Response to ADA Suit

[infopurposesonly]

If that's the copied verbiage, I think you're taking it a bit too literally. The ONLY option isn't a wheelchair. There are EVCs, your own mobility aid, FP+ helps! and if your mobility problem is strictly not doing stairs that's accommodated at the ride. So there ARE more option, they're just not the DAS.

And without knowing what the actual mobility issue was, there's no way to know which accommodation would have met their needs, but is don't see this as Disney 'lying' (which I personally think you're trying to imply) as it's very clearly stated that this is how mobility issues are handled in their website, and that it won't qualify for the DAS.

Never said or implied that Disney is lying. Quite the opposite. What Disney is saying is actually closer to my own personal experience with the DAS. They did work individually with my family to meet our needs, as well as they could, just as they say they do in their response. Our experience was not wonderful, there were issues, but it wasn't terrible. We may or may not go back. My only issue is that there has been inconsistency in the way accommodations are handled. I believe many people have legitimate complaints, and maybe that will be sorted out if this lawsuit goes forward.

 

[SueM in MN]

See now, I like how THIS thread is handling the topic, nice calm discussion.

I am certain that there were issues with the system, especially immediately upon roll-out...that is basically the way things goes...new systems, new products, pretty much anything with lots of moving parts (in this case proceedures and employees).

Do they need more ride vehicles for guests with mobility issues? Maybe? I think the point made earlier about emergency evacuation is interesting, and something I never though of before. I had often wondered why they hadn't just designed each ride car with wheelchair access...now I feel dumb for not thinking of such a logical reason not to.

If the whole intent of the lawsuit is to allow a certain class of people to be able to immediately re-ride a ride, then I do think the judge should just toss this out without going further. While sure, I'm no lawyer, it does appear that Disney has made all the efforts required by law, and even gone a bit beyond to make sure people of all abilities have an enjoyable time, but they are not required to go to the lengths requested.

Evacuation is not something most people think of, but because my youngest daughter can't walk, it is something we thought of as soon as she passed the toddler stage where we could not easily carry her out. In many cases, getting out of a ride during an evacuation involves walking down many steps and/or thru narrow areas.

Basically, we know that if a ride needs to be evacuated, we will need to wait for the Fire Department to come and evacuate our daughter. That's what I will mean by the phrase "needs evacuation".

Through the years, we have talked to CMs who work at different attractions and have gotten information about how guests with disabilities are handled and evacuation.
Each attraction has a certain limit of guests who need evacuation who can be inside the attraction at the same time. These are set by the Fire Department and are based on how difficult or his long the evacuation would be.
Spaceship Earth, for example, loads guests with special needs in 'batches' and one batch has to get past a certain point in the attraction for evacuation reasons before the next batch can be loaded.

Another issue is knowing which ride cars might have guests who need evacuation. Some handicapped cars are marked with a special reflective marking or the ride with a moving walkway can be slowed, but can only be stopped on a certain car number.
This might mean a longer wait for some guests with mobility related disabilities, but it is for safety reasons.

Personally, my family was coming to WDW when there were no/almost no accessible ride cars, so every ride required a transfer. We don't mind waiting for an accessible tide car to come around - even if it means a longer wait - because it means we don't have to be moving our DD as much.

Having to use the wheelchair car, we have been asked if we want to ride again on some rides. If my daughter likes it, we do. If course this offer is only made when no one is waiting on the wheelchair car. But we would NEVER expect to be able to ride again and again. I can not imagine anyone would expect that.

We have the same experience of being asked whether we would like to ride again if we were in a wheelchair car and if there are no people waiting for it. That happens pretty often for attractions like Buzz Lightyear or Imagination, which have a ride car that is wheelchair accessible, but can't be used by other guests.
In those cases, it might be used as a bit of compensation for having to wait longer than other guests for that wheelchair car to come around.

Like you, we would never expect to ride again, but I'm sure there are some people out there who do.

 

[aaarcher86]

Never said or implied that Disney is lying. Quite the opposite. What Disney is saying is actually closer to my own personal experience with the DAS. They did work individually with my family to meet our needs, as well as they could, just as they say they do in their response. Our experience was not wonderful, there were issues, but it wasn't terrible. We may or may not go back. My only issue is that there has been inconsistency in the way accommodations are handled. I believe many people have legitimate complaints, and maybe that will be sorted out if this lawsuit goes forward.

Ok. That's the way the post came off to me. I apologize if I was wrong.

What do you think the legitimate complaints are?

