature)

there is no sane/reasonable accommodation that Disney can make that would allow me to do so. but they do let me sit in the WC accessible areas which is all the law requires.

Yes, as I said above, I phrased that clumsily. In my mind, the experience was equal access, but it came out as equal experience.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Yes, as I said above, I phrased that clumsily. In my mind, the experience was equal access, but it came out as equal experience.

I do that all the time!

 

[jcb]

Just from a legal standpoint (because I have only very limited practical experience with the issue), Disney's obligation is to make reasonable modifications that will provide disabled guests with the “full and equal enjoyment” given to non-disabled guests. DOJ regulations explain that full and equal enjoyment means “the right to participate and to have an equal opportunity to obtain the same results as others to the extent possible with such accommodations as may be required by the Act and these regulations. It does not mean that an individual with a disability must achieve an identical result or level of achievement as persons without a disability.”

So (and this is really my point) while I agree one issue is what is a "reasonable modification," another issue may very well be what is the "full and equal enjoyment" as it relates to visiting one of the Disney theme parks. How the court defines the "enjoyment" issue will likely play a large role in what modification is reasonable.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Just from a legal standpoint (because I have only very limited practical experience with the issue), Disney's obligation is to make reasonable modifications that will provide disabled guests with the “full and equal enjoyment” given to non-disabled guests. DOJ regulations explain that full and equal enjoyment means “the right to participate and to have an equal opportunity to obtain the same results as others to the extent possible with such accommodations as may be required by the Act and these regulations. It does not mean that an individual with a disability must achieve an identical result or level of achievement as persons without a disability.”

So (and this is really my point) while I agree one issue is what is a "reasonable modification," another issue may very well be what is the "full and equal enjoyment" as it relates to visiting one of the Disney theme parks. How the court defines the "enjoyment" issue will likely play a large role in what modification is reasonable.

The bolded part says it all - the equal opportunity to obtain the same results as others.

The DAS provides that.

 

[aaarcher86]

A lot of what's alleged in the lawsuit won't hold water, but there is still a lot more Disney really should be doing to make an equal experience for guests with disabilities. Unfortunately, if this suit goes badly, which it looks like it will, then there's not much chance that the legitimate problems with the new system will get addressed.

Such as? I don't see Disney's system differing much from what other parks have in place.

 

[aaarcher86]

Yes, a special-needs family trip to Disney is certainly optional, just as any vacation is to any family. Reasonable accommodations are provided to ensure that special-needs families continue to have this option available to them -- just like any other family. It is a valid quality of life issue. It appears that all the fighting, arguing and disagreement centers on that one very subjective word: reasonable. What seems reasonable to one person may, very naturally, appear to be unreasonable to another based upon their culture, value systems and individual life experiences. It's unfortunate that the complaint was written the way it was; the language has been extremely divisive. It has only served to validate that ableism and egocentrism are alive and well in our society. Kathy

I think it's safe to say 'reasonable accommodations' end when they start to infringe on other people.

 

[BillSears]

I think it's safe to say 'reasonable accommodations' end when they start to infringe on other people.

Well that only works when everyone is reasonable. Having a sign language interpreter off to the side of a show is reasonable. But some people might complain that the movement is distracting them and therefore no signing should be allowed.

Infringing on other people in small ways would probably be reasonable.

 

[aaarcher86]

Well that only works when everyone is reasonable. Having a sign language interpreter off to the side of a show is reasonable. But some people might complain that the movement is distracting them and therefore no signing should be allowed. Infringing on other people in small ways would probably be reasonable.

I don't think that's a valid complaint. The interpreter doesn't affect the actual show for the person not using them. If guests are given instant FP access, it affects the actual wait for other guests. A guest perceiving the infringement doesn't mean it's quantifiably happening.

 

[BillSears]

I don't think that's a valid complaint. The interpreter doesn't affect the actual show for the person not using them. If guests are given instant FP access, it affects the actual wait for other guests. A guest perceiving the infringement doesn't mean it's quantifiably happening.

I agree that the infringement of many guests receiving instant FPs would be noticeable. The point I was making is that you shouldn't claim any infringement is automatically wrong.

How's this then, setting aside certain spots along the parade route is an infringement on others. They might want to be in that spot because other spots they like have been filled. While waiting for a parade I see many people told that the spaces are reserved for wheelchair users and almost always the spaces do fill up before the parade starts. But it is infringing on their ability to sit in an open spot when they were there before the wheelchair user.

And I do sometimes get distracted by the signing. It's not something I would want to have taken away but the show is more immersive for me without it.

