DAS changes coming WDW May 20/ DL June 18, 2024

[Disturbia]

Limiting the number of DAS uses per day outright or doubling the wait time would
most likely violate the ADA.

CMs did routinely add 15-20 mins to standby waits (inflated by 20-30 mins; you can watch numerous vlogs comparing standby to actual waits) to activate the DAS return time and the RS as well once they started the digital system. One time at FOP there was a CM who gave the standby+20 mins with our ILL$!

Recent trips they’ve had the entire family stand in the outdoor queue with the stroller (with non rider; they can legally say they don’t make you stand in the official queue which starts at the ride sign) and then issue the RS which is active immediately (until end of day) at the ride entrance (FOP, SDMT, SDD). This helps them monitor if party 1 is actually going into the queue and actually is better for waiting party if the first party comes back say 20 mins early they go immediately so we are not stuck for 1.5-2 hours at one ride.

 

[Tatebeck]

Disney's argument here in Galvan was that 30% of the population is affected by anxiety. If park population on any given day represents general population, they would have to provide 30% of guests DAS (on top of all other conditions), and that would fundamentally alter their operations. Plaintiff's lawyer did not dispute this, and therefore his case failed on said grounds.

I think what people need to take from this here is that this ruling is essentially saying that if too many people have a condition, Disney doesn't have to accommodate it with DAS any longer. They only need to accommodate in a reasonable way that doesn't fundamentally alter their park operations. That is an exception written into the ADA. They can then extrapolate on that, I imagine, to include anyone who actually needs an accommodation by saying "x amount of people have conditions that would currently fall under our DAS eligibility. That would equal x amount of DAS users in our parks per day, which would fundamentally alter our operations". I have a feeling this is the crux of why they literally named Autism in the release -- it's the disability one of the major cases was based upon.

I do think this assertion can (and will) be challenged. A few things to note here:

- Plaintiff's lawyer in Galvan never challenged the original assertion that it was fundamentally altering, nor offered their own experts.

- Plaintiff's lawyer in A.L. V Disney never challenged the industrial engineering team's "study" on DAS impact, nor offered their own experts. This is akin to having a pharmaceutical company sponsor its own studies on its medications. Is that a study you trust is factual and unbiased? Of course not. And this "study" fails here for the same reasons. What the industrial engineers came up with, as others have pointed out, was akin to people who do NOT NEED DAS using the DAS system. I would say this is "sampling bias" (drawing conclusions from a set of data that isn’t representative of the population you’re trying to understand.) Of course that would have been the conclusion - the way it's designed and can be used would allow for this, no study needed. The only study that would be actually representative of users with disabilities is one where the users...have disabilities. Because there's clear abuse of the system, even their data now with guest use is bias/inaccurate. They also did the study over only 3 days. if this was a scientific study it wouldn't pass peer review. This can absolutely be challenged with a more scientific and unbiased study with the proper pool of participants.

- They argued that giving x amount of people DAS would fundamentally alter their operations and have an "adverse effect on park operations". Note, this ruling was made on 11.27.19. They then introduced Genie+ on 10.19.21. As many have pointed out, DAS and Genie+ do not offer the exact same experience, but they don't have to for this point. As some like to keep pointing out "just use Genie+!" I think that is the point here. It certainly doesn't work for many, but it does work for some. And Disney is trying to push abusers to use it (which is fine, of course, as they should), but also those who would/should be accommodated under ADA via "reasonable and necessary" accommodations. They argued it would fundamentally and negatively alter operations to accommodate x amount of people with DAS, then they fairly quickly fundamentally altered their operations in a like or similar way, "adversely affecting park operations" -- yet charged for it. We of course don't have the numbers on how many Genie+ & LL's are sold in a day, but that can be obtained during discovery. We ARE privy to wait time data and can see increases in standby (this could be attributed to "revenge travel", but it'd have to be compared against park attendance each day.) They are now cutting back on DAS use and will likely say that is what is affecting wait times & operations, but I think, with Genie+, that will be a hard sell this time around. Further, in the ruling in A.L. V Disney, the judge states: "More importantly, the DAS card is set up so A.L. would never have to physically wait in line more than 20 minutes." This was clearly an important aspect of DAS in their decision that it's a reasonable and proper accommodation, which is no longer the case. Long story short -- I feel there's a case to be made that Disney is attempting to charge for "reasonable and necessary" accommodations. At the very least, the introduction of Genie+ has made DAS a program that is no longer meeting the threshold of providing "an accommodation that provides autistic individuals with a "like experience" to the one nondisabled guests experience" (or other disabled individuals, for that matter). Hopefully a good lawyer who knows what they're doing and maybe a financially stable plaintiff will take it up, because litigation against Disney is neither cheap nor easy.

