# Response to ADA Suit



## CPT Tripss

Here is the Disney response to the lawsuit - https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/disney-resorts-autism-action-response.pdf


----------



## aaarcher86

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


----------



## mttmilner

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims are barred to the extent that Disney was not required under federal or state law to provide unlimited, repeated, immediate access to its rides and attractions as the only available accommodation for purposes of reasonably accommodating Plaintiffs alleged disability.


----------



## cmwade77

Do you have a link to the actual lawsuit?


----------



## mttmilner

http://www.dogalilaw.com/disney-autism-ada-lawsuit.html

That's the link to the website of the lawyer who filed the lawsuit. I can't seem to find a copy of the actual lawsuit.


----------



## HopperFan

http://dogalilaw.com/files/86572403.pdf


----------



## CPT Tripss

cmwade77 said:


> Do you have a link to the actual lawsuit?



http://www.disneybymark.com/pdf/lawsuit.pdf


----------



## SueM in MN

Here are some other links:

link to a closed thread about the lawsuit:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3259108

Wdwinfo.com blog post about the original filing of the lawsuit:
http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/04/04/new-lawsuit-attacks-disneys-new-disability-access-service/

Since this was discussed at great length at the time the lawsuit was filed, I will leave this thread open for now, but will close it if it gets at all argumentative.


----------



## Airship Ariadne

Will be an interesting read taking them side-by-side.

So far I'm of the opinion the judge should site "Door vs. Where the Good Lord Split You" when he throws the case out...but I'm only a couple dozen pages in.


----------



## aaarcher86

Airship Ariadne said:


> Will be an interesting read taking them side-by-side.  So far I'm of the opinion the judge should site "Door vs. Where the Good Lord Split You" when he throws the case out...but I'm only a couple dozen pages in.



I think the most prevalent part starts on pg 87 with the defendants responses. Number 15/16 in particular.  I'm of the personal opinion that those two things really wash out everything else. The fact that most plaintiffs haven't visited or used the DAS is so puzzling to me. 

Sue - I appreciate the chance to discuss it.


----------



## cmwade77

I think that there are possible solutions that Disney should explore, but there is definitely some merit to the lawsuit as it stands right now.

Mind you most of the problems are not what official Disney policy is, but rather what has become the operating norm for those with DAS cards and other needs, such as wheelchairs, not being able to do stairs, etc.

Where the lawsuit doesn't have merit is that they expect to be able to completely bypass the wait time.

So, I am guessing the courts will order Disney to do something to accommodate them, but not require Disney to eliminate the waiting.

My thoughts are that the courts will order Disney to eliminate the return times and instead say the card is not valid for the length of the standby line after riding the attraction.


----------



## aaarcher86

cmwade77 said:


> I think that there are possible solutions that Disney should explore, but there is definitely some merit to the lawsuit as it stands right now.  Mind you most of the problems are not what official Disney policy is, but rather what has become the operating norm for those with DAS cards and other needs, such as wheelchairs, not being able to do stairs, etc.  Where the lawsuit doesn't have merit is that they expect to be able to completely bypass the wait time.  So, I am guessing the courts will order Disney to do something to accommodate them, but not require Disney to eliminate the waiting.  My thoughts are that the courts will order Disney to eliminate the return times and instead say the card is not valid for the length of the standby line after riding the attraction.



I don't see how they can. If the policy as it stands meets ADA guidelines the judge can't dictate how it's implemented. And since Universal has the same system it's set the president.    

 I think they could look at other or more option, but they don't have to. And to be honest, I'm not sure what else the could do that wouldn't put disabled guests on a higher playing field. I'm not really sure what you mean by policy vs operating norm.


----------



## ladyjubilee

Maybe I'm not following, it does seem that 'Disney specifically denies.... that they refuse to review medical documentation that guests provide them' 193 line 12-14.

So do they or don't they? I always liked that they did take the doctors letter and made  copy..whatever they did with it. Can we still bring it so they have it In case  we get separated?


----------



## North of Mouse

A portion of the lawsuit seems to be one person wanting their disabled child (?) to be able to ride 'It's a Small World' over and over without getting in line again.

I think we were able to do this just once with the People Mover, and that was because there was no line and very few people on the ride. It's not something Disney promotes as being 'available' to anyone.

Didn't read very much of it - definitely too much legalese for me to digest. Just can't see Disney in any way being at fault for someone's false expectations - that's not 'equal' at all.


----------



## aaarcher86

ladyjubilee said:


> Maybe I'm not following, it does seem that 'Disney specifically denies.... that they refuse to review medical documentation that guests provide them' 193 line 12-14.  So do they or don't they? I always liked that they did take the doctors letter and made  copy..whatever they did with it. Can we still bring it so they have it In case  we get separated?



It's standard to deny it. Anyone can forge a doctors note. Many can get their doctor to write one even if they don't necessarily need it. CMs aren't medical experts and the diagnoses wouldn't tell them what the needs are.


----------



## MattDisney

The only real issue we have had with the DAS is we now typically wait longer than someone how is in standby.  They sometime deduct 10 minutes in the return time, but not always.  So then we use fast pass which can be longer than 10 minutes and the. We wait for a wheelchair accessible vehicle.


----------



## aaarcher86

I definitely think they need to revisit what to do for WC vehicles. You guys definitely wait longer/twice.  

For the regular vehicle DAS user, I think it's both - sometimes longer, sometimes shorter if you get a return time just before the time goes up. But I also think the ability to do other things while waiting is kind of an even trade for the extra few minutes. There's just no way to make it exactly equal since the wait times are estimates.


----------



## SueM in MN

aaarcher86 said:


> I definitely think they need to revisit what to do for WC vehicles. You guys definitely wait longer/twice.
> 
> For the regular vehicle DAS user, I think it's both - sometimes longer, sometimes shorter if you get a return time just before the time goes up. But I also think the ability to do other things while waiting is kind of an even trade for the extra few minutes. There's just no way to make it exactly equal since the wait times are estimates.



I would agree with all of this. 
We got a DAS Return Time where the standby wait was 30 minutes, so our time to return was 20 minutes in the future.
Right after that, the posted wait time changed to 40 minutes.

There may be some situations where the wait time is longer, but over the course of a day, the few minutes longer and the few minutes shorter probably pretty much even out.

Since the wait times are estimates, there is no way to make it exactly equal every time. And, there are things that can temporarily slow down loading unexpectedly


----------



## Gracie09

aaarcher86 said:


> I definitely think they need to revisit what to do for WC vehicles. You guys definitely wait longer/twice.  For the regular vehicle DAS user, I think it's both - sometimes longer, sometimes shorter if you get a return time just before the time goes up. But I also think the ability to do other things while waiting is kind of an even trade for the extra few minutes. There's just no way to make it exactly equal since the wait times are estimates.



Although I do agree it stinks about the wheelchair  vehicles, I believe it is due in large part to safety concerns. They can only quickly and safely evacuate so many wheelchair bound people at once in case of an emergency.


----------



## infopurposesonly

aaarcher86 said:


> It's standard to deny it. Anyone can forge a doctors note. Many can get their doctor to write one even if they don't necessarily need it. CMs aren't medical experts and the diagnoses wouldn't tell them what the needs are.



But they're denying that they deny doctors' notes.  They also deny that a wheelchair is the only accommodation for mobility issues.  Oh, and those re-admission passes people here insist they no longer issue?  Disney admits they give them in addition to the DAS.


