Appeals Court Reverses - in part - Dismissal of ADA Lawsuit over Disability Access Service

[HopperFan]

This wasn't resolved by the court of appeals. The answer to this might turn on how you define the "enjoyment." Plaintiffs' "equal enjoyment" argument is easier to understand if you define what they "enjoy" as riding specific attractions instead of enjoying visiting a theme park. Their logic (not that I agree) seems to be that DAS prevents them from having near immediate access to a specific attraction (one plaintiff always start his MK visit at Jungle Cruise) because they have to wait more than 10 to 15 minutes for that attraction. But while I'm pretty sure plaintiffs made this argument at some point in the district court I didn't see this same argument in their brief to the court of appeals. Perhaps that is because their own evidence refutes it. A.L., the lead plaintiff, for example, "needs to visit the attractions in a precise order" and his parents say he can't wait longer than 10 to 15 minutes for any attraction.

I see no argument here.
- When you get your DAS Guest Relations they can book your first FP+ for you so you can go straight there.
- If they gave him a Re-Ad (which starts a slippery slope if they try to demand more) they can go straight there.
- Maybe take some parental responsibility and book a FP+ for it in advance (not hard to get). Go straight there.

They claim to have tried to use DAS and re-ads (again, some don't say whether they have used FastPass+ before entering the park). In one brief to the court of appeals, A.L. asserted: "A.L. has returned to the parks; he has done so 'less frequently,' and he has not returned to the Magic Kingdom park."

If they are getting DAS and Re-Ads ... they are already getting great assistance, add FP+ and there is no excuse other than their own actions.

 

[OKW Lover]

Appreciate your time in posting this info Jack. Difficult situation for some parents/children for sure. Will be interested to see just how this all plays out.

 

[jcb]

While any decision sending a case back isn't necessarily a "win" the court's decision to uphold DAS (described in post 5) is a significant victory for Disney and huge defeat for the Plaintiffs. Their brief argued "DAS provides utterly nothing and is a sham" because it was a "one-size-fits-all policy" designed to provide "equal wait time for all guests."

Disney, on the other hand, was equally blunt in its brief: "what appellant really wants is for Disney to satisfy an unpredictable personal preference for instant and unrestricted access to the rides of his choice -- regardless of how popular the rides are or how long other guests (including others with disabilities) have to wait in line."

- If they gave him a Re-Ad (which starts a slippery slope if they try to demand more) they can go straight there.

If they are getting DAS and Re-Ads ... they are already getting great assistance, add FP+ and there is no excuse other than their own actions.

According to the decision, A.L's family of six received 24 re-ad passes (4 per family member) on their first visit to the MK after WDW introduced DAS. Other families received re-ad passes but others did not. The decision does not explain why though it notes there were, at the time, no written guidelines on issuing re-ad passes. Rather, "Disney trains Guest Relations cast members to work with disabled guests, determine how long their park visit will be, help with planning, and evaluate whether Re-ad Passes are necessary."

The decision also explained that

some plaintiffs requested and received Re-ad Passes, which provide immediate access to a ride. Some requested Re-ad Passes but did not receive as many as they wanted. Some plaintiffs received Re-ad Passes during some visits but not during other visits. Some plaintiffs do not mention Re-ad Passes at all in their affidavits or depositions.
​

For those not familiar with re-ad passes, here is how the court described them (I have no experience with them so can't say whether this is accurate):

Disney’s staff also issues a limited number of instant access passes, known as re-admission passes or Re-ad Passes. A Re-ad Pass allows a guest to access immediately a ride by going to the short FastPass line. A Re-ad Pass is good for one person and one use only. Disney’s park employees, known as “cast members,” can issue Re-ad Passes at Guest Relations or out in the park.

A Re-ad Pass has benefits over a FastPass reservation. A guest can use a Re-ad Pass at any time and for any ride, whereas a FastPass reservation is for a specific ride at a set time and must be used within an hour of that time. To illustrate, if a guest has two Re-ad Passes, the guest can access the same ride twice, even if it is the most popular ride with a long Stand-By wait time.