Can they win in court? Sure. But would they want to possibly exclude so many people from the parks? I doubt it. Their own argument is that there are a ton of people with disabilities. That would hurt their bottom line. They're trying to thread the needle...not sure how well they're pulling that off.

Warning! Boring law discussion incoming! You have been warned! This is just what I read from the case and interesting things that I think Disney could legally do from what we've talked about so far in the thread. This is not what they WILL do, as only Disney knows that and the information is still to fully come out. Please note that I do not practice law in any form, and I have only formally studied any kind of laws as is pertains to pharmacy, these are just some thoughts since this thread has grabbed my interest. So please forgive me if I miss something silly. Strap in, because I kept finding things to check out.

For this I had a nice long read of the 2022 11th Circuit Court's Affirmation/Analysis/Response to the appeal from the District ruling from 2020 on the A.L. V Disney Case
For anyone interested you can find it here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/16-12647/16-12647-2022-10-04.html

I think that based on the review, Disney would be able to pare down DAS or whatever their new disability accommodations are called by quite a bit and stay out of legal trouble. Interestingly enough this appeal came in 2022 AFTER Genie+ was introduced but they made no mention of it since it didn't exist during the time in which the original case happened

The case review and some thoughts

• The A.L. case failed in establishing that the guest's requests were necessary. They were given a new (but non-preferred) accommodation that still allowed the guest to have “the opportunity to have something akin to or similar to the experience” of non-disabled guests. As long as each accommodation doesn't make them wait longer than the standby time a regular guest experiences, they could do a lot of different things.
  • "[F]acilities are not required to make the preferred accommodation of plaintiffs’ choice. Facilities need make only reasonable accommodations that are ‘necessary.’” Id.(citation omitted). Indeed, “t is not enough to show that the [ac-commodation] does not eliminate all discomfort or difficulty"
  • So their solutions do not have to eliminate all discomfort or difficulty for the guest, as long as they get offered a reasonable accommodation. For this reason I think they would be able to split up parties (DAS holder+1 wait then use LL, others use standby) if they wanted, in order to keep the LL shorter for all LL guests. As long as it allows at least the disabled guest a LL physical wait with a standby queue time (the average guest experience)
  • “A.L. has some concept of time, can defer gratification, and can wait ‘virtually’ for a ride because he can be successfully redirected to another activ-ity.” This finding was buttressed by D.L. herself testifying that A.L. “can wait 15, 20 minutes in a line . . . and be successful” doing so. Further, there was evidence at trial that A.L. has gone on many family vacations, including twenty-one cruises, lasted up to seven hours in car rides, and sat through Broadway shows that were up to three hours in length. While these environments may differ from the stimulus of a theme park, as we recognized in A.L. I, the district court’s finding that A.L. can wait and be redirected even in a theme park is supported by evidence in the record.
  • Basically they ruled that if you can wait, sit for a long time, or do something somewhere else, it should be able to translate to a theme park, even though it's a different venue. So unless the argument is that an entire disabled person's family/travel group lives together, never leaves each other for work, the store, etc and all stay together 24/7, they would probably be allowed to split the party up during ride queue time.

• The case also failed to establish that the requests were reasonable. A.L. wanted instant return times. The courts agreed that he should be able to wait at least a small time (the LL time).
  • "As the district court explained, A.L.’s requested modification would “lengthen the wait times for all other riders, severely impacting the remaining non-DAS users, . . . and poten-tially lead to the same fraud and overuse that existed with the GAC system, which required a complete overhaul to the current more-controllable DAS system."
  • I feel they are using this argument again now, but for DAS itself. In the case, they argued giving A.L. and like DAS users instant lane access would lengthen all wait times. Now they are saying the same thing for DAS overuse and abuse. I think that would probably hold up with the crazy number of DAS users they were seeing. They will probably be able to lower DAS usage and eligibility with other accommodations (details coming sometime?) for those for whom they are reasonable, even if it doesn't remove all difficulty or discomfort as stated above.
  • "Disney “lost control over who got [GAC] passes” because “it became increasingly knowledgeable to everyone that you could go into guest relations and say that they needed the as-sistance and acquire that assistance.” The system also led to “re-petitive” and “excessive” use, i.e., “in an extreme way compared to how guests without the passes experienced the park.” And people “were impersonating Disney tour guides” or children with termi-nal illnesses to take people on rides with fraudulently obtained passes"
  • The same thing that happened with the GAC passes are happening with DAS passes now. They won't be able to give everyone who wants or feels they were eligible for the old DAS pass the same pass they had before