----------



## aaarcher86

Gracie09 said:


> Although I do agree it stinks about the wheelchair  vehicles, I believe it is due in large part to safety concerns. They can only quickly and safely evacuate so many wheelchair bound people at once in case of an emergency.



Yeah, I know why they have fewer carts, I just think they should look into finding a way to make it so the guest isn't waiting 30 minutes to get in line and then waiting another 20 to get the WC cart. And I don't really know what the answer to that is.


----------



## aaarcher86

infopurposesonly said:


> But they're denying that they deny doctors' notes.  They also deny that a wheelchair is the only accommodation for mobility issues.  Oh, and those re-admission passes people here insist they no longer issue?  Disney admits they give them in addition to the DAS.



They don't HAVE to deny doctors notes. But they can't require them. I imagine it's heavily preferred to simply not look at them to steer clear of the expectation that you need one, or someone bringing one got something someone who didn't have one didn't.   Not to mention a note saying 'so and so has CP' doesn't tell the CM what accommodations they need. 

  I'm not sure where the mobility stuff is in the lawsuit since it's long, but I know the people that filed it said that they were absolutely fine with the policy for mobility issues and how it's applied. They're filing for a change in regards to cognitive issues.  If they didn't put what other accommodations there are they could easily be referring to FP+.  

 And while I do believe they still give ReAds, they aren't set up in advance and they definitely aren't given out like they were before. IMO, if the DAS is tried and doesn't work they then look into extra accommodations. However, the dates that most of these guests attended were dates when people were calling ahead and getting files with accommodations before they came, etc.    

 When the lawsuit was filed it was already outdated. So it's hard to see what they're responding to as it pertains to then or now.


----------



## SMD

I didn't interpret those paragraphs as denying their positions on doctor's notes or wheelchairs. I think that they were saying that they dispute that those incidents happened in the way the plaintiff's described.


----------



## fabfemmeboy

North of Mouse said:


> A portion of the lawsuit seems to be one person wanting their disabled child (?) to be able to ride 'It's a Small World' over and over without getting in line again.
> 
> I think we were able to do this just once with the People Mover, and that was because there was no line and very few people on the ride. It's not something Disney promotes as being 'available' to anyone.
> 
> Didn't read very much of it - definitely too much legalese for me to digest. Just can't see Disney in any way being at fault for someone's false expectations - that's not 'equal' at all.



That's the jist for most of the lawsuit.  A lot of the plaintiffs/plaintiffs' children need to ride one ride over and over again, and they believe the only legally-permissible accommodation is to allow their kid to do it, even on popular rides like Small World and Peter Pan and Test Track.  While I can appreciate that it might be the preferred accommodation, it's just not what the law requires...and frankly it's not equal.  

I also have a very hard time with the lengthy sections of the complaint wherein they ascribe malice to WDW.  I've no doubt whatsoever that there have been negative situations resulting from the implementation of DAS, but as a lawyer one of the first things we have to train our clients is not to impute motive because you end up sounding like someone with an ax to grind rather than someone relaying the facts as they happened.  People (be they juries or judges) are much more likely to buy dimness and unintended consequences than "they were out to get rid of all of us!"


----------



## lizard1

aaarcher86 said:


> I definitely think they need to revisit what to do for WC vehicles. You guys definitely wait longer/twice.
> 
> For the regular vehicle DAS user, I think it's both - sometimes longer, sometimes shorter if you get a return time just before the time goes up. But I also think the ability to do other things while waiting is kind of an even trade for the extra few minutes. There's just no way to make it exactly equal since the wait times are estimates.



I agree with this, especially with the WC vehicles.  I know this is a big problem for us at TSMM where we have sometimes had to wait almost another hour after the line splits in order to use the WC vehicle.


----------



## Srbright

fabfemmeboy said:


> That's the jist for most of the lawsuit.  A lot of the plaintiffs/plaintiffs' children need to ride one ride over and over again, and they believe the only legally-permissible accommodation is to allow their kid to do it, even on popular rides like Small World and Peter Pan and Test Track.  While I can appreciate that it might be the preferred accommodation, it's just not what the law requires...and frankly it's not equal.  I also have a very hard time with the lengthy sections of the complaint wherein they ascribe malice to WDW.  I've no doubt whatsoever that there have been negative situations resulting from the implementation of DAS, but as a lawyer one of the first things we have to train our clients is not to impute motive because you end up sounding like someone with an ax to grind rather than someone relaying the facts as they happened.  People (be they juries or judges) are much more likely to buy dimness and unintended consequences than "they were out to get rid of all of us!"



I would trim the quote, but I totally agree.  The original complaint reads more like the 30th page of the "Is Disney Greedy" thread and less like the writings of someone with a JD that passed the bar exam.  

ADA doesn't require priority access it requires equal ACCESS.  if your child abhors purple and has a meltdown to where they are unresponsive then going to Chuck E Cheese is going to cause you to have a bad day. If your child cannot stand in line then going to a place that requires standing in line for everything may not provide you with the highest level of enjoyment.

ADA doesn't guarantee disabled persons the same level of enjoyment.  In fact the law as written specifically mentions that that may not be the case.  

From ADA.gov

 III-3.3000 Equality in participation/benefits. The ADA mandates an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods and services offered by a place of public accommodation, but does not guarantee that an individual with a disability must achieve an identical result or level of achievement as persons without disabilities.


Stacy


----------



## BigAlsGal

All my love to disney. This is bologna.


----------



## aaarcher86

BigAlsGal said:


> All my love to disney. This is bologna.



I STILL sound out the word bologna, realize what the word is, and then get angry with myself for once again falling victim to its trickery.


----------



## CPT Tripss

infopurposesonly said:


> But they're denying that they deny doctors' notes.  They also deny that a wheelchair is the only accommodation for mobility issues.  Oh, and those re-admission passes people here insist they no longer issue?  Disney admits they give them in addition to the DAS.



IIRC none of the Plaintiffs claims go to in accessibility due to mobility issues.


----------



## BigAlsGal

aaarcher86 said:


> I STILL sound out the word bologna, realize what the word is, and then get angry with myself for once again falling victim to its trickery.



Bahaha!!!!


----------



## SueM in MN

aaarcher86 said:


> I STILL sound out the word bologna, realize what the word is, and then get angry with myself for once again falling victim to its trickery.


LOL

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


----------



## aaarcher86

SueM in MN said:


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



That's adorable!


----------



## infopurposesonly

CPT Tripss said:


> IIRC none of the Plaintiffs claims go to in accessibility due to mobility issues.




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.


----------



## Airship Ariadne

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.


----------



## SueM in MN

infopurposesonly said:


> 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.