A guest cannot purchase or reserve a Re-ad Pass. Disabled guests can request Re-ad Passes at Guest Relations, but the staff has discretion whether to grant them.3 Re-ad Passes are also an ameliorative tool that cast members may deploy when a guest, whether disabled or not, has a negative or disappointing experience.​

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Thank you Jack for all of your thoughts and for the explanations - especially where you add your take

If I understand it correctly, Disney is saying that by providing the return time with the DAS they are providing reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities/conditions that prevent waiting in line to the point that their experience should be comparable to guests without similar conditions .... but the plaintiffs are saying that waiting at all - even if not in line - is too burdensome the member of their family so that they are not able to have a comparable experience to other guests. The question is, if providing what they want will fundamentally alter the overall Disney experience

I think their evidence of how often guests with the GAC were using the popular lines is a valid argument .... but at the same time I am very sensitive to people that have these challenges and want those that truly need this requested benefit to be able to enjoy Disney just like everyone else

Hopefully some sort of compromise can be reached - but just being able to skip all the lines as many times as they want feels above and beyond providing an equivalent experience. Maybe limit it to 1 time per attraction or something?

I also wonder if Disney adding interactive elements to many queues plays a role as could they argue the time int he queue is part of the experience as well?

 

[jcb]

Thank you Jack for all of your thoughts and for the explanations - especially where you add your take

If I understand it correctly, Disney is saying that by providing the return time with the DAS they are providing reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities/conditions that prevent waiting in line to the point that their experience should be comparable to guests without similar conditions .... but the plaintiffs are saying that waiting at all - even if not in line - is too burdensome the member of their family so that they are not able to have a comparable experience to other guests. The question is, if providing what they want will fundamentally alter the overall Disney experience

I think their evidence of how often guests with the GAC were using the popular lines is a valid argument .... but at the same time I am very sensitive to people that have these challenges and want those that truly need this requested benefit to be able to enjoy Disney just like everyone else

Hopefully some sort of compromise can be reached - but just being able to skip all the lines as many times as they want feels above and beyond providing an equivalent experience. Maybe limit it to 1 time per attraction or something?

I also wonder if Disney adding interactive elements to many queues plays a role as could they argue the time int he queue is part of the experience as well?

This is a little oversimplified but you get the point. Disney does more than just DAS return times. There's also FastPass+ and re-ad passes, and with DAS, Disney says these are reasonable modifications to the overall guest experience of having to wait to ride an attraction either in the standby line or the FastPass+ return time. Part of the frustration Disney has had, not to mention the judges on the appeals court panel, is defining exactly what relief the plaintiffs want them to provide or the court to order.

Judges generally get a "deer in the headlights" response when they ask a lawyer to state exactly what they want the court to order. That is the case here. One appeals court judge told plaintiffs' counsel at the argument: "we need you to articulate for us now what it is you want rather than keep saying we'll have dialogue with the trial court" and that "ya'll are vague about what you want."

 

[SorcererHeidi]

Thank you to all posters for helping to further my knowledge about this subject, I appreciate the rational and educational discussion. And @jcb - as always - you are the BEST, sir!!

 

[HopperFan]

While any decision sending a case back isn't necessarily a "win" the court's decision to uphold DAS (described in post 5) is a significant victory for Disney and huge defeat for the Plaintiffs. Their brief argued "DAS provides utterly nothing and is a sham" because it was a "one-size-fits-all policy" designed to provide "equal wait time for all guests."

Disney, on the other hand, was equally blunt in its brief: "what appellant really wants is for Disney to satisfy an unpredictable personal preference for instant and unrestricted access to the rides of his choice -- regardless of how popular the rides are or how long other guests (including others with disabilities) have to wait in line."



According to the decision, A.L's family of six received 24 re-ad passes (4 per family member) on their first visit to the MK after WDW introduced DAS. Other families received re-ad passes but others did not. The decision does not explain why though it notes there were, at the time, no written guidelines on issuing re-ad passes. Rather, "Disney trains Guest Relations cast members to work with disabled guests, determine how long their park visit will be, help with planning, and evaluate whether Re-ad Passes are necessary."