• Even if the requested accommodations in the case were found to be reasonable and necessary, Disney would have won the case because in giving A.L. those accommodations, they found that the results would Fundamentally Alter Disney's business.
  • "the requested accommodation would have to be offered to many more guests other than A.L. and that the aggregate effect would fundamentally alter Disney’s ser-vices. The district court determined that Disney had proved that modifications to the DAS card would have to be uniformly applied to all DAS guests. Next, the district court found that Disney’s un-controverted evidence proved that the modification in the aggregate would increase wait time for the 96.7% of guests who do not have DAS cards and would essentially be a return to the abuse-ridden GAC system. Finally, the district court determined that the evidence proved that the modification would interfere with non-DAS guests’ ability to access Disney’s services—meaning that it was not merely peripheral—and would decrease their satisfaction. Therefore, the effect of the accommodation would be to “funda-mentally alter” Disney’s park operations and business."
  • Basically once it's gone, just like when GAC went away, full DAS for all major disabilities won't likely be making a comeback. Anything that majorly affects 96.7% of their customer base in a negative way is going to be hard to say isn't changing their business services. If overuse and abuse is now to the point that it was when GAC was around, then they will be able to show the new similar statistics again and whatever changes they are making will likely stick in my view. Especially if all they have to do to win the case in the end is to show a large bump in the standard queue wait times

Other Thoughts and Responses

In regards to someone attacking Disney's engineer's study itself? They could try but I don't see how or why they would.

• The results showed what able bodied people were able to do with DAS, yes. The results showed that they were able to achieve much more than the average guest.
• "The results showed that testers with DAS experienced, on average, 45% more attractions than those without DAS. On one of the days, the non-DAS testers waited in queues on average a total of 255 minutes or more than 4 hours, whereas the DAS testers only waited in line on average total of 107 minutes,"
  • In a way, these results can read into things that CAN apply for someone that is disabled. Maybe that a disabled DAS user might on average able to spend approximately 148 minutes attending to their own needs instead of waiting in line and still ride the same amount of rides as a typical guest. The results showed that DAS does improve experience and it can be inferred what that means for a true DAS guest vs their testers. It would only have been a worrying study if they results were shown to not have a significant change when using DAS
• The other difficult part would be: How do you conduct a true DAS test? Normally you test the same or similar groups of people in multiple situations (the situation being the variable). Or two different groups in the same situation (the groups being the variable). But how would you test using disabled persons. Some would see it as cruel, and even if you do the testing, are you going to send the disabled guests through the standard queues? Isn't that the thing that they are supposed to be unable to do? (At least not without great stress or other issues). The closest easy test would the average park goer in standby vs disabled DAS user. But with so many different disabilities what even is an "average" DAS user? And then what is the "average parkgoer?" Someone just hanging out with their family, shopping, taking pictures, maybe leaving and taking an afternoon nap?. Or someone going from rope drop to park close trying to ride as many rides as possible like a true Disney maniac? The only fair way to compare would to have the same people run both sides with the same strategy, and I feel that is what they did and is likely accurate enough.

.
In regards to the thought that Genie+ is essentially Disney trying to get people to pay for their reasonable/necessary accommodations, I don't personally think that that argument would hold much water for a few reasons.

• They are kept as different products, even if they both use the LL. Genie+ is paid, individually sold, can sell out, has time slots that fill up, shorter return windows, 1 ride max for each attraction, etc. DAS is free if you qualify, applies to your whole group, can't sell out, has no max rides per time slot, has extended return times, can be used multiple times for each ride, etc. People in this thread have even mentioned using Genie+ it WITH DAS on the same day to get a better experience. If it was the same or a very like thing, then why are there so many use cases for that?
• Based on the features alone it seems like DAS is the superior standalone product anyway, which is why so many people attempt to abuse it. Also, even if they are similar, there is no law against selling accommodations to people that may want to use them willingly, as long as they are allowed for disabled guests who absolutely need them. Disney will rent a scooter to anyone with money, and they aren't getting sued for that.
• There could also be an argument made that the Genie+ paid service allows Disney to staff and support the lightning lanes that DAS runs through, improving cast member availability and other services. If they removed G+ and ONLY DAS ran through LL, they would be incurring heavy extra costs for something that is not part of their standard business model. I know they used to have fastpass, but they no longer offer that so they wouldn't be able to use that as an argument for having the LL for their standard business model anymore. And even then, there would likely be either the same or more fastpass users in the LL than genie+ guests in the LL since fastpass was free and genie costs extra.
• G+ is like a thin, slow falling, even snow, falling consistently and predictably where it's scheduled. They expect it and are ready for it. DAS is like a blizzard, you could get no snow or you could get a 10 foot monster snowstorm on any given day, and giving out too many DAS passes could be catastrophic for their business model if they are forced to have an insanely high LL throughput and all standby lines come to a standstill, ruining the park for all guests.