This was what the official Disney blog post about DAS before it came out had to say about mobility related disabilities:
*Does a Guest whose disability is based on the necessity to use a wheelchair or scooter need a DAS Card?*_
No, a Guest whose disability is based on the necessity to use a wheelchair or scooter does not need a DAS Card. Depending on the attraction, the Guest will either wait in the standard queue or receive a return time at the attraction based on the current wait time. For some attractions at Disneyland Resort, these guests will go directly to an alternate entrance. Guests with additional needs should discuss them with Guest Relations._
Link to blogspot DAS post:
http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/disney-parks-disability-access-service-card-fact-sheet/

This is what the current official Disney fact sheet has to say about mobility related disabilities:
_A Guest whose disability is based on the necessity to use a wheelchair or scooter does not need a DAS Card. Depending on the attraction, Guests utilizing a wheelchair or scooter will either wait in the standard queue or receive a return time at the attraction comparable to the current wait time._
Link to current DAS fact sheet:
https://wdpromedia.disney.go.com/me...Disability-Access-Service-Card-2014-04-08.pdf

That is NOT different than the GAC (Guest Assistance Card) was. Guests did NOT need a GAC to use a wheelchair, ECV or other mobility device in line. One of the issues I personally saw, both in the parks and in posts on this and other boards was guests whose only need was mobility expecting a GAC and expecting that any mobility need meant they would use the Fastpass line or exit (even if the need was totally met by using a mobility device in lines and they had no problems waiting).

Disney's website has said this about stamina or endurance concerns for as long as I can remember:
*STAMINA OR ENDURANCE CONCERNS*_
Some Guests may be concerned that they do not have the stamina to wait in Walt Disney World attraction queues. We strongly suggest these Guests consider using a wheelchair, personal scooter or Electric Convenience Vehicle (ECV), as the distance between the attractions is much greater than the length of the queues._

Link to Disney disability webpage jumping to Stamina or Endurance:
https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/plain-text/#STAMINA OR ENDURANCE CONCERNS

So, again, Disney suggesting guests use a mobility device is no different than it was with GAC.


----------



## Mrsjvb

Airship Ariadne said:


> 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 get the impression that that is what everyone else on the outside looking in who has read it has that interpretation.  everything else is thrown in there to confuse people.  

 we all know that the old GAC evolved into  near instant access to rides(regardless of it's original intent)  and the new system  basically eliminated that 'perk'.

there are just as many, if not MORE neurotypcial kids who fixate/obsess over something..( be honest,how many times in a row HAVE you seen Frozen?! heheh)  and who would LOVE to ride  Pirates  a dozen times straight without ever having to get out of the boat.    it doesn't happen.   nor should it especially if there is a line.

 i remember once, at Sea world or somewhere, we got to the park as it opened and there were  maybe another dozen people in the park.. a good third of which were employees.   my nephew has a favorite ride that he would ride all day long if they let him.   he was allowed to ride 3-4 times as literally he was the only person in the  line( and even then the operator made him get out and run the  queue  each time)   there is nothing wrong with him other than penchant for  neglecting his homework on nice days. 

at that point other people were meandering in and his mother told him enough is enough 

some people  don't seem to get that what they are demanding is not only unfair access, it is unfair to everyone else as well.  and the ADA is not there to be their own personal blanket  get out of following  etiquette free card.


----------



## MattDisney

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.


----------



## aaarcher86

infopurposesonly said:


> 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 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.


----------



## ladyjubilee

Mrsjvb said:


> there are just as many, if not MORE neurotypcial kids who fixate/obsess over something..( be honest,how many times in a row HAVE you seen Frozen?! heheh)  and who would LOVE to ride  Pirates  a dozen times straight without ever having to get out of the boat.    it doesn't happen.   nor should it especially if there is a line.
> 
> i remember once, at Sea world or somewhere, we got to the park as it opened and there were  maybe another dozen people in the park.. a good third of which were employees.   my nephew has a favorite ride that he would ride all day long if they let him.   he was allowed to ride 3-4 times as literally he was the only person in the  line( and even then the operator made him get out and run the  queue  each time)   there is nothing wrong with him other than penchant for  neglecting his homework on nice days.



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.


----------



## aaarcher86

ladyjubilee said:


> 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.



 I can understand the frustration, but having a fixation on something can't be accommodated all the time. That's just the way it goes. I don't understand how people are expecting businesses to alter their functions because of it. And that's where reasonable accommodation comes in. Reasonable accommodation gets someone on the ride or into the attraction. Getting in line, waiting your turn, and then riding are the process as a whole. Allowing the bypassing of a portion of that process is not a reasonable accommodation, which is what happens with a looper or previously with the GAC.   

As far as fixating and needing to do something immediately, how would that realistically be accommodated honestly? If there's a line at the ice cream store, but the child is fixated on having the ice cream, we don't demand to be served next. If we are waiting at the movie theater and the show doesn't start for 20 minutes, we don't demand it begin immediately. How are parents deterring fixation in their daily lives? I feel like for some reason, Disney is held to an entirely different standard than anything else in our lives. And while I understand 'it's Disney,' it doesn't make it any less of a business, no matter how enjoyable it is.  I don't think the other theme parks accommodate this either. 

We all have to look at the nature of a place and decide if it's possible for our kids.


----------



## infopurposesonly

aaarcher86 said:


> 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

Airship Ariadne said:


> 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.



MattDisney said:


> 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

infopurposesonly said:


> 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

Airship Ariadne said:


> 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

SueM in MN said:


> 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

infopurposesonly said:


> 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

ladyjubilee said:


> 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

aaarcher86 said:


> 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

WheeledTraveler said:


> 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

aaarcher86 said:


> 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

TheRustyScupper said:


> {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

ladyjubilee said:


> 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

asta said:


> 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

Mrsjvb said:


> 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

aaarcher86 said:


> 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

ladyjubilee said:


> 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

asta said:


> 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

asta said:


> 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.


----------



## aaarcher86

ladyjubilee said:


> 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?



 I don't personally think that people are saying it doesn't exist, just that it does not need to be accommodated by Disney according to the ADA.   

People post all the time that without 'xyz' accommodation they can't go to Disney. If it's not legally necessary to provide and Disney isn't doing it, the only alternative is to visit somewhere else.  I really think though that people take the attitude of needing one specific thing or not being able to go a bit to the extreme. I've seen a lot of posts that say 'we made it work but it took the spontaneity out of it/required more planning.' Which may not be favorable, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work.


----------



## TheRustyScupper

asta said:


> . . . I am also very curious about the "Magic List" that is referred to. Does this really exist? . . .





wilkeliza said:


> 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 . . .




1) Yes, it does exist.
2) Has been around since at least 2005, of which I _*personally*_ know.
3) The official name is "Magic List", but we refer to it as "The Mooch List".
4) There are more entries of complainers and those with comp'd items, than other listings.
. . . it shows chronic complainers 
. . . it shows the comp's given to the guest
. . . typically, MINOR complaints are not listed
. . . it is company-wide, as WDW complainers might show at DL and complain
5) This helps when they complain again, as the CM or Manager might refuse action.


----------



## Jenheartsdisney

Oh no I don't like the sound of this list! 

We are planning on asking for DAS as I have Myasthenia Gravis and if will struggle with the lines - there is a good chance I will need to leave the lines to manage seizures or go to first aid. 

When the CM scans my magic band will they see that we have comped extra fast passes as I had problems with my booking (I didn't complain a lovely customer service lady called after it was fixed and offered them to us). I also once complained that I was left without food at a pre-paid event because the manager went to get the allergy binder and never came back then none of the cast members in the area could find him!

Will they scan my band and think I'm a whinger?


