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

[mustinjourney]

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.

actually -- I believe they in fact do state that is what they want.

 

[GreatLakes]

The plaintiffs want to ride with no wait at all as often as they want. That is not equal access nor is it in any way "reasonable". In the past someone was able to claim they couldn't wait and then just go on a ride over and over and over while us regular schmucks waited in the line for hours. That was horse<edited> and it is a good thing that was stopped. If you can't wait in line that is fine but you still need to wait in some manner somewhere.

The DAS system seems like the best compromise and it even gives those with it an advantage over the average guest. Instead of standing in a line for 2 hours you get to go do other fun stuff for 2 hours and then come back and get on the ride much quicker. Emotion aside I don't see how this ends any other way than the status quo and the only people benefiting from this are the lawyers racking up billable hours (no offense meant OP).

 

[jcb]

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?

The first complaint tried to combine all of the families into one lawsuit. Some of the families claimed Disney discriminated against them when they visited Disneyland. The Florida judge made the plaintiffs file separate lawsuits. The Florida judge then dismissed all the California claims except those brought under California's version of the ADA (which is supposed to be exactly the same as the ADA but permits damages up to $4000 (I think). The ADA doesn't permit damages at all if there is a Title III violation; it just lets the court order the offending party to comply with the ADA. The attorneys can get fees, of course.

Some of the families refiled their other California based claims but those were dismissed. I can't find where this dismissal was appealed.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/bus...aVVNO4gB0rRJaa7XBsBKGllT47RSHk3dn6moQUE4rUXK0

After a five-year court battle, a federal lawsuit demanding that people with autism go the front of the line at Disney World rides is going to trial in February, a judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Anne Conway set a four-day, non-jury trial in Orlando to start Feb. 18, according to court documents filed last month.

he lawsuit involving a plaintiff identified only as “A.L.” was filed in 2014 after Disney changed its policy to ban people with disabilities from going to the front of the line. Reports had gone viral that some wealthy visitors abused the system by hiring guests with disabilities to accompany them to the front.
Now, Disney allows people with disabilities to reserve a ride in advance, like a FastPass, by using what’s called a Disability Access Service Card.


But advocates argue that under DAS Card, getting a return time is equivalent to a wait, and it becomes a struggle for those with severe autism who don’t understand the concept of time and are prone to meltdowns.
Disney says the new policy is fair. “Disney Parks have an unwavering commitment to providing an inclusive and accessible environment for all our guests,” the company said in a statement last year.

Autism is a developmental disability that affects people in different ways. The disease, which hits one out every 59 children, can affect people’s social skills or their ability or communicate. For A.L., he “was incapable of deviating from consistency, order and routine,” the lawsuit said.
A.L., an Orange County man who was 22 when the lawsuit was first filed, followed a strict routine at Magic Kingdom, traveling “in only one direction, stopping at only the same places, in the same order, every time.”

Last year, Tampa attorney Andy Dogali won a victory when a federal appeals court ruled the Disney lawsuits should be heard at trial.
Dogali said he does not expect to reach a settlement before the February trial after more than five years of legal fighting with Disney.
He currently represents 29 similar plaintiffs in Florida but only the case with A.L. has been set for trial.

Dogali also plans to go to trial March 31 in California in a similar legal fight over accommodations at Disney’s Anaheim parks, he said.

 

[jcb]

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...ober-2-2019-das-lawsuit.3754820/post-61131434

 

[Jake]

ADA is to give a disabled person the rights to move around. Sidewalk cuts, elevator. Wide doors. No steps. No where in ADA is equal enjoyment, or equal fun for the family. ADA has nothing to do with family fun.
Disney tryed to be nice and people took advantage of it.

 

[jcb]

Actually, Title III of the ADA states:

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.

The ADA then goes on to require companies such as Disney (Universal etc.) to make "reasonable modifications" in policies where "necessary" unless that modification would "fundamentally alter" the services provided. So the ADA does provide for "full and equal enjoyment." The question raised by this lawsuit is whether "full and equal enjoyment" requires Disney to provide a class of individuals "near-immediate access" (plaintiffs words) to attractions. http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/04/04/new-lawsuit-attacks-disneys-new-disability-access-service/

 

[Lilsia]

Actually, Title III of the ADA states:

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.

The ADA then goes on to require companies such as Disney (Universal etc.) to make "reasonable modifications" in policies where "necessary" unless that modification would "fundamentally alter" the services provided. So the ADA does provide for "full and equal enjoyment." The question raised by this lawsuit is whether "full and equal enjoyment" requires Disney to provide a class of individuals "near-immediate access" (plaintiffs words) to attractions. http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/04/04/new-lawsuit-attacks-disneys-new-disability-access-service/

I fear that if it goes back to what it was with the GAC, basically making everything instant access, then I can see more and more people lying that their kid has autism. It's not like Disney is going to call someone a liar. This is a tough situation.

 

[jcb]

Update on this case in the litigation thread:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...ober-2-2019-das-lawsuit.3754820/post-61138644