 

[smartlabelprint]

Duplicate

 

[smartlabelprint]

We haven't been there since they added it to the Little Mermaid but I've heard it's made standby quite long. Too long for us, probably. If RSR is backed up so far it's in the street, we know to avoid it. Last time Indiana Jones was closed. Since the queue is mostly indoors, I'm not sure how to tell if that one will be too long for us or not. Thankfully, at most spots, it's fairly easy to step out of line to leave, if needed.

-----
So I've seen people mention queues triggering PTSD. I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious...how does a queue in the parks trigger it?

I think giving the reasons PTSD can be triggered would give the reasons to cheaters.

How do i know? We talked about the idea of trying some solo attractions on the Skyliner when we arrived about 45 minutes ago, and hes now thrown up twice - so yeah. Not an option.

Rider switch can be the person that waited plus one more. People used to use it for short kids only. Then the parent riding could take a sibling on again, even if they’d already ridden.

Best not to push him to do what he’s not ready for. It’s unlikely he’s developmentally 18.

 

[smartlabelprint]

I know you were just giving an analogy, but it helps to understand why families with disabilities/allergies continue to visit despite the ever increasing curveballs thrown at us.

Disney is one place where we feel safe eating as a family. It has impacted our decisions on where to vacation for the past 12 years (WDW and DCL). They’re not perfect but very accommodating and quick to fix things/assist when things do happen.

The MNSSHP was where we first discovered our son could have chocolate! Even the CMs at the QS locations have a smile on their face and are very kind when they have to bring the ingredient list out. We will gladly pay the $40-50 charge for him to safely eat pasta with grilled chicken and sorbet/fruit. Our first experience at Boma the waitress had someone run down to Mara to get Erin McKenna brownies for our son!

If you have little ones with restricted diets you definitely know what I mean.

And no I don’t excuse their occasional rude behavior in the parks and do complain about Disney.

Yes, we had a similar experience with allergies. For some reason they didn’t get my kids allergy plates ready at world of color dessert, despite us filling out the allergy form. They sent someone into GCH who brought back dairy free sorbet. They’d had it the night before at our dinner there.

 

[Jdavidm]

I've mentioned before we have a number of out of state/passholder trips planned between now and Fall.

We just got here (son and self; the DAS holder wasn't up to traveling). He has never waited or ridden alone at Disney, despite being 18. He did accompany me to a work conference for a short stay, and will likely be either in our room or by the pool despite being within a short walk to the parks.

I have very strongly encouraged him to walk over to Epcot for a meal or snack, and it's just not something he's able to do. He has severe anxiety and ADHD (full medical diagnosis as a super young kid). That's why the rider swap isn't likely an option for our party of 3...he would have to be the one waiting alone. I figured I could try to encourage a little solo-ing this trip, but most park days he's miserable after a half day, and can really spin out if he can't find us after a bathroom break.

Not sure how that relates, but I guess we'll see when we call. It's so hurtful when people say "he can't do WHAT?...or he can't drive YET?" I wish he could and so does he.

I relate to this so much especially from when I was around his age. I would be told it was just about “pushing myself out of my comfort zone” but then they’d be shocked if they saw what occurred when I did push myself that far

I still don’t drive and get questioned about that constantly but there are many things I /can/ do and that’s what I focus on.

I wish you and your son the best with getting future accommodations set up that will work for him. Hopefully those with small parties of 2-3 won’t struggle to acquire DAS when the person(s) who needs the accommodation can’t be left to wait alone.

 

[smartlabelprint]

Warning! Boring law discussion incoming! You have been warned! This is just what I read from the case and interesting things that I think Disney could legally do from what we've talked about so far in the thread. This is not what they WILL do, as only Disney knows that and the information is still to fully come out. Please note that I do not practice law in any form, and I have only formally studied any kind of laws as is pertains to pharmacy, these are just some thoughts since this thread has grabbed my interest. So please forgive me if I miss something silly. Strap in, because I kept finding things to check out.