----------



## SueM in MN

Jenheartsdisney said:


> *Oh no I don't like the sound of this list!
> *
> We are planning on asking for DAS as I have Myasthenia Gravis and if will struggle with the lines - there is a good chance I will need to leave the lines to manage seizures or go to first aid.
> 
> When the CM scans my magic band will they see that we have comped extra fast passes as I had problems with my booking (I didn't complain a lovely customer service lady called after it was fixed and offered them to us). I also once complained that I was left without food at a pre-paid event because the manager went to get the allergy binder and never came back then none of the cast members in the area could find him!
> 
> *Will they scan my band and think I'm a whinger?*


I would not worry about it. 
It is basically a customer service number and everyone who has stayed at a Disney resort has one. Just having one is no more negative than having a customer service number at any other business.

A customer service number can be a place to keep notes - positive, negative or just information like what time of year they travel, how many are usually in their party, etc. - have you ever wondered how they know how old your children are? It's because you added that information once and it is in your file. So, not a negative.
It can also be used to track things like extras given to guests 
- for example, my family did get a 'no strings attached' Fastpass once and I am sure that information is in a file somewhere - along with the reason we got it - a Disney bus we were on was sideswiped by a car. 
No one was hurt, but all the sorting out and reporting took almost 2 hours. They collected information from all of us on the bus, including our names and where we were staying. As compensation for that, everyone on the bus was given a 'no strings attached Fastpass.'
Individual CMs scanning your Magicband won't usually need that information or have access to it. 

In terms of DAS, each DAS card has a number on it. Having a number allows them to link to a file on their computer so the DAS can be re-issued the next time you come without recollecting all the information. So, again, not necessarily a negative thing.


wilkeliza said:


> *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*.


This is my understanding about Magic Files from talking to Guest Relations CMs - again, just having one is not negative and even having in your file that you were given compensation after a complaint is not a negative thing. 
Valid complaints and compensation are not an issue. 


aaarcher86 said:


> 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.


This!

From things I read on social media and blogs, this is what it sounds like the people who filed the lawsuit thought.
But, to quote the character Inigo Montoya from the movie Princess Bride, 
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

From talking to Disney park Guest Relations CMs (mostly in trying to collect correct information for the DAS threads located near the top of this board), Disney understood that some guests would have difficulty adapting from GAC to DAS. This was especially true of frequent visitors who were using GACs each visit. 
My understanding was that giving some additional Fastpasses was meant to be a temporary 'bridge' to help guests as they learned how to use the DAS. 

The first official DAS information Disney put on their Disney Blog included a phone number to contact for more information. 
Very quickly, people on blogs and Facebook started posting that phone number, plus some other unpublished phone numbers, along with information about names of CMs they felt were 'helpful' (i.e. gave them Fastpasses) or 'unhelpful' (explained how DAS worked and suggested trying it), exactly what to say to get extra Fastpasses (which many of those guests called 'DAS accommodations') and how to get the maximum number of 'accommodations'. 
From what some of those guests wrote on social media and what is in the lawsuit, they thought the "Magic List" was a special list of guests with DAS who were approved to get 'accommodations'. They expected they had to be on the "Magic List" to get these 'DAS accommodations' and would get that number of Fastpases forever for every visit; the number some expected each visit was huge because (at least to me), it sounded like they were trying to replicate what they were doing with GACs. 
I also read things that showed there was misunderstanding about what  'no strings Fastpasses' are - I've seen more than one place where someone complained when they saw someone who was not disabled using 'DAS accommodations'. 

Disney's current published fact sheet information about DAS includes a phone number for general information, but makes it clear on every page that requests for DAS will not be handled by phone or mail and must be made in person at a theme park Guest Relations.


----------



## aaarcher86

Jenheartsdisney said:


> Oh no I don't like the sound of this list!  We are planning on asking for DAS as I have Myasthenia Gravis and if will struggle with the lines - there is a good chance I will need to leave the lines to manage seizures or go to first aid.  When the CM scans my magic band will they see that we have comped extra fast passes as I had problems with my booking (I didn't complain a lovely customer service lady called after it was fixed and offered them to us). I also once complained that I was left without food at a pre-paid event because the manager went to get the allergy binder and never came back then none of the cast members in the area could find him!  Will they scan my band and think I'm a whinger?



I wouldn't even begin to worry about it. You're number will show you have a DAS for XYZ needs. It'll show you're extra FP and why you got them. 

None of the regular park CMs will see your file and anyone that does isn't going to judge you for it. If your file showed that every trip you came down and complained multiple times about the same thing to get your tickets comped, you'd be the person it's intended for. Just look at it as a human resources file. Disney needs a record of their interactions with guest or they'd have people calling up saying someone promised them things, or gave a refund they didn't receive, etc with no way of knowing if it's accurate.


----------



## twinboysmom

TheRustyScupper said:


> *{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}*




No flame suit needed.  I completely agree with this.  I have two boys with severe ASD and am embarrassed by this lawsuit and also by some of the other responses I see people in the ASD community putting all over facebook.


----------



## wilkeliza

Jenheartsdisney said:
			
		

> Oh no I don't like the sound of this list!
> 
> We are planning on asking for DAS as I have Myasthenia Gravis and if will struggle with the lines - there is a good chance I will need to leave the lines to manage seizures or go to first aid.
> 
> When the CM scans my magic band will they see that we have comped extra fast passes as I had problems with my booking (I didn't complain a lovely customer service lady called after it was fixed and offered them to us). I also once complained that I was left without food at a pre-paid event because the manager went to get the allergy binder and never came back then none of the cast members in the area could find him!
> 
> Will they scan my band and think I'm a whinger?




No need to worry. The only way to see your magic file is if you are in guest relations. No one else sees them.


----------



## Sparkly

I think this whole debacle is ridiculous. There was no need for this lawsuit.

But if you dare to disagree with them, they're quick to tell you how you don't understand and should walk a mile in their shoes, lol. I do understand. And I have special needs. And I feel that the new DAS is fine and that they're just moaning because their so called need to ride stuff over and over again is a unfair accommodation.


----------



## LilyWDW

ladyjubilee said:


> 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?



I already posted that I have one of the "issues" that you mentioned in a previous post... and I don't think that Disney has to accommodate the idea of someone riding over and over again. I also don't think that means that people will these issues should have to stay home. They just shouldn't expect a need such as this to be accommodated beyond equal access. We should never get greater access because that is just not fair.


----------



## alizesmom

My DD9 has autism and wants to repeat rides as well. No, I don't think she should be given that privilege even though it means physically dragging her off the ride. Using the same logic as those filing suit I should sue because DS8 is unable to access most attractions because he can't transfer from his wheelchair.


----------



## bidnow5

One of my many issues is OCD I would love to repeat rides because my OCD likes even numbers so riding twice would be a good thing. I don't even ask even when we had the GAC we would not go on a ride twice in a row


----------



## Coonhound

And no one is telling anyone they can't ride the same ride over and over again. But they are saying that you must exit after riding and get back in the line to ride again. That is simply fair and polite to others who are also waiting to ride the ride. I'm always very surprised at people who expect their child to ride repeatedly without getting off the ride and getting back in line. They see other people waiting to ride, yet they don't care about other people waiting and insist their child receive special treatment. It's very entitled behavior. I'm not being heartless toward special needs children I just feel that their parents should not encourage to advocate for their child to be allowed to cut lines or skip ahead of others or keep riding the same thing while others are waiting. Special needs or not, it's just bad manners.


----------



## cmwade77

I agree with the pp whole heartedly. You still need to wait Your fair turn. If that can't be in the line, so be it, but you still need to wait.