The decision also explained that

some plaintiffs requested and received Re-ad Passes, which provide immediate access to a ride. Some requested Re-ad Passes but did not receive as many as they wanted. Some plaintiffs received Re-ad Passes during some visits but not during other visits. Some plaintiffs do not mention Re-ad Passes at all in their affidavits or depositions.
​

For those not familiar with re-ad passes, here is how the court described them (I have no experience with them so can't say whether this is accurate):

Disney’s staff also issues a limited number of instant access passes, known as re-admission passes or Re-ad Passes. A Re-ad Pass allows a guest to access immediately a ride by going to the short FastPass line. A Re-ad Pass is good for one person and one use only. Disney’s park employees, known as “cast members,” can issue Re-ad Passes at Guest Relations or out in the park.

A Re-ad Pass has benefits over a FastPass reservation. A guest can use a Re-ad Pass at any time and for any ride, whereas a FastPass reservation is for a specific ride at a set time and must be used within an hour of that time. To illustrate, if a guest has two Re-ad Passes, the guest can access the same ride twice, even if it is the most popular ride with a long Stand-By wait time.

A guest cannot purchase or reserve a Re-ad Pass. Disabled guests can request Re-ad Passes at Guest Relations, but the staff has discretion whether to grant them.3 Re-ad Passes are also an ameliorative tool that cast members may deploy when a guest, whether disabled or not, has a negative or disappointing experience.​

Some general Re-Ads do have restrictions, such as sometimes they say you can't use on 7DMT or FoP for example. We have never asked for a Re-Ad but have been given them several times by different CMs in different capacities in different parks.

They look like the Rider Switch or anytime FP+ they hand to guests at attractions. Now that RS at least has gone digital ... it may be that these Re-Ads will be digital as well and process change.

Thank you Jack for all of your thoughts and for the explanations - especially where you add your take

If I understand it correctly, Disney is saying that by providing the return time with the DAS they are providing reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities/conditions that prevent waiting in line to the point that their experience should be comparable to guests without similar conditions .... but the plaintiffs are saying that waiting at all - even if not in line - is too burdensome the member of their family so that they are not able to have a comparable experience to other guests. The question is, if providing what they want will fundamentally alter the overall Disney experience

I think their evidence of how often guests with the GAC were using the popular lines is a valid argument .... but at the same time I am very sensitive to people that have these challenges and want those that truly need this requested benefit to be able to enjoy Disney just like everyone else

Hopefully some sort of compromise can be reached - but just being able to skip all the lines as many times as they want feels above and beyond providing an equivalent experience. Maybe limit it to 1 time per attraction or something?

I also wonder if Disney adding interactive elements to many queues plays a role as could they argue the time int he queue is part of the experience as well?

I can tell you from experience it didn't take a keen eye to see that the GAC was abused, overused and completely filling FastPass lines. It was severely broken for many reasons.

Thank you for being sensitive to those of us that deal with some days overwhelming of challenges ........... but I assure you the current system absolutely not only addresses the issue of the lines but allows trips to be much less stressful. Then they added FP+ which puts FP in my control and I know exactly how our day will start on arrival. It is already a great compromise.

Say family A enters the Standby line of Jungle Cruise (since that was an example above) and the wait is 45 minutes.

Family B with disabled member gets a DAS return time for Jungle Cruise which will be in 35 minutes (they deduct 10 minutes for travel time).

They could have walked up with their FP+ booked, so they enter the ride. By time they load, sit, ride and return, unload it is likely time to return to the line with their DAS. Family has in effect looped the ride with 2 FP+, something Family A could not do.

If they didn't book a FP+ and chose to use it for something else, they can get their DAS and use wait time to go ride Aladdin or see Tiki Birds or get a Dole Whip or use the bathrooms or they can find a bench and allow their family member to "rest". All things Family A can not do because they wait inside the line.

What this means is that even if Family B might have to leave the park sooner, they have the ability to do more in their time because of the DAS.

This is already a very nice option that Disney has provided for those families who have members that become highly distressed in the queue lines.

Since the introduction of FP+ the need for DAS is further reduced (even though still an option) and it saves much time because we can do on our phone vs with a DAS we have to go to the ride to obtain the time. NOTE: the disabled family member does not have to go to get the time & see the ride, only a party member.

We went spring break, with no FP+. We were still able to book our three each morning and roll the 4th, using the DAS maybe once per day .......... and we did everything at DHS & Epcot and most everything at MK. We never in our four days used any SB lines because we could get FP+ for all. The only thing he doesn't ride is SM.