For this I had a nice long read of the 2022 11th Circuit Court's Affirmation/Analysis/Response to the appeal from the District ruling from 2020 on the A.L. V Disney Case
For anyone interested you can find it here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/16-12647/16-12647-2022-10-04.html

I think that based on the review, Disney would be able to pare down DAS or whatever their new disability accommodations are called by quite a bit and stay out of legal trouble. Interestingly enough this appeal came in 2022 AFTER Genie+ was introduced but they made no mention of it since it didn't exist during the time in which the original case happened

The case review and some thoughts

• The A.L. case failed in establishing that the guest's requests were necessary. They were given a new (but non-preferred) accommodation that still allowed the guest to have “the opportunity to have something akin to or similar to the experience” of non-disabled guests. As long as each accommodation doesn't make them wait longer than the standby time a regular guest experiences, they could do a lot of different things.
  • "[F]acilities are not required to make the preferred accommodation of plaintiffs’ choice. Facilities need make only reasonable accommodations that are ‘necessary.’” Id.(citation omitted). Indeed, “t is not enough to show that the [ac-commodation] does not eliminate all discomfort or difficulty"
  • So their solutions do not have to eliminate all discomfort or difficulty for the guest, as long as they get offered a reasonable accommodation. For this reason I think they would be able to split up parties (DAS holder+1 wait then use LL, others use standby) if they wanted, in order to keep the LL shorter for all LL guests. As long as it allows at least the disabled guest a LL physical wait with a standby queue time (the average guest experience)
  • “A.L. has some concept of time, can defer gratification, and can wait ‘virtually’ for a ride because he can be successfully redirected to another activ-ity.” This finding was buttressed by D.L. herself testifying that A.L. “can wait 15, 20 minutes in a line . . . and be successful” doing so. Further, there was evidence at trial that A.L. has gone on many family vacations, including twenty-one cruises, lasted up to seven hours in car rides, and sat through Broadway shows that were up to three hours in length. While these environments may differ from the stimulus of a theme park, as we recognized in A.L. I, the district court’s finding that A.L. can wait and be redirected even in a theme park is supported by evidence in the record.
  • Basically they ruled that if you can wait, sit for a long time, or do something somewhere else, it should be able to translate to a theme park, even though it's a different venue. So unless the argument is that an entire disabled person's family/travel group lives together, never leaves each other for work, the store, etc and all stay together 24/7, they would probably be allowed to split the party up during ride queue time.

• The case also failed to establish that the requests were reasonable. A.L. wanted instant return times. The courts agreed that he should be able to wait at least a small time (the LL time).
  • "As the district court explained, A.L.’s requested modification would “lengthen the wait times for all other riders, severely impacting the remaining non-DAS users, . . . and poten-tially lead to the same fraud and overuse that existed with the GAC system, which required a complete overhaul to the current more-controllable DAS system."
  • I feel they are using this argument again now, but for DAS itself. In the case, they argued giving A.L. and like DAS users instant lane access would lengthen all wait times. Now they are saying the same thing for DAS overuse and abuse. I think that would probably hold up with the crazy number of DAS users they were seeing. They will probably be able to lower DAS usage and eligibility with other accommodations (details coming sometime?) for those for whom they are reasonable, even if it doesn't remove all difficulty or discomfort as stated above.
  • "Disney “lost control over who got [GAC] passes” because “it became increasingly knowledgeable to everyone that you could go into guest relations and say that they needed the as-sistance and acquire that assistance.” The system also led to “re-petitive” and “excessive” use, i.e., “in an extreme way compared to how guests without the passes experienced the park.” And people “were impersonating Disney tour guides” or children with termi-nal illnesses to take people on rides with fraudulently obtained passes"
  • The same thing that happened with the GAC passes are happening with DAS passes now. They won't be able to give everyone who wants or feels they were eligible for the old DAS pass the same pass they had before