Now some CMS will occasionally offer to let you ride a second time without getting off or waiting, but that should be considered pixie dust and you shouldn't ask for it, unless you can see that there is either no line or only a handful of people in line, then I think its ok for anyone to ask to do so.


----------



## jcb

Some may have noticed that the numbered paragraphs in Disney's answer don't correspond to all the numbered paragraphs in the complaint posted on the law firm's web site.  

The court required the parents' counsel to refile the complaint because they originally filed it electronically, not manually, and court rules don't permit a complaint to be electronically filed when one or more minors are plaintiffs.  Guardians have to be appointed, I suppose, before a complaint can be filed.

In any even, for those who want it, I've put a copy of the refiled complaint on a public share drive.


----------



## SueM in MN

jcb said:


> Some may have noticed that the numbered paragraphs in Disney's answer don't correspond to all the numbered paragraphs in the complaint posted on the law firm's web site.
> 
> The court required the parents' counsel to refile the complaint because they originally filed it electronically, not manually, and court rules don't permit a complaint to be electronically filed when one or more minors are plaintiffs.  Guardians have to be appointed, I suppose, before a complaint can be filed.
> 
> In any even, for those who want it, I've put a copy of the refiled complaint on a public share drive.


Thank you for that information, Jack. 
I did notice that the numbers didn't correspond, so that is helpful.


----------



## aaarcher86

jcb said:


> Some may have noticed that the numbered paragraphs in Disney's answer don't correspond to all the numbered paragraphs in the complaint posted on the law firm's web site.  The court required the parents' counsel to refile the complaint because they originally filed it electronically, not manually, and court rules don't permit a complaint to be electronically filed when one or more minors are plaintiffs.  Guardians have to be appointed, I suppose, before a complaint can be filed.  In any even, for those who want it, I've put a copy of the refiled complaint on a public share drive.



Thanks for the file. I wonder why the plaintiffs council wouldn't be aware of that.


----------



## SueM in MN

New blog about Disney's response is up on the wdwinfo.com site:
http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/07/13/disney-responds-to-disability-access-service-lawsuit/


----------



## CPT Tripss

SueM in MN said:


> New blog about Disney's response is up on the wdwinfo.com site:
> http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/07/13/disney-responds-to-disability-access-service-lawsuit/



What the heck do the parents want?  Shouldn't the lawsuit filing make that clear?  Most of us seem to think they wanted front of line access and repeat rides, yet the blogger ends with . . . 



> I have to say that it is a little hard for me to define the exact dispute here.  Clearly, the parents do not like DAS, alleging that Disney imposed DAS on them without considering their individual needs.  They also, clearly, want GAC back, at least GAC as it was apparently applied to them.  Disney, on the other hand, goes to some length to deny DAS changed Disneys practice of working individually with guests with disabilities to provide assistance that is responsive to their circumstances and given the strong statements about GAC abuse, it doesnt seem as if Disney is going to return to that program willingly.
> 
> I cant help but think that, if the parties could get past the sensationalized allegations and hurt feelings caused when Disney implemented DAS, they might come to an understanding that could resolve the parents concerns.  Disney says it has no obligation to provide unlimited, repeated, immediate access to its rides and attractions (and I doubt a court would order Disney to do so) but it isnt clear this is what the parents wants.  After all, there is no dispute that Disney has a long history of admirably accommodating (as the parents allege) guests with cognitive impairments.


----------



## SueM in MN

CPT Tripss said:


> What the heck do the parents want?  Shouldn't the lawsuit filing make that clear?  Most of us seem to think they wanted front of line access and repeat rides, yet the blogger ends with . . .


Reading each parent's part of the lawsuit, they go into various combinations of these (simplified by me) as things they needed which were provided by GAC, but not provided by DAS:
- can't wait
- can't approach an attraction and not ride 
- will exhibit a meltdown if not allowed to go on the attraction right away
- needs to ride multiple times in a row 
- if given a return time, may change his mind and need to ride something else right away

Again simplified by me, each person's part says not providing those things was discriminatory and then goes on to propose the remedy (quote from one of the points, but they are all pretty much the same):

"_Enjoining Defendant to cease the practices which are causing discrimination against Plaintiff on account of AL.' s disability; and Enjoining Defendant to reasonably modify its policies, practices, and procedures to afford Plaintiff with an opportunity to experience Disney's goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations; and Establishing Court-approved remedia_"

To me, that certainly looks like what they want is to change the things they think were discriminatory so that the child:
- can ride without waiting
- approach an attraction and ride 
- avoid a meltdown by being allowed to go on the attraction right away
- ride multiple times in a row 
- if change his mind, be able to ride something else right away

So, yes. I do think they are still wanting front of the line access and being able to loop at will. They are just not saying it directly, but putting everything together, it sounds very much like that is what they want.


----------



## OurBigTrip

I'm guessing that as part of discovery, Disney will also be interested in the experiences of plaintiffs that hadn't gone at the time of the suit but have gone since.


----------



## Wendydagny

Based on your list, Sue, I actually think there is merit in the last item-- the option to change your mind and ride something right away. On our last trip we had three instances in 6 days that we waited over an hour for a return time, only to find the ride down (twice at test track, once at mine train). We had no option to apply our wait time to another attraction, which was pretty frustrating.


----------



## Goddesstree

Parents want immediate, unrestricted access to attractions for their child because he/she will have a meltdown if not given these accommodations? What happens outside of WDW? Are these meltdowns dangerous in some way? I would think WDW could file against the parents if the meltdowns were in any way a danger to other guests, and the parents knowingly brought their child into that situation.


----------



## OurBigTrip

Wendydagny said:


> Based on your list, Sue, I actually think there is merit in the last item-- the option to change your mind and ride something right away. On our last trip we had three instances in 6 days that we waited over an hour for a return time, only to find the ride down (twice at test track, once at mine train). We had no option to apply our wait time to another attraction, which was pretty frustrating.



I agree 100% that if the ride is down after that long of a wait, a paper FP or re-admit should be issued.  Not just for DAS holders but for anyone. 

But I don't believe anything should be done if the DAS holder changes his or her mind about what to ride.


----------



## SteveMouse

Wendydagny said:


> Based on your list, Sue, I actually think there is merit in the last item-- the option to change your mind and ride something right away. On our last trip we had three instances in 6 days that we waited over an hour for a return time, only to find the ride down (twice at test track, once at mine train). We had no option to apply our wait time to another attraction, which was pretty frustrating.



In general, allowing a last-minute change would not be equal- someone not using a DAS waits in standby- if they change their mind, they can't apply the time they waited in standby to the next attraction. 

If, however, there was a ride closure, I think that a FP should be given- if I were in the standby line and it closed, I would know that the ride closed and could wait for something else OR maybe, if actually in line, get a FP.


----------



## Mrsjvb

Wendydagny said:


> Based on your list, Sue, I actually think there is merit in the last item-- the option to change your mind and ride something right away. On our last trip we had three instances in 6 days that we waited over an hour for a return time, only to find the ride down (twice at test track, once at mine train). We had no option to apply our wait time to another attraction, which was pretty frustrating.



sorry but I disagree with the notion that you should be allowed to change your mind' on a whim.

 if the ride is down, sure( and like someone else said.. for EVERYONE,not just GAS holders)  but because Junior suddenly decides he no longer wants to ride, or has an attack of the hesitates?    that is what the chicken exit is for and  you should not be unilaterally allowed to immediately get on a different ride just because you suddenly decide you don't wanna ride the one you have just spent the last 20 minute sin line for.

if Junior makes the CHOICE to not ride, then he should be required to accept the consequences of that choice.    anyone old/mature  enough to decide to not ride is old /mature enough to understand the ramifications.


