It isn't spelled out in the ADA legislation and to my knowledge there hasn't been any legal ruling other than the GAC vs DAS case which declared DAS is a reasonable accommodation.
**I am not a lawyer, so this is a layman's understanding of the ADA as it pertains to theme parks.** I believe "reasonable" has a significant meaning on BOTH sides of the issue -- is the accommodation reasonable for the needs of the disabled individual, as well as is the accommodation reasonable for the business to provide without significantly impacting operations and the experience of the non-disabled guest. It is entirely possible that a reasonable accommodation might not be available. An example is wheelchair accessible ride vehicles not offered for all attractions. Transfer options are considered reasonable accommodations in such situations but may not meet the needs of a specific individual who cannot transfer from their chair - thus unfortunately there is no reasonable accommodation available to that individual at that attraction.
The question though becomes COULD there be a reasonable accommodation made at that attraction?
Let’s take Flights of Passage as an example, having seen lots of videos, I can confidently say that there could be a reasonable accommodation made, this could come in the form of alternative seating or an alternative viewing experience like Finding Nemo Submarines have at
Disneyland. Would it be exactly the same experience? No, but would it be reasonable (and I mean that from both Disney’s and the Guest’s perspective) to offer it? Yes and I don’t understand why they didn’t do that, I mean we are talking about a ride based on a franchise that centers around a disabled person, it seems appropriate to me to make accommodations.
I will take that further to Navi River Journey, there is no reason that there couldn’t be an ADA boat that can at least accommodate a wheelchair/
ECV and one other person. I could see due to weight issues maybe not being able to accommodate more in the same boat than that, but again, would be perfectly reasonable accommodations.
Tron, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the queue to have been designed to allow
ECVs into the queue, but Disney chose not to. I mean there is no reason that they couldn’t have adjusted the queue design to allow for this.
At Disneyland, Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway has a major issue in that during an evacuation, the doors they need to take you through are not wide enough for their wheelchairs, so the disabled person must stand up walk through the door way and sit back down at every doorway. And this attraction was built from scratch, Disney knows the width of their own wheelchairs which they use for this and yet this was still not properly designed with accommodations in mind. And keep in mind the doorways only need to be about an inch wider and they easily have 6” (after accounting for studs and such) on either side of all of the door ways we went through that could have been used.
I think these are the types of things we see that aren’t being done and we are saying they can and should be.
This also means there needs to be more flexibility in how to address individual’s needs, for example, someone who says they have sun sensitivity should be able to get a DAS or something like it that is only valid for attractions where that would be an issue (assuming they don’t have other issues that need accommodation of course). Again, this would be a reasonable way to handle this and make it where they don’t have to explain the issue at every attraction, they will already know which attractions that will be an issue for and which it won’t. Many other theme parks have their equivalents of a DAS setup this way, they ask what the issue is and then make the passes only valid for those attractions where the issue could be a problem. This creates a reasonable balance of operational concerns and meeting the guest’s needs.
Disney has been doing a lot to show us that they don’t really respect the disable community as of late and to not only not be inclusive of the disabled community, but to actively try to exclude them in many cases.