 

[pbrim]

If the whole intent of the lawsuit is to allow a certain class of people to be able to immediately re-ride a ride, then I do think the judge should just toss this out without going further. While sure, I'm no lawyer, it does appear that Disney has made all the efforts required by law, and even gone a bit beyond to make sure people of all abilities have an enjoyable time, but they are not required to go to the lengths requested.

I think the core of their lawsuit is paragraph 24 a where they state: The disabled Plaintiffs, like other persons with cognitive impairments, are mentally and physically incapable of waiting for significant periods of time in a line or queue While this does say "significant periods of time" the remedy they demand is not be required to wait in line at all, as with the new FP+ even the FP lines are too long for them. I don't think they are going to get anywhere with that. If your kid is unable to tolerate waiting any length of time at all, then Disney is not the place for them. Maybe if you can get a MAW trip, but as an ordinary person, no.

In a previous thread on this I was accused of hating all disabled kids for saying this. I think the poster was one of the parties to the lawsuit, who claimed that they went to WDW 4 times a year, and it was totally reasonable to expect unlimited immediate access to all rides, as anything else was unconscionable discrimination against disabled kids. I'm afraid anything like that would be so rife with fraud the whole system would breakdown.

 

[JenniBugInPink]

LOL

There was an Oscar Mayer commercial with a song I always have to think about....
bologna song

I should be working, and certainly don't have time to get into the lawsuit discussion, but the Oscar Mayer song brought back so many memories of childhood!! aaacher, I forget that some of you 'kids' wouldn't have ever heard it probably. Being older is a funny thing...I tend to forget that most of the things that made up my life happened before a lot of people ever existed, ROFLMAO!!

 

[SMD]

It's addressed in paragraph 133. "S.L.K. responded that her son is disabled and she and her mother have mobility problems." It goes on about what they say Disney's response was, or how they interpreted that to mean the only accommodation for mobility is a wheelchair. Disney denies it. " Disney expressly denies the allegation and/or implication in the eighth sentence
of this paragraph that a wheelchair is the only accommodation for guests with mobility impairments."

I personally think this lawsuit is a hot mess, and I don't see the plaintiffs winning, although I don't think it will be thrown out.

If you read that plaintiff's whole claim, yes, they mention wheelchairs, but their actual claim is in regards to the wait times experienced by a member of their party with Down syndrome and autism. The wheelchair part starts in paragraph 127, I'll give the highlights.

-They knew the child's grandma would need a wheelchair due to knee replacement
-The child's mom went to GS without the child and "did not know what she was supposed to say or do, did not know what to request"
-The mother stated that both she and grandma have mobility issues, so GS recommended a wheelchair
-The suit states that the family had not budgeted for wheelchairs, and needed more wheelchairs than they had guests available to push them
-The child with Down syndrome, who up to this point she had told GS he was "disabled" and they suggested a wheelchair, ran into City Hall and fell down
-The family was given a DAS, 2 readmits per person per day and they rented 1 wheelchair

It also says in earlier paragraphs that they did not know about FP+ and were not told about it at their resort or GS so never used them. They claim they were unable to use the DAS because the waits were an hour. It doesn't appear that they tried to get a DAS return, then use their readmits, then use the DAS return time. So yeah, their main complaint isn't the wheelchair, it's just part of the story of how the mom was treated, but they're only suing for how the son was treated.

 

[LilyWDW]

That's great for your nephew, but let my guess that at some point he has fallen down, tripped or otherwise not been able to ambulate, does that mean that everyone can walk and there no one really needs a mobility device? I'm sure you've had a blood sugar drop or spike... does that mean other people don't need insulin?

People with ocd or asd have a legitimate, recognized disability. Their brains function differently. When they are fixated it isn't a matter of want, it is an unrelenting need.

Merits of the case aside (and I don't see it as quite as frivolous as other posters) it is frustrating when folks with a legitimate recognized disability say this doesn't work for us BECAUSE of documented, common features of that disability, that hey really its not a problem, after all I don't have that problem.

On the case though, I'm sure some of these folks are just out for a buck, and that they should have waited to see how it works in practice. But some of these complaints aren't unheard of. Each time I call I do get different answer regarding accommodation... and truthfully DAS is probably going to work for this trip, but it wouldn't work if I was traveling alone with my son (you can't go somewhere, then walk away, then return. For my son that is just 'wrong'.) I was even told on the phone by on CM that if my son has Autism, we probably should cancel our reservation.