It is not Disney's job to let your child do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Is it some extra planning, extra work, diligence to use the FP+ system, plan some meals to decompress ............... yes. That is my job as a parent. Disney has several tools in place to make it work just fine.


NOTE: Why aren't they suing Universal or SeaWorld or others ............. who use the same system? The only difference I found between Universal and Disney was Universal is still paper generated so they would let us in lines that were under 15-20 minutes but that was very few rides so "sounded good" but rarely got put into practice.

 

[Princess Jes]

Thanks for the info Jack!

I don't want to speak too much out of turn, given im not an American so A) don't know your ADA inside out, and B) don't have a disability myself, but is the fundamental issue here (or more accurately, could this all be solved/moot) by amending the ADA in regards to being able to ask what specifically the disability is, how it affects your experience in the park and what is required to resolve the issues in the park?

The GAC was abused by people "hiring" someone who could access the GAC (someone could argue that the people hiring could just request one themselves given you're not allowed to be asked what your disability is) and then using that person and their GAC to access rides immediately.
If the law allowed establishments to ascertain what the issue is and come to a resolution, perhaps the GAC would be less abused (or fewer loopholes could be abused) and then it could revert back to the way it was?

Obviously this is beyond the scope of this claim specifically, but surely with the uptick in abuse of assistance animals (emotional or special needs) and the lack of a registry for them, among other things, an amendment to the ADA would make things clearer and easier to navigate for all, and those who genuinely need the system could use it without the few abusing and ruining it for the many?

 

[HopperFan]

Thanks for the info Jack!

I don't want to speak too much out of turn, given im not an American so A) don't know your ADA inside out, and B) don't have a disability myself, but is the fundamental issue here (or more accurately, could this all be solved/moot) by amending the ADA in regards to being able to ask what specifically the disability is, how it affects your experience in the park and what is required to resolve the issues in the park?

The GAC was abused by people "hiring" someone who could access the GAC (someone could argue that the people hiring could just request one themselves given you're not allowed to be asked what your disability is) and then using that person and their GAC to access rides immediately.

If the law allowed establishments to ascertain what the issue is and come to a resolution, perhaps the GAC would be less abused (or fewer loopholes could be abused) and then it could revert back to the way it was?

Obviously this is beyond the scope of this claim specifically, but surely with the uptick in abuse of assistance animals (emotional or special needs) and the lack of a registry for them, among other things, an amendment to the ADA would make things clearer and easier to navigate for all, and those who genuinely need the system could use it without the few abusing and ruining it for the many?

Amending the ADA would be an extremely difficult thing to do as so many fought to get it to begin with. With the climate right now the last thing we need is to dismantle anything in place to protect those that need it. There is also concern with the protections we have in place regarding others knowing our health issues. Honestly it's not needed because with any disability, especially autism, no two people are exactly alike. You can have folks all over the place with issues, needs and functionality. Telling an untrained CM your disability name is pointless. On the other hand they already ask "what makes it difficult for you to wait in line" which you can absolutely discuss with them. They would then determine what will best help you and go from there.

It is completely false that the GAC was abused by people hiring someone. It was a singular story that went viral about an affluent woman who hired a tour guide, who happened to be disabled and used a GAC. The tour guide was legitimate and with an agency that works with disabled clients. The timing was such that Disney had finally fine tuned the DAS and it was decided at that point it was time to change it over. And they did not access rides immediately, they entered the FastPass lines. Only Make A Wish Kids get to access rides immediately.

The law already allows for them to ascertain the issue ... why can't you wait in a traditional line? If there are no other tools available to alleviate the issue then a DAS is given. The GAC was never intended to allow you to go from ride to ride with an unlimited FP. Once it turned to that, anyone with any kind of disability and many who didn't have one were asking for them. Just because one has a disability doesn't mean they need one. My DS did not get the GAC until his challenges shifted and we started getting it at age 18. Most with his primary disability would never need it, especially when they were young.

Anyway, FastPass lines were packed with folks holding their red cards, flashing them at CMs like they were VIPs. Disney started counting these folks at all these rides, doing the numbers and realized they were impacting operations. We never want that to happen again. It impacted EVERYONE.

If a guest has issues that prevent them from staying in the line that can't be handled another way, they get a DAS and they get to wait outside the line that is "safer" for them and those around them. It is a generous tool, a workable system for those who need it. But these folks don't want to give up their unlimited FastPass.