----------



## SueM in MN

Regarding giving Fastpasses to guests if an attraction closes - talking to CMs, whether or not they can give Fastpasses for that attraction depends on whether they know what is wrong and how long it will take to get back up and running.

They are more likely to be able to give Fastpasses if they know the stop will be short. But, I've been told they may not know for a while if it will be a few minutes, a few hours or the rest of the day.


----------



## OurBigTrip

Mrsjvb said:


> if Junior makes the CHOICE to not ride, then he should be required to accept the consequences of that choice.    anyone old/mature  enough to decide to not ride is old /mature enough to understand the ramifications.



Let's all please keep this discussion nice so that it doesn't get shut down.

Having said that, I don't agree that just because a child changes his or her mind, they understand the consequences.  When my four year old changed her mind, she didn't understand that meant that the wait for something else would start over.  While I agree with you that no immediate access should be granted because a guest changed his mind, I don't agree that every person understands the consequences.

Aside from the basic unfairness of allowing immediate access after leaving one line to go to another, it would be a logistical nightmare, and much more work for attraction CMs.


----------



## OurBigTrip

SueM in MN said:


> Regarding giving Fastpasses to guests if an attraction closes - talking to CMs, whether or not they can give Fastpasses for that attraction depends on whether they know what is wrong and how long it will take to get back up and running.
> 
> They are more likely to be able to give Fastpasses if they know the stop will be short. But, I've been told they may not know for a while if it will be a few minutes, a few hours or the rest of the day.



Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Wendydagny

There are many reasons why someone with a DAS may "choose" not to ride. For example, we might choose to get a return time for a ride that requires a transfer. Only to have my daughter have unexpected medical events during that wait time that require she be hooked up to her ventilator or IV during her "off" time. In that case it sure would be nice if we could switch her wait time to something she could experience while hooked up to her medical equipment. I'm not going to sue Disney or say that's required, but it's frustrating that there is a lack of flexibility for kids whose medical situations sometimes require it.


----------



## OurBigTrip

Wendydagny said:


> There are many reasons why someone with a DAS may "choose" not to ride. For example, we might choose to get a return time for a ride that requires a transfer. Only to have my daughter have unexpected medical events during that wait time that require she be hooked up to her ventilator or IV during her "off" time. In that case it sure would be nice if we could switch her wait time to something she could experience while hooked up to her medical equipment. I'm not going to sue Disney or say that's required, but it's frustrating that there is a lack of flexibility for kids whose medical situations sometimes require it.



You can switch her wait time, but someone will have to go to the ride (in WDW) or the kiosk (DL) to have it done.


----------



## Wendydagny

And honestly what I think would have been a reasonable solution in our case for the down rides would be for the CM to be able to somehow mark the card so that we could then start another return time, but be able to come back to use our unavailable return time later that day or the next day. 

They were actively passing out FP to guests evacuating the lines in our cases. Also anyone using FP+ obviously for a replacement automatically.


----------



## Wendydagny

OurBigTrip said:


> You can switch her wait time, but someone will have to go to the ride (in WDW) or the kiosk (DL) to have it done.



We were explicitly not given this option. We asked.


----------



## SueM in MN

OurBigTrip said:


> Let's all please keep this discussion nice so that it doesn't get shut down.
> 
> Having said that, I don't agree that just because a child changes his or her mind, they understand the consequences.  When my four year old changed her mind, she didn't understand that meant that the wait for something else would start over.  While I agree with you that no immediate access should be granted because a guest changed his mind, I don't agree that every person understands the consequences.
> 
> Aside from the basic unfairness of allowing immediate access after leaving one line to go to another, it would be a logistical nightmare, and much more work for attraction CMs.



Yes - keep it nice and listen & respond respectfully.


----------



## OurBigTrip

Wendydagny said:


> We were explicitly not given this option. We asked.



They can't stop you from getting another wait time for a different attraction, but they aren't going to allow you to count the time you've already waited. If you received a FP (and I apologize if I misunderstood), I'm not sure what the problem was.

I can't count the number of times I've had to leave lines after a long wait because one of the kids needed to use the restroom, but I wouldn't expect for that waiting time to be applied to the wait at a different ride.


----------



## Wendydagny

Right I know how the system works. We were not given a fast pass because the line broke down before we were actively in line. When we returned at the appropriate times we found the ride down and were not allowed to apply wait time elsewhere or given a fastpass. 



OurBigTrip said:


> They can't stop you from getting another wait time for a different attraction, but they aren't going to allow you to count the time you've already waited. If you received a FP (and I apologize if I misunderstood), I'm not sure what the problem was.
> 
> I can't count the number of times I've had to leave lines after a long wait because one of the kids needed to use the restroom, but I wouldn't expect for that waiting time to be applied to the wait at a different ride.


----------



## OurBigTrip

Wendydagny said:


> Right I know how the system works. We were not given a fast pass because the line broke down before we were actively in line. When we returned at the appropriate times we found the ride down and were not allowed to apply wait time elsewhere or given a fastpass.



Ah got it, sorry for misunderstanding. I agree, in that case you should have received a FP IMO, because had you been in the actual line, you would have received one. 

But I don't agree anything additional should be done absent a ride breakdown.


----------



## SteveMouse

Wendydagny said:


> Right I know how the system works. We were not given a fast pass because the line broke down before we were actively in line. When we returned at the appropriate times we found the ride down and were not allowed to apply wait time elsewhere or given a fastpass.



And it was for ONLY this situation- where CMs give out FPs to those ALREADY in the standby line that I think a FP should be then for someone with a DAS card wait time for that ride (and the wait time on the DAS card gets a line through it, paralleling the impact of ride closure).


----------



## infopurposesonly

Wendydagny said:


> There are many reasons why someone with a DAS may "choose" not to ride. For example, we might choose to get a return time for a ride that requires a transfer. Only to have my daughter have unexpected medical events during that wait time that require she be hooked up to her ventilator or IV during her "off" time. In that case it sure would be nice if we could switch her wait time to something she could experience while hooked up to her medical equipment. I'm not going to sue Disney or say that's required, but it's frustrating that there is a lack of flexibility for kids whose medical situations sometimes require it.



We had something similar happen with a medical problem.  Once my daughter was OK, but not well enough to go back to the attraction we left, we asked if the time we had waited could be applied to another attraction.  We were told no, so that's when I pulled out one of those yellow "anytime" passes.  I know some people here really don't like that at all, but this kind of situation  was part of the reason they were issued to us, and Disney acknowledges they give them in addition to the DAS.  Like you, I wouldn't sue Disney, and I don't think it should be required.  However, if they don't offer some flexibility, we just don't go anymore.  So far, for the most part I feel they have worked to keep our business.  It was not an easy vacation, but they did work with us.


----------



## aaarcher86

Wendydagny said:


> There are many reasons why someone with a DAS may "choose" not to ride. For example, we might choose to get a return time for a ride that requires a transfer. Only to have my daughter have unexpected medical events during that wait time that require she be hooked up to her ventilator or IV during her "off" time. In that case it sure would be nice if we could switch her wait time to something she could experience while hooked up to her medical equipment. I'm not going to sue Disney or say that's required, but it's frustrating that there is a lack of flexibility for kids whose medical situations sometimes require it.