 

[aaarcher86]

I agree that the infringement of many guests receiving instant FPs would be noticeable. The point I was making is that you shouldn't claim any infringement is automatically wrong. How's this then, setting aside certain spots along the parade route is an infringement on others. They might want to be in that spot because other spots they like have been filled. While waiting for a parade I see many people told that the spaces are reserved for wheelchair users and almost always the spaces do fill up before the parade starts. But it is infringing on their ability to sit in an open spot when they were there before the wheelchair user. And I do sometimes get distracted by the signing. It's not something I would want to have taken away but the show is more immersive for me without it.

The parade line doesn't work either. If 1/10 of the parade route is WC reserved the non disabled has 9/10 at their disposal. Spots being filled has nothing to do with the handicap spot. There's no direct effect on the non disabled guest. Mthe obligation isn't to provide the seat the guest wants, just a seat.

Just like having a handicap spot in the movie theater doesn't take away from the movie for other patrons.

 

[BillSears]

The parade line doesn't work either. If 1/10 of the parade route is WC reserved the non disabled has 9/10 at their disposal. Spots being filled has nothing to do with the handicap spot. There's no direct effect on the non disabled guest. Mthe obligation isn't to provide the seat the guest wants, just a seat.

Just like having a handicap spot in the movie theater doesn't take away from the movie for other patrons.

But the quest who is there in front of the reserved wheelchair spot now has to spend time to go find another spot. I've taken time away from them just like extra FPs take time away from others in line.

 

[SteveMouse]

The parade line doesn't work either....

Not to mention, of course, that it's kind if hard to see the parade (access) from a seated position when behind people who are standing.

Almost always, for Illuminations @Epcot, I actively encourage parents with kids to let their children sit in front of my ECV or wheelchair for a better view. Since the kids are shorter than my head, everybody wins.

 

[aaarcher86]

But the quest who is there in front of the reserved wheelchair spot now has to spend time to go find another spot. I've taken time away from them just like extra FPs take time away from others in line.

What?

I'm not completely familiar with how WC areas for parades work in detail, but I'd assume that a CM wouldn't allow a guest to hold a parade spot in the reserved section.

As far as FP, everyone has the opportunity to get one, just like a parade spot.

I totally get the point you're trying to make, but I really don't think there are many situations (or any that I can think of) that are as clearly unequal or relatable as the old GAC usage.

 

[BillSears]

Sorry let me clarify.

But the non-disabled guest who is there in front of the reserved wheelchair spot now has to spend time to go find another spot because they are not allowed to sit there. I've taken time away from them just like immediate access through the Fastpass line would take time away from others in line.

I just feel that we're all in the park together and sometimes we have to give and take a bit so that we all can enjoy the parks. Stating that any infringement is wrong is what I have a disagreement with. At some point the infringement becomes too large but some smaller infringements would be reasonable.

 

[KathyRN137]

it is not about an equal experience..it's about equal ACCESS.

Agreed.

When the DAS issue was first being "discussed" in social media there was one comment that struck me in particular. This person wrote, "No offense to parents of kids with autism, BUT if your child can't handle the noise and crowds, perhaps a theme park vacation isn't for you."

I wrote back that his comment was the same as telling the parent of a child without the ability to walk that "if your child can't handle stairs, perhaps tall buildings aren't for you."

It is not about equal experience, it's about equal ACCESS. If you do not live with a person with severe developmental and/or sensory issues it is a difficult concept to grasp.

The accommodation in question is not front-of-the-line or immediate access to attractions, it is accelerated access to attractions -- reduced wait time as had been previously provided to some, not all, who utilized the old GAC system. Certain individuals DO require accelerated access, not an "alternate waiting environment" in order to access attractions successfully.

I know that a good number of people without disabilities or intimate experience with those who have disabilities do not want to hear that, but in many cases it is true. Nevertheless, giving accelerated access to these disabled individuals is viewed as an "infringement" by people who are supportive of accommodating the disabled, but not if it means any sacrifice on their part.

Accelerated access is to some as a wheelchair ramp is to others. It is about ACCESS, not enjoyment, and certainly not entitlement.

Yes, there are lots of folks who try to game the system and, yes, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to structure and regulate such a system to ensure that every person who asks for accommodation actually requires it, especially the way the ADA is written. I'm not saying that I have the answer, because I don't.

Finally, it is truly regrettable that this complaint was written with such ridiculously emotional language that portrays these families as victims with an over-developed sense of entitlement. I do not support it and believe it has done more harm than good.

It has had an extremely negative effect on the public's acceptance of people with cognitive disabilities and it's perception of the family members who care for and advocate for them daily. Reading the many comments on this and other forums has been a very sobering experience.


Kathy