• Even if the requested accommodations in the case were found to be reasonable and necessary, Disney would have won the case because in giving A.L. those accommodations, they found that the results would Fundamentally Alter Disney's business.
  • "the requested accommodation would have to be offered to many more guests other than A.L. and that the aggregate effect would fundamentally alter Disney’s ser-vices. The district court determined that Disney had proved that modifications to the DAS card would have to be uniformly applied to all DAS guests. Next, the district court found that Disney’s un-controverted evidence proved that the modification in the aggregate would increase wait time for the 96.7% of guests who do not have DAS cards and would essentially be a return to the abuse-ridden GAC system. Finally, the district court determined that the evidence proved that the modification would interfere with non-DAS guests’ ability to access Disney’s services—meaning that it was not merely peripheral—and would decrease their satisfaction. Therefore, the effect of the accommodation would be to “funda-mentally alter” Disney’s park operations and business."
  • Basically once it's gone, just like when GAC went away, full DAS for all major disabilities won't likely be making a comeback. Anything that majorly affects 96.7% of their customer base in a negative way is going to be hard to say isn't changing their business services. If overuse and abuse is now to the point that it was when GAC was around, then they will be able to show the new similar statistics again and whatever changes they are making will likely stick in my view. Especially if all they have to do to win the case in the end is to show a large bump in the standard queue wait times

Other Thoughts and Responses

In regards to someone attacking Disney's engineer's study itself? They could try but I don't see how or why they would.

• The results showed what able bodied people were able to do with DAS, yes. The results showed that they were able to achieve much more than the average guest.
• "The results showed that testers with DAS experienced, on average, 45% more attractions than those without DAS. On one of the days, the non-DAS testers waited in queues on average a total of 255 minutes or more than 4 hours, whereas the DAS testers only waited in line on average total of 107 minutes,"
  • In a way, these results can read into things that CAN apply for someone that is disabled. Maybe that a disabled DAS user might on average able to spend approximately 148 minutes attending to their own needs instead of waiting in line and still ride the same amount of rides as a typical guest. The results showed that DAS does improve experience and it can be inferred what that means for a true DAS guest vs their testers. It would only have been a worrying study if they results were shown to not have a significant change when using DAS
• The other difficult part would be: How do you conduct a true DAS test? Normally you test the same or similar groups of people in multiple situations (the situation being the variable). Or two different groups in the same situation (the groups being the variable). But how would you test using disabled persons. Some would see it as cruel, and even if you do the testing, are you going to send the disabled guests through the standard queues? Isn't that the thing that they are supposed to be unable to do? (At least not without great stress or other issues). The closest easy test would the average park goer in standby vs disabled DAS user. But with so many different disabilities what even is an "average" DAS user? And then what is the "average parkgoer?" Someone just hanging out with their family, shopping, taking pictures, maybe leaving and taking an afternoon nap?. Or someone going from rope drop to park close trying to ride as many rides as possible like a true Disney maniac? The only fair way to compare would to have the same people run both sides with the same strategy, and I feel that is what they did and is likely accurate enough.

.
In regards to the thought that Genie+ is essentially Disney trying to get people to pay for their reasonable/necessary accommodations, I don't personally think that that argument would hold much water for a few reasons.

• They are kept as different products, even if they both use the LL. Genie+ is paid, individually sold, can sell out, has time slots that fill up, shorter return windows, 1 ride max for each attraction, etc. DAS is free if you qualify, applies to your whole group, can't sell out, has no max rides per time slot, has extended return times, can be used multiple times for each ride, etc. People in this thread have even mentioned using Genie+ it WITH DAS on the same day to get a better experience. If it was the same or a very like thing, then why are there so many use cases for that?
• Based on the features alone it seems like DAS is the superior standalone product anyway, which is why so many people attempt to abuse it. Also, even if they are similar, there is no law against selling accommodations to people that may want to use them willingly, as long as they are allowed for disabled guests who absolutely need them. Disney will rent a scooter to anyone with money, and they aren't getting sued for that.
• There could also be an argument made that the Genie+ paid service allows Disney to staff and support the lightning lanes that DAS runs through, improving cast member availability and other services. If they removed G+ and ONLY DAS ran through LL, they would be incurring heavy extra costs for something that is not part of their standard business model. I know they used to have fastpass, but they no longer offer that so they wouldn't be able to use that as an argument for having the LL for their standard business model anymore. And even then, there would likely be either the same or more fastpass users in the LL than genie+ guests in the LL since fastpass was free and genie costs extra.
• G+ is like a thin, slow falling, even snow, falling consistently and predictably where it's scheduled. They expect it and are ready for it. DAS is like a blizzard, you could get no snow or you could get a 10 foot monster snowstorm on any given day, and giving out too many DAS passes could be catastrophic for their business model if they are forced to have an insanely high LL throughput and all standby lines come to a standstill, ruining the park for all guests.