I honestly think this is what's hard about it. There ARE many reasons why being able to transfer wait times would be helpful. And I think that it would end up causing difficulties for the CMs and possibly even the system overall. 

You end up running into the territory of 'doing it for one reason you need to do it for all.' If they do it because a child needs to be hooked up to equipment, they wouldn't be able to say no to someone with autism who just 'changes their mind' because both are a part of their disability. 

I think the easiest way to look at the system is that it means to help guests get the same experience as a non disabled guest. So if the answer to 'can a non disabled guest do that' is 'no' then the DAS system shouldn't either. I think there's a lot of additions that would be nice to have or change, but it doesn't mean they need to - and I think that's the difference between a few of these plaintiffs. They think it needs to be done.


----------



## Wendydagny

aaarcher86 said:


> You end up running into the territory of 'doing it for one reason you need to do it for all.' If they do it because a child needs to be hooked up to equipment, they wouldn't be able to say no to someone with autism who just 'changes their mind' because both are a part of their disability.



I realize I run the risk of being offensive here and getting into trouble, but there is a vast difference between needing to be hooked up to a ventilator and the need for flexibility for autism. The reasons to be acutely attached to a ventilator are immediately life threatening if ignored. The desires of a child with autism or not. The needs of a child touring the park who requires an ICU level of medical care on a daily basis are NOT the same as the needs of every other tourist with a disability. And to say that they are is actually pretty hurtful.

That doesn't mean we can't make it work or that we are not happy with the assistance that Disney provides to us, or that we will stop bringing our daughter back.  I know that the current policy is to work individually with each guest's needs, but in reality the only option offered is return times with the DAS. I have never complained to Disney and have no intentions to do so, as I feel like they do more than most places where we can't even go at all.  I do not demand more, but it would be nice if someone could recognize that there really are different needs for different guests and the DAS, while helpful, does not even the playing field for all cases. 



aaarcher86 said:


> think the easiest way to look at the system is that it means to help guests get the same experience as a non disabled guest. So if the answer to 'can a non disabled guest do that' is 'no' then the DAS system shouldn't either. I think there's a lot of additions that would be nice to have or change, but it doesn't mean they need to - and I think that's the difference between a few of these plaintiffs. They think it needs to be done.



If my daughter could have the same experience on any single day as a non-disabled guest then I would be ecstatic. Honestly I am ecstatic every day that she gets to have experiences at all. My daughter will never have a single day in her life that is "equal" to a non-disabled guest, and honestly will never have a day that is "equal" to most disabled guests.  It really stings that so many people think a card with return times would provide that. If only it were that simple.


----------



## lanejudy

Wendydagny said:


> ... If my daughter could have the same experience on any single day as a non-disabled guest then I would be ecstatic. Honestly I am ecstatic every day that she gets to have experiences at all. My daughter will never have a single day in her life that is "equal" to a non-disabled guest, and honestly will never have a day that is "equal" to most disabled guests.  It really stings that so many people think a card with return times would provide that. If only it were that simple.



I'm so very sorry your daughter has such challenges.  I'm sure life in general is very different and very challenging for both her individually and your family as whole.  As a mom, I understand your desire for your child to have just one "normal" day  

Unfortunately, there is no way to provide an "equal experience" regardless of disability or not.  Any 2 people might have very different experiences at any given attraction -- my husband loves the tea cups and roller coasters, both types of rides make me sick to my stomach.  There's no way to equalize that experience.  Similarly, ADA legislation recognizes and specifically states that even when establishments make reasonable accommodations for equal access, that the experience may not be equivalent.  

I do agree, though, that if someone has a DAS return-time and arrives to find the ride closed, there should be a FP or something offered so the party can continue their day and get another return time for another ride just as they would if the ride had been available.  Especially if such was offered to those standing in line at the time it broke down.  The DAS is the equivalent to standing in line, and as such, I think I would have complained at Guest Relations if I was denied whatever was offered to standby guests in line at the same time.


----------



## aaarcher86

Wendydagny said:


> I realize I run the risk of being offensive here and getting into trouble, but there is a vast difference between needing to be hooked up to a ventilator and the need for flexibility for autism. The reasons to be acutely attached to a ventilator are immediately life threatening if ignored. The desires of a child with autism or not. The needs of a child touring the park who requires an ICU level of medical care on a daily basis are NOT the same as the needs of every other tourist with a disability. And to say that they are is actually pretty hurtful.



  My intention wasn't to quantify your daughters disability or compare it to autism. I simply used autism as an example, because it's what I'm familiar with.  My point was that if they add the ability to do something to the DAS system that anyone with an issue, regardless of disability, would be able to utilize it. There's no way for Disney to say 'people with medical equipment issues can do this but someone else using the DAS can't.' And because of THAT I think it wouldn't too difficult to implement into the DAS itself.  I'm sure you can see that getting abused. I can already see someone waiting for 45 minutes and going to change to ride that has a 20 minute wait an demanding they be allowed 2 rides or something to makeup the time difference.    



Wendydagny said:


> If my daughter could have the same experience on any single day as a non-disabled guest then I would be ecstatic. Honestly I am ecstatic every day that she gets to have experiences at all. My daughter will never have a single day in her life that is "equal" to a non-disabled guest, and honestly will never have a day that is "equal" to most disabled guests.  It really stings that so many people think a card with return times would provide that. If only it were that simple.



   I don't want to sound unintentionally crass, but everyone one of us would like our children to be 'normal.' No one wishes challenges and disabilities on their children. We all feel that way. But I personally abhor when people use this in a discussion like this because there's no place for it. Our situations aren't changing. We are discussing accommodations. Using this reasons feels like an emotional strike to make people feel bad for disagreeing with you (general you).  Im sure that wasn't your intention, but it's definitely the way this type of reasoning is used regularly. 

 I don't think anyone thinks a card with return times is going to give your child a normal life or the ability to enjoy the parks as like a non disabled guest entirely. But that the intent of the ADA - equal access. Not equal enjoyment.


----------



## Wendydagny

lanejudy said:


> I'm so very sorry your daughter has such challenges.  I'm sure life in general is very different and very challenging for both her individually and your family as whole.  As a mom, I understand your desire for your child to have just one "normal" day
> 
> Unfortunately, there is no way to provide an "equal experience" regardless of disability or not.  Any 2 people might have very different experiences at any given attraction -- my husband loves the tea cups and roller coasters, both types of rides make me sick to my stomach.  There's no way to equalize that experience.  Similarly, ADA legislation recognizes and specifically states that even when establishments make reasonable accommodations for equal access, that the experience may not be equivalent.
> 
> I do agree, though, that if someone has a DAS return-time and arrives to find the ride closed, there should be a FP or something offered so the party can continue their day and get another return time for another ride just as they would if the ride had been available.  Especially if such was offered to those standing in line at the time it broke down.  The DAS is the equivalent to standing in line, and as such, I think I would have complained at Guest Relations if I was denied whatever was offered to standby guests in line at the same time.



Right, I agree that there is no way for things to be equal. I am not expecting Disney to provide equality. I am happy that they give her the experiences she does have with them. 