<--- Has OCD. We deserve EQUAL accommodation, but not greater. Allowing myself or someone else who is dealing with the obsessive part of OCD to have unlimited rides back to back is not equal access. It is 100% great access to the attraction that a "normal" person would not be allowed to have. Thus, it shouldn't be given to us.

That's the thing. The ADA only requires that we be treated in the same way so that we can enjoy the attraction equally. It doesn't not guarantee to meet every single "need" that every single person may or may not have. As long as we can get on the ride, the access is there.

It actually really frustrates me when people out there whine and complain about not getting greater access because of XYZ. Why? Because it makes all of us look bad. I have general anxiety disorder, depression, ocd, and ptsd. I get it. I really, really do. But I would never throw a fit about not being allowed to ride over and over and over and over because I don't "deserve" that. I only "deserve" to be allowed to ride.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

{FLAMEPROOF CAPE FROM DRAWER TO SHOULDERS}

1) ADA and Disney DAS allow for access, not excess!
2) Allowing people to ride multiple times with little wait time is excess.
3) And, vastly unfair to other paying guests.
4) Yes, WDW should/must make certain that disabled folks can ride.
5) But, to shun/cheat/slight other guests by allowing rapid re-rides is not right.
6) Let us hope that this suit goes nowhere and loses at summary judgment or in actual court.
7) Am getting really tired of greedy & selfish people !

{FLAMEPROOF SUIT BACK TO STORAGE}

 

[WheeledTraveler]

I noticed they're asking for legal fees to be paid by the plaintiffs. That's going to be expensive....

I think this is a pretty standard thing to request in defense responses to civil lawsuits. Even if the judge rules in favor of Disney, he or she can decide whether the plaintiffs actually pay anything to Disney or not. I'd expect the reasoning behind requesting the defendant's legal fees be partially the cost they've incurred, but even more to dissuade others from suing in the future. I don't know for sure, but that's what makes sense to me. I don't actually expect a judge to require the plaintiffs (should they lose) to pay all of Disney's legal expenses relating to the case. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge ruled the plaintiffs needed to pay Disney some amount, but more as a token than to really offset Disney's costs.

 

[aaarcher86]

I think this is a pretty standard thing to request in defense responses to civil lawsuits. Even if the judge rules in favor of Disney, he or she can decide whether the plaintiffs actually pay anything to Disney or not. I'd expect the reasoning behind requesting the defendant's legal fees be partially the cost they've incurred, but even more to dissuade others from suing in the future. I don't know for sure, but that's what makes sense to me. I don't actually expect a judge to require the plaintiffs (should they lose) to pay all of Disney's legal expenses relating to the case. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge ruled the plaintiffs needed to pay Disney some amount, but more as a token than to really offset Disney's costs.

I was under the impression that the defendant couldn't have their legal fees paid in this type of case. Since they are requesting this be deemed a frivolous lawsuit, I'm wondering if that is what makes the difference.

I believe California has been tightening up the penalties for frivolous ADA lawsuits.

 

[SueM in MN]

I was under the impression that the defendant couldn't have their legal fees paid in this type of case. Since they are requesting this be deemed a frivolous lawsuit, I'm wondering if that is what makes the difference.

I believe California has been tightening up the penalties for frivolous ADA lawsuits.

That was my thought.

 

[Srbright]

{FLAMEPROOF CAPE FROM DRAWER TO SHOULDERS} 1) ADA and Disney DAS allow for access, not excess! 2) Allowing people to ride multiple times with little wait time is excess. 3) And, vastly unfair to other paying guests. 4) Yes, WDW should/must make certain that disabled folks can ride. 5) But, to shun/cheat/slight other guests by allowing rapid re-rides is not right. 6) Let us hope that this suit goes nowhere and loses at summary judgment or in actual court. 7) Am getting really tired of greedy & selfish people ! {FLAMEPROOF SUIT BACK TO STORAGE}

Yep! And the ADA is well aware of it and specifically calls out that disabled guests my not get the same enjoyment; so long as they have the same access.

A prime example: it's a small world is WC accessible. They had to make it so that disabled people had access. However, that isn't going to help you at all if you have a phobia of being underground as well as being in a WC. Yes, you can get to it.... Doesn't mean you will enjoy it.