What about this? “The district court determined that Disney had proved that modifications to the DAS card would have to be uniformly applied to all DAS guests. ”

 

[Jdavidm]

Just like everything, there is a spectrum for panic attacks and PTSD. What is a trigger for one person doesn’t trigger another and so on.

I totally understand your explanation that you go into here but I suggest removing the specifics because it could be a great script for someone to describe their “struggles with waiting in a queue” that is looking to abuse the system (especially since you give great examples of problematic queues you’ve experienced).

 

[mom2diskids]

I totally understand your explanation that you go into here but I suggest removing the specifics because it could be a great script for someone to describe their “struggles with waiting in a queue” that is looking to abuse the system (especially since you give great examples of problematic queues you’ve experienced).

Thank you for pointing that out, I’ve edited my post.

 

[Tatebeck]

What about this? “The district court determined that Disney had proved that modifications to the DAS card would have to be uniformly applied to all DAS guests. ”

I don't think that part taken out of context means what it sounds like it means. It does NOT mean that Disney can only have DAS forever or any changes made to DAS in the future have to be the same for everybody.

At the time of the case, Disney ONLY had DAS for guest-specific disability accommodation (other than the physical ramps having been added for everyone). So if the lawsuit were to force them the change DAS for the person in the trial, they would have to apply it to everyone. If the guest won the suit and they just tried to give the instant return passes to that 1 guest, everyone with similar issues would have stepped right up in line to make their own lawsuit, as it would be a slam dunk case.

It was 0% accommodation (normal) or 100% accommodation (DAS), nothing else. If you change DAS here it changes for everyone

Now they will have 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%....accommodation all the way to 100% accommodation (what used to be DAS). Now, if they change rules for one of the steps (rider-swap, bathroom passes, etc.) they will have to apply the rules to everyone receiving that accommodation at that step.

It just means you change the rules equally for everyone under each umbrella. We are just going to have a lot more, but smaller umbrellas. (And it sounds like rain is a'comin!)

 

[Disneychick75]

What about this? “The district court determined that Disney had proved that modifications to the DAS card would have to be uniformly applied to all DAS guests. ”

That was my point earlier in the thread. Just what does equal mean in this context? This is a quote from an ADA training manual.
"The ADA says people with disabilities are entitled to “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations” that a public accommodation provides to its customers."
(Theme parks are a part of public accommodation according to the ADA.)
https://archive.ada.gov/reachingout...he ADA says people with,is covered by the ADA.

 

[Tatebeck]

That was my point earlier in the thread. Just what does equal mean in this context? This is a quote from an ADA training manual.
"The ADA says people with disabilities are entitled to “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations” that a public accommodation provides to its customers."
(Theme parks are a part of public accommodation according to the ADA.)
https://archive.ada.gov/reachingout/intro2.htm#:~:text=The ADA says people with,is covered by the ADA.

enjoyment n. 1) to exercise a right. 2) pleasure. 3) the use of funds or occupancy of property.

In this case they are using definitions 1 and/or 3 instead of the usual definition that we hear (#2)
It means you are able to access the area like everyone else and exercise the right (do the thing) that everyone else can do in the area

In short, they have to make sure you can ride the rides, see the shows, eat at the restaurants, etc., just like everyone else, and sometimes they may have to make necessary and reasonable accommodations for you if their standard property or procedures don't work for your disability.

That may be where some people in the thread are getting confused. It doesn't mean that they have to make you like your Disney trip as much as the next person. That type of enjoyment is subjective and that's not possible to have that be equal for everyone

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

What about this? “The district court determined that Disney had proved that modifications to the DAS card would have to be uniformly applied to all DAS guests. ”

This is actually a narrow response to the plaintiff arguing her son needed immediate access to all rides he might possibly want to ride (“and how could letting my one child ride unlimited rides really impact standby guests?”)—that if they allowed one child with autism to have unlimited instant ride access, they would have to allow it for everyone with that same condition — because they only had one disability product—essentially saying “you can’t consider one single person’s accommodation request in a vacuum but must consider how treating everyone alike would impact park operations and non-disability access guests.”

 

[smartlabelprint]

I don't think that part taken out of context means what it sounds like it means. It does NOT mean that Disney can only have DAS forever or any changes made to DAS in the future have to be the same for everybody.

At the time of the case, Disney ONLY had DAS for guest-specific disability accommodation (other than the physical ramps having been added for everyone). So if the lawsuit were to force them the change DAS for the person in the trial, they would have to apply it to everyone. If the guest won the suit and they just tried to give the instant return passes to that 1 guest, everyone with similar issues would have stepped right up in line to make their own lawsuit, as it would be a slam dunk case.