While the ADA does include protections for service animals .... sadly there is no protocol for determining those animals. It does appear at this point a system needs to be set in place that only dogs from highly approved and certified trainers can be accredited and protected under the law. It is a broken and highly abused system that is only going to hurt those with the most needs.

 

[Princess Jes]

Amending the ADA would be an extremely difficult thing to do as so many fought to get it to begin with. With the climate right now the last thing we need is to dismantle anything in place to protect those that need it. There is also concern with the protections we have in place regarding others knowing our health issues. Honestly it's not needed because with any disability, especially autism, no two people are exactly alike. You can have folks all over the place with issues, needs and functionality. Telling an untrained CM your disability name is pointless. On the other hand they already ask "what makes it difficult for you to wait in line" which you can absolutely discuss with them. They would then determine what will best help you and go from there.

It is completely false that the GAC was abused by people hiring someone. It was a singular story that went viral about an affluent woman who hired a tour guide, who happened to be disabled and used a GAC. The tour guide was legitimate and with an agency that works with disabled clients. The timing was such that Disney had finally fine tuned the DAS and it was decided at that point it was time to change it over. And they did not access rides immediately, they entered the FastPass lines. Only Make A Wish Kids get to access rides immediately.

The law already allows for them to ascertain the issue ... why can't you wait in a traditional line? If there are no other tools available to alleviate the issue then a DAS is given. The GAC was never intended to allow you to go from ride to ride with an unlimited FP. Once it turned to that, anyone with any kind of disability and many who didn't have one were asking for them. Just because one has a disability doesn't mean they need one. My DS did not get the GAC until his challenges shifted and we started getting it at age 18. Most with his primary disability would never need it, especially when they were young.

Anyway, FastPass lines were packed with folks holding their red cards, flashing them at CMs like they were VIPs. Disney started counting these folks at all these rides, doing the numbers and realized they were impacting operations. We never want that to happen again. It impacted EVERYONE.

If a guest has issues that prevent them from staying in the line that can't be handled another way, they get a DAS and they get to wait outside the line that is "safer" for them and those around them. It is a generous tool, a workable system for those who need it. But these folks don't want to give up their unlimited FastPass.

While the ADA does include protections for service animals .... sadly there is no protocol for determining those animals. It does appear at this point a system needs to be set in place that only dogs from highly approved and certified trainers can be accredited and protected under the law. It is a broken and highly abused system that is only going to hurt those with the most needs.

Thank you for clearing up my misconceptions, I certainly hope I didn't nor do i intend to offend anyone with my ignorance on the issue.

It really annoys me that it's always the few who ruin it for the many, and it is abhorrent to use someone's disability for gain, especially a family member.
It is also disgusting that people with no legitimate reason for it are able to obtain a DAS which ultimately impacts everyone, especially those who need it.

Thank you for your explanation, i truly appreciate it, especially from someone who uses the program.

 

[HopperFan]

Thank you for clearing up my misconceptions, I certainly hope I didn't nor do i intend to offend anyone with my ignorance on the issue.

It really annoys me that it's always the few who ruin it for the many, and it is abhorrent to use someone's disability for gain, especially a family member.
It is also disgusting that people with no legitimate reason for it are able to obtain a DAS which ultimately impacts everyone, especially those who need it.

Thank you for your explanation, i truly appreciate it, especially from someone who uses the program.

No offense taken. I’d much rather have positive conversation. DS is 34, we started GAC at 18 then transitioned to DAS. The FP+ system really was the game changer that helps our trips.

Sadly within every community of people there are those that will abuse things because they think they are above others. Disney’s program works really well. It’s so much easier than some of the other parks and it is greatly appreciated.

 

[jcb]

Title III of the ADA (which governs public accommodations such as Disney) does not have any explicit prohibition on asking about a disability. Title I limits when employers can ask employees and applicants about disabilities but there is nothing similar in Title III. The Department of Justice (which enforces Title III) believes it is inappropriate for a public accommodation to ask for proof of a disability. So far as I know, that view has never been challenged nor do I expect it to be given there is comparatively no need, desire, or any value in asking for proof of a disability.