Stacy

 

[asta]

I found the following section of the lawsuit to be highly insulting and offensive:

"Even if the so- called “rented invalid” problem ever really existed, once Disney removed mobility-challenged guests from the DAS, the problem was solved. The systemic abuse about which Disney became suddenly frantic in 2013 could never be carried out by or with persons with developmental disorders or cognitive impairments. "

More of the same old attack the motives of people in wheelchairs, especially if they are not permanently confined to one. The very idea that people in a wheelchair will lie but people would never lie about other disabilities like ADHD or other cognitive impairments in order to avoid lines is beyond insulting.

I also could not believe the amount of extra FP that the CM's at guest services were just handing out to these people. It read like any whining at all and the FP were handed out and repeated at every park they visited. Talk about gaming the system!

I am also very curious about the "Magic List" that is referred to. Does this really exist? It sounds too good to be true so maybe if you are on it you keep very quiet about it so that others don't ask questions and mess up your good thing.

 

[Mrsjvb]

People with ocd or asd have a legitimate, recognized disability. Their brains function differently. When they are fixated it isn't a matter of want, it is an unrelenting need.

Merits of the case aside (and I don't see it as quite as frivolous as other posters) it is frustrating when folks with a legitimate recognized disability say this doesn't work for us BECAUSE of documented, common features of that disability, that hey really its not a problem, after all I don't have that problem.

.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever is anyone regardless of disability entitled to ride /loop or otherwise have unrestricted unfettered access to a singe freaking line at the expense of everyone else.

say you just spent half an hour standby and you were next in line only to be told oh, sorry but Junior over here gets to ride again even though you watched him get off the ride not 30 seconds earlier. and now you have to wait that much long. might b a minute, might be ten/ SAME DIFFERENCE.

your 'need' to ride 10 times in a row without waiting DOES NOT supersede anyone else's a right to access the ride

sorry but as a responsible parent who understands the needs of your child..why put them in the position in the first place?

 

[SueM in MN]

I found the following section of the lawsuit to be highly insulting and offensive:

"Even if the so- called “rented invalid” problem ever really existed, once Disney removed mobility-challenged guests from the DAS, the problem was solved. The systemic abuse about which Disney became suddenly frantic in 2013 could never be carried out by or with persons with developmental disorders or cognitive impairments. "

More of the same old attack the motives of people in wheelchairs, especially if they are not permanently confined to one. The very idea that people in a wheelchair will lie but people would never lie about other disabilities like ADHD or other cognitive impairments in order to avoid lines is beyond insulting.

I also could not believe the amount of extra FP that the CM's at guest services were just handing out to these people. It read like any whining at all and the FP were handed out and repeated at every park they visited. Talk about gaming the system!

I am also very curious about the "Magic List" that is referred to. Does this really exist? It sounds too good to be true so maybe if you are on it you keep very quiet about it so that others don't ask questions and mess up your good thing.

Yes, nothing like throwing guests with disabilities related to mobility under the bus.

This is one of the articles that talked about the problem with GACs (Guest Assistance Cards) at Disneyland. Scroll down to the story titled 'Line Kings'
http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al091812a.htm

These are quotes from that article about the magnitude of the issue at DL on a single popular attraction:
"The result this summer was that on days with high Annual Passholder visitation rates the line of people wanting to use their GAC at Racers would completely overwhelm the attraction and create a line of 30 to 45 minutes long, clogging the Fastpass lane and demanding that the ride operators at Racers dramatically dial down the number of Fastpasses distributed each day. (And now you know why the Racers Fastpasses are all gone within 60 minutes of park opening; they are only giving out a third of the number of tickets they should be able to as they try and manage the GACs heading into the ride through the same line).

Some quick studies were commissioned by the Guest Relations team this summer, and it was determined that upwards of 5,000 people per day, almost all of whom were tracked as Annual Passholders, were going through the Fastpass line at Radiator Springs Racers with a GAC. At an attraction like Racers that was carrying an average of 20,000 riders per day, 5,000 of them boarding the ride with a GAC is a huge impact. After all, a GAC is valid for the disabled person, and up to five of their friends or family, so while there were often 1,500 or more valid GACs in the park at any one time that meant there were thousands more people joining the GAC card holder at an attraction.."

This was use, not "rented invalids" and not only guests with wheelchairs.
A lot of it, according to the article and other things I have read was people who were looping - basically, getting off and coming right back into the Fastpass line.

 

[ladyjubilee]

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever is anyone regardless of disability entitled to ride /loop or otherwise have unrestricted unfettered access to a singe freaking line at the expense of everyone else.

say you just spent half an hour standby and you were next in line only to be told oh, sorry but Junior over here gets to ride again even though you watched him get off the ride not 30 seconds earlier. and now you have to wait that much long. might b a minute, might be ten/ SAME DIFFERENCE.

your 'need' to ride 10 times in a row without waiting DOES NOT supersede anyone else's a right to access the ride

sorry but as a responsible parent who understands the needs of your child..why put them in the position in the first place?