It was 0% accommodation (normal) or 100% accommodation (DAS), nothing else. If you change DAS here it changes for everyone

Now they will have 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%....accommodation all the way to 100% accommodation (what used to be DAS). Now, if they change rules for one of the steps (rider-swap, bathroom passes, etc.) they will have to apply the rules to everyone receiving that accommodation at that step.

It just means you change the rules equally for everyone under each umbrella. We are just going to have a lot more, but smaller umbrellas. (And it sounds like rain is a'comin!)

Thanks

 

[smartlabelprint]

enjoyment n. 1) to exercise a right. 2) pleasure. 3) the use of funds or occupancy of property.

In this case they are using definitions 1 and/or 3 instead of the usual definition that we hear (#2)
It means you are able to access the area like everyone else and exercise the right (do the thing) that everyone else can do in the area

In short, they have to make sure you can ride the rides, see the shows, eat at the restaurants, etc., just like everyone else, and sometimes they may have to make necessary and reasonable accommodations for you if their standard property or procedures don't work for your disability.

That may be where some people in the thread are getting confused. It doesn't mean that they have to make you like your Disney trip as much as the next person. That type of enjoyment is subjective and that's not possible to have that be equal for everyone

I think there are exceptions that every ride is accessible. It has to be reasonably accessible. In the example of the person in the wheelchair at spaceship earth (?) Disney can’t be required to lift the person in and out of the ride, as far as I understand.

 

[Tatebeck]

I think there are exceptions that every ride is accessible. It has to be reasonably accessible. In the example of the person in ten wheelchair at spaceship earth (?) Disney can’t be required to lift the person in and out of the ride, as far as I understand.

Right, the accommodations they provide a disabled person for a ride must be necessary, reasonable, and not fundamentally alter Disney's services

 

[Disneychick75]

This is actually a narrow response to the plaintiff arguing her son needed immediate access to all rides he might possibly want to ride (“and how could letting my one child ride unlimited rides really impact standby guests?”)—that if they allowed one child with autism to have unlimited instant ride access, they would have to allow it for everyone with that same condition — because they only had one disability product—essentially saying “you can’t consider one single person’s accommodation request in a vacuum but must consider how treating everyone alike would impact park operations and non-disability access guests.”

And if I remember correctly from the suit, the plaintiff wanted her son to go on rides he liked as many times as he wanted accessing the ride through the backdoor as it were.

 

[starlite_]

I think there are exceptions that every ride is accessible. It has to be reasonably accessible. In the example of the person in the wheelchair at spaceship earth (?) Disney can’t be required to lift the person in and out of the ride, as far as I understand.

Wasn't there at some point a lawsuit because a CM was helping a disabled guest exit JC, the guest fell and got injured and then died of an infection ??

I can't imagine Disney wanting to expose their CMs and themselves to a lawsuit because a CM tried to help someone get out of a ride and the guest accidentally getting injured. Specially knowing how lawsuit happy some guests are.

I know I wouldn't want to risk accidentally pulling out someone's arm for example. (I say this as someone who this happened to)

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

And if I remember correctly from the suit, the plaintiff wanted her son to go on rides he liked as many times as he wanted accessing the ride through the backdoor as it were.

Yes, but that was the (effectively) default system in place before DAS, which has been discussed several times in the first 100 pages of this thread, so it’s didn’t seem quite as entitled at that time as it would now. As the population of people who 1) need disability access, 2) learn it’s available and register, and/or 3) attend frequently increases, the impact of generous accommodations on park operations grows. Disney doesn’t have any control over (1), they can impact (2) by narrowing the groups they believe are eligible or trying to make it more difficult to lie, and (3) by being less generous (while still reasonable, e.g moving to rider switch or only allowing 2 people in DAS line together) they can discourage people who currently use the system more to visit less often or in smaller groups. We’ve seen a lot of people threatening that they will come less often —but I’m not sure Disney is going to be as upset as they think if there are fewer APs regularly using DAS. I do not think Disney wants prevent anybody from being able to enjoy the park with their family, but I think they would be able to offer better accommodations for to everyone if they didn’t have heavy users (either people who can use it to get on many rides a day or people who use it dozens of days a year).

 

[Angel Ariel]

but I think they would be able to offer better accommodations for to everyone if they didn’t have heavy users (either people who can use it to get on many rides a day or people who use it dozens of days a year).

And yet they can't deny AP holders from holding DAS, so there's no way to prevent this.