There is no support for amending the ADA right now. The House passed a bill which would prohibit Title III civil actions alleging a facility failed to comply with the architectural barrier provisions in Title III unless: (1) the plaintiff provided to the owners or operators a written notice specific enough to identify the barrier, and (2) the owners or operators fail to provide the person with a written description outlining improvements that will be made to improve the barrier or they fail to remove the barrier or make substantial progress after providing such a description. The bill went to the Senate in February which has done nothing with it.

 

[HopperFan]

Title III of the ADA (which governs public accommodations such as Disney) does not have any explicit prohibition on asking about a disability. Title I limits when employers can ask employees and applicants about disabilities but there is nothing similar in Title III. The Department of Justice (which enforces Title III) believes it is inappropriate for a public accommodation to ask for proof of a disability. So far as I know, that view has never been challenged nor do I expect it to be given there is comparatively no need, desire, or any value in asking for proof of a disability.

There is no support for amending the ADA right now. The House passed a bill which would prohibit Title III civil actions alleging a facility failed to comply with the architectural barrier provisions in Title III unless: (1) the plaintiff provided to the owners or operators a written notice specific enough to identify the barrier, and (2) the owners or operators fail to provide the person with a written description outlining improvements that will be made to improve the barrier or they fail to remove the barrier or make substantial progress after providing such a description. The bill went to the Senate in February which has done nothing with it.

As add on, some parks (and am sure other places) do ask for written proof of disability. Our local theme park requires a letter from his doctor (with all their details including medical ID number) regarding his disability requirements and photo ID. Since most the longest lines are at rides he will not do, we don't go through the hassle and just work with the lines as they are.

 

[mustinjourney]

What I find most odd about this whole case is that the court concludes in favor of the plaintiffs b/c "multiple fact findings" are necessary to determine the "disputed behavioral characteristics of plaintiffs' disabilities."

However, individual fact finding is virtually impossible for a class action lawsuit. So it would seem to me that if that is the finding they make, they should have never consolidated these cases.

Perhaps I'm mistaken in that the cases haven't been consolidated, but it did seem that way.

And if the plaintiffs think they should be entitled to a week long trip to Disney WITH NO MELTDOWNS -- they are sadly mistaken. Anyone with kids (which is the vast majority of Disneygoers, can attest that the common occurrence is at least one meltdown per day.

Hell, our trip last year, my 18 month old had a meltdown immediately after breakfast at CRT. We left the castle and she demanded to be carried to the carousel. We refused and stood our ground. She proceeded to cry for 30 minutes straight. I proceeded to sit on a bench next to the castle and let her cry it out (in the corner no less). It made for really funny pictures...but damn it was frustrating.

I'm certainly not suggesting that parents of severe autistic kids should just wait it out with their kids -- I'm only saying that every parent experiences meltdowns of some sort, so expecting to have a meltdown free day is not reasonable.

On that note -- it would be an interesting defense tactic if Disney cited 100s of surveys citing parents' horror stories of their kids melting down.

 

[mustinjourney]

After reading the entire case, I'm actually quite stunned at the conclusion they came to.

It would seem to me they contradicted their own legal standard with respect to not having to "eliminate all discomfort or difficulty." I suppose they focused on the language that the requested modification is necessary "for the disabled individual." If that is the case, that would mean Disney is going to be required to have CMs review each case on a case by case basis and make determinations as to how to respond.

As an aside, Disney does allow CMs discretion in awarding additional accommodations right now. But it isn't always done in the same manner for even the same people (this was mentioned in the case).

The other thing to note is that the court didn't really get into the prong of "whether the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the public accommodation."

My guess is Disney is going to hammer that prong quite heavily. They talked about how with 50,000+ guests, it is far too impracticable to expect such case by case accommodations, as well as the previous abuse of the system...which is why they developed the current DAS plan, which was supposed to be aimed at assisting even severe cases of autism.

 

[Mrsjvb]

what do the plaintiffs have to say when questioned about their expectations when the wait in the FP line is more than 10-15 minutes( and it happens.. a lot) or if the ride goes down?

a 'guarantee' of only a 10 minute wait or immediate access to the FP line is decidedly NOT a reasonable accommodation.

 

[LadyD]

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which hears appeals from Florida Federal District Courts, has "vacated" the Orlando federal court's dismissal of the claims alleging Disney's adoption of the Disability Access Service (DAS) violated the ADA.