I've never argued that unlimited rides should be the accommodation; I do argue that that saying a recognized feature of a disability does not exist because nuerotyical' folks experience something vaguely similar is uninformed at the least and bigoted at the worst. Notice that that always leads to your point.... people with cognitive and developmental delays should just stay home.

Why is it that if one accommodation will not work, not possible alternative other than stay home can be created?

 

[fabfemmeboy]

I was under the impression that the defendant couldn't have their legal fees paid in this type of case. Since they are requesting this be deemed a frivolous lawsuit, I'm wondering if that is what makes the difference.

I believe California has been tightening up the penalties for frivolous ADA lawsuits.

That's exactly what makes the difference. In lawsuits, the general rule is that each side pays their own legal fees. There are two key exceptions: 1) civil rights type cases, including cases under Title VII and the ADA (To encourage people whose rights had been violated to bring suits without fear of the cost associated with the legal process, if a plaintiff wins such a suit they are entitled to reasonable costs/attorneys fees) and 2) cases that are judged frivolous, groundless, or "nuisance suits" (Plaintiffs who bring these kinds of cases are required to pay the defendants' legal fees, to discourage people from tying to file these suits). So both sides here are asking for attorneys fees - the plantiffs under exception 1 and the defendant under exception 2.

It's still at the discretion of the judge whether they award fees even if for example they throw out the suit as frivolous; the more "plaintiff-friendly" the jurisdiction, the more likely the judge is to deny the request because they think it discourages plaintiffs from bringing cases. (Florida is not a particularly plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction. Kind of the opposite.)

 

[Mrsjvb]

I've never argued that unlimited rides should be the accommodation; I do argue that that saying a recognized feature of a disability does not exist because nuerotyical' folks experience something vaguely similar is uninformed at the least and bigoted at the worst. Notice that that always leads to your point.... people with cognitive and developmental delays should just stay home.

Why is it that if one accommodation will not work, not possible alternative other than stay home can be created?

oh for pete's sake nobody says that.. what we DO say is that YOU HAVE UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.

I had to stay home numerous times because my disability could not be reasonably accommodated. not just Disney but many places. I have missed out on plenty.

 

[wilkeliza]

I am also very curious about the "Magic List" that is referred to. Does this really exist? It sounds too good to be true so maybe if you are on it you keep very quiet about it so that others don't ask questions and mess up your good thing.

They seems to be misinformed there is not "Magic List" it is called a "Magic File" any guest who has stayed on property or lodged a formal complaint with Guest Relations has one. Also I believe now all DAS users have a magic file. I don't know the full scale of them since I don't work in guest relations or concierge but they are like notes.

I know most magic files are things like guest prefers a room close to elevators, guest visited x restaurant and informed management they did not have good service. Manager responded by giving y to guest.

It is mostly used to track abuse by people who complain about their service to get free things but form my understanding it is also how they track that you were already told yes for a DAS and can have one reissued with out having to go through the process all over again.

 

[aaarcher86]

I found the following section of the lawsuit to be highly insulting and offensive: "Even if the so- called &#147;rented invalid&#148; problem ever really existed, once Disney removed mobility-challenged guests from the DAS, the problem was solved. The systemic abuse about which Disney became suddenly frantic in 2013 could never be carried out by or with persons with developmental disorders or cognitive impairments. " More of the same old attack the motives of people in wheelchairs, especially if they are not permanently confined to one. The very idea that people in a wheelchair will lie but people would never lie about other disabilities like ADHD or other cognitive impairments in order to avoid lines is beyond insulting. I also could not believe the amount of extra FP that the CM's at guest services were just handing out to these people. It read like any whining at all and the FP were handed out and repeated at every park they visited. Talk about gaming the system! I am also very curious about the "Magic List" that is referred to. Does this really exist? It sounds too good to be true so maybe if you are on it you keep very quiet about it so that others don't ask questions and mess up your good thing.

I think the magic list is the group of people that called Disney and were put into the system with a file number that gave them these additional FP. It only lasted about 2 months during the introductory phase of the DAS.

I'll assume they're saying it is a magic list but in reality it's not different than the files they create in person. Some people were getting the additional FP and some were not so I think they expected that you needed to be on some list.