I just get very bothered by the constant line here that the DAS is giving my daughter an equivalent experience, when it simply does not (or in many specific instances does not even provide equal access, but I will not start listing stuff as it serves no purpose). It stings every time I read it, and I could not read it another time without saying something.


----------



## aaarcher86

Wendydagny said:


> Right, I agree that there is no way for things to be equal. I am not expecting Disney to provide equality. I am happy that they give her the experiences she does have with them.  I just get very bothered by the constant line here that the DAS is giving my daughter an equivalent experience, when it simply does not (or in many specific instances does not even provide equal access, but I will not start listing stuff as it serves no purpose). It stings every time I read it, and I could not read it another time without saying something.



My use of the word experience may not have been the best, but I'm also not really used to it being taken so literally.  I was referring to the ability to access rides, shows, etc. the park 'experience' as a whole. Not necessarily the enjoyment experience, etc. Just overall, if a non disabled guest does roughly 3 rides in 2 hours a disabled guest should have the ability to do that as well.

ETA:  I apologize if it seemed offensive.  I understand the sensitivity of topics like this, especially when it involves our loved ones.


----------



## Coonhound

Wendydagny said:


> I realize I run the risk of being offensive here and getting into trouble, but there is a vast difference between needing to be hooked up to a ventilator and the need for flexibility for autism. The reasons to be acutely attached to a ventilator are immediately life threatening if ignored. The desires of a child with autism or not. The needs of a child touring the park who requires an ICU level of medical care on a daily basis are NOT the same as the needs of every other tourist with a disability. And to say that they are is actually pretty hurtful.
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't make it work or that we are not happy with the assistance that Disney provides to us, or that we will stop bringing our daughter back.  I know that the current policy is to work individually with each guest's needs, but in reality the only option offered is return times with the DAS. I have never complained to Disney and have no intentions to do so, as I feel like they do more than most places where we can't even go at all.  I do not demand more, but it would be nice if someone could recognize that there really are different needs for different guests and the DAS, while helpful, does not even the playing field for all cases.
> 
> 
> 
> If my daughter could have the same experience on any single day as a non-disabled guest then I would be ecstatic. Honestly I am ecstatic every day that she gets to have experiences at all. My daughter will never have a single day in her life that is "equal" to a non-disabled guest, and honestly will never have a day that is "equal" to most disabled guests.  It really stings that so many people think a card with return times would provide that. If only it were that simple.



I agree with some other posters that when people begin to talk about how hard their lives are and how no accommodation by Disney can truly make their experience equal.... Your experience at Disney won't be equal because it can't be equal....and that is the cause of the disability itself, there is nothing Disney can do to make your park experience equal to that of a non-disabled guest. 
When we start getting into the emotional "our lives are so hard, giving us the DAS won't make us have an equal experience", it makes the discussion about something it doesn't need to be about. 
No one expects that the *experience* will be equal....what we are talking about is that your *access* to rides is equal. Even with the DAS you are not going to experience the parks in a way equal to "regular" guests, but that is the nature of the disability and *the DAS is not meant to make up for hardships caused by disability, the DAS is only meant to allow you to access rides*


----------



## Wendydagny

I am in no way trying  to make people feel bad. I am glad though that you are still at the phase when you are hoping for normal. There is a point that you reach as a parent when you are no longer hoping for normal, and I pray that you don't ever get there. I am not saying that to evoke sympathy, just to make you maybe see that sometimes the words and attitudes here can be hurtful when you are reading from that perspective. Maybe I just come from a place that makes my feelings easily hurt, as well. I'll give you that.

I am not arguing about equivalent enjoyment. If so my kid has all your kiddos beat! 

I am saying that flat out with some disabilities, having DAS return times does not make attraction/hr ratio equal to typical guests or even others with disabilities. Especially when you are dealing with severe medical issues that are unpredictable. It would be nice if there really were some individualization of accommodations as Disney claims to have. I don't think they have to. But I think it's fair to say that it would be nice. Saying it would be nice doesn't mean you should sue or demand things from guest relations. In the real world, if you see someone with a wheelchair full of medical equipment you usually let them get on the elevator first and maybe offer assistance. I think that's ok. I think it's ok to not launch into an argument with them about how they need to wait their fair turn. I'm not sure why when Disney enters the equation, everyone forgets the way they would act in the real world.


----------



## aaarcher86

Wendydagny said:


> I am in no way trying  to make people feel bad. I am glad though that you are still at the phase when you are hoping for normal. There is a point that you reach as a parent when you are no longer hoping for normal, and I pray that you don't ever get there. I am not saying that to evoke sympathy, just to make you maybe see that sometimes the words and attitudes here can be hurtful when you are reading from that perspective. Maybe I just come from a place that makes my feelings easily hurt, as well. I'll give you that.  I am not arguing about equivalent enjoyment. If so my kid has all your kiddos beat!   I am saying that flat out with some disabilities, having DAS return times does not make attraction/hr ratio equal to typical guests or even others with disabilities. Especially when you are dealing with severe medical issues that are unpredictable. It would be nice if there really were some individualization of accommodations as Disney claims to have. I don't think they have to. But I think it's fair to say that it would be nice. Saying it would be nice doesn't mean you should sue or demand things from guest relations. In the real world, if you see someone with a wheelchair full of medical equipment you usually let them get on the elevator first and maybe offer assistance. I think that's ok. I think it's ok to not launch into an argument with them about how they need to wait their fair turn. I'm not sure why when Disney enters the equation, everyone forgets the way they would act in the real world.



I can agree with that.  And I think for the most part, in medical emergencies the CMs do try to offer some kind of assistance most of the time. The situation you described ( I think it was you, with the line closure) I think everyone can agree should have gotten you a FP. I don't necessarily think the whole system itself should be incorporated into that as I think flexibility wise, it mostly is, given that you can return any time after the wait. 

I don't necessarily think the elevator scenario is a great analogy.  I think most people on these forums would be happy to let someone ahead of them that was struggling with a disability, the problem is that it's not just one person. For the elevator, I'd do,exactly as you described. Would I do it 10x before finally getting in the elevator myself? 

I also think on the flip side there is something about Disney that makes people think the world works differently there. The same person you described in the elevator might wait their turn in line at the grocery but expect not to at Disney for some reason.


----------



## lanejudy

aaarcher86 said:


> My use of the word experience may not have been the best, but I'm also not really used to it being taken so literally.  ... I understand the sensitivity of topics like this, especially when it involves our loved ones.





Wendydagny said:


> ... sometimes the words and attitudes here can be hurtful when you are reading from that perspective. Maybe I just come from a place that makes my feelings easily hurt, as well. ...



I don't believe any disrespect was intended.  This is a good reminder for all of us to try and choose our words carefully when posting about such sensitive topics as disabilities, and also to keep in mind that another poster may not have intended how one firsts interpret something.  We come from various cultures and countries and regions within a country; various words may have different meanings or even multiple meanings that could be miscontrued in writing/reading versus live conversation.  

Let's continue discussion of the actual lawsuit and response...



SueM in MN said:


> Yes - keep it nice and listen & respond respectfully.


----------



## asta

I hope this is within the terms of this discussion but a concern was expressed about happens when you return with your DAS pass and a ride has temporarily shut down. When this happened with a normal FP I thought when the ride reopened the CMs would honor that FP no matter what the return time. I would think that the DAS pass would be the same. I'm probably missing something but that seems like a simple solution.


----------



## StitchesGr