The decision is 65 pages so it will take me a little time to read it. I'll update this thread when I've done so and try to explain what the ruling means. (Unlike mysteries, I always read the conclusion of a court decision first). You can read the decision here: http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201612647.pdf

What I think I know so far.

• The court of appeals upheld the dismissal of all claims other claims, those arising under state law, for example. The lone exception was claims brought under California's equivalent of the ADA.
• The court of appeals holding simply addresses whether the sought for modifications were "necessary" - not whether they were reasonable or would fundamentally alter the park experience.
• The court of appeals ruling does not require Disney to reinstate the Guest Assistance Card (GAC).
• The court of appeals ruling does not hold Disney violated the ADA. Procedurally, the decision simply says there are factual issues which the lower court must address.

I should explain the last paragraph a little better. One way to get a lawsuit dismissed is by showing there are no material disputed facts. To dismiss a lawsuit for this reason, the rules require the court to presume disputed facts which favor the party opposing dismissal are true.

What facts are material depends on the legal claims. Disney persuaded the district court that there no material factual disputes and the district court did not hold a trial. The appeals decision disagrees with the district court's ruling but neither court has made any factual rulings. So, in later posts, I discuss some facts but understand that none of the facts are considered "found" or "true."

I'm trying my best to follow along with your wonderful recap and analysis of what is going on (thank you so much for breaking it all down!), but I was wondering a bit more about the portion that dismissal of claims brought under California's equivalent to the ADA were not upheld by the court of appeals? I thought this whole case was restricted to Florida. Why wasn't the dismissal of the California claims upheld (if I'm understanding all of this correctly)? I know our ADA equivalent is seemingly more generous than the federal in general, but how would that impact this case?

I also do find it interesting that the plaintiff's case is basically put out there as these individuals just can't wait and need immediate access rather than focusing on how the DAS only addresses where you wait, not the wait time itself. Outside of the merits of the case, I do personally understand that argument when it applies to the FP return line for DAS. Waiting in lines is challenging for me due to my disability, and while I am so thankful I discovered the DAS since it has allowed me to actually enjoy the parks again, sometimes I am faced with a much longer than anticipated FP return line with the DAS that can become problematic for me. For me it has nothing to do with the time itself though, but the duration of being unexpectedly stuck in an environment that can exacerbate my disability. Thankfully, I've learned which rides are more prone to having that issue for me and I just avoid them if I know I can't handle the possibility of being stuck in a line longer than I would expect.

Part of living with a disability (and I was suspect just being a human in this world in general) is learning to understand what your limitations and needs are, and how to best care for yourself with regard to that. I have an immense amount of empathy for those parents and caretakers that are tasked with doing that on someone else's behalf because the individual is incapable of doing that for themselves. That cannot be an easy responsibility to handle physically, mentally, or emotionally, and I would like to believe the people in this case are approaching it with good intentions even if they are misguided.

 

[OurBigTrip]

I'm assuming this will go back to the same judge in Florida? If so, I'm guessing that Disney is in pretty good shape.

 

[Lilsia]

This is a little oversimplified but you get the point. Disney does more than just DAS return times. There's also FastPass+ and re-ad passes, and with DAS, Disney says these are reasonable modifications to the overall guest experience of having to wait to ride an attraction either in the standby line or the FastPass+ return time. Part of the frustration Disney has had, not to mention the judges on the appeals court panel, is defining exactly what relief the plaintiffs want them to provide or the court to order.

Judges generally get a "deer in the headlights" response when they ask a lawyer to state exactly what they want the court to order. That is the case here. One appeals court judge told plaintiffs' counsel at the argument: "we need you to articulate for us now what it is you want rather than keep saying we'll have dialogue with the trial court" and that "ya'll are vague about what you want."

They don't want to say what they want, which we all know is instant access to all and any ride whenever they want, because even the lawyers can see how greedy and ridiculous it is. On a side note, I love a good argument and this is fascinating to me.

 

[Lilsia]

Part of living with a disability (and I was suspect just being a human in this world in general) is learning to understand what your limitations and needs are, and how to best care for yourself with regard to that.

Most reasonable people understand this. The problem is that the number of reasonable people on this planet is quickly dropping and being replaced by entitled, self absorbed, spoiled &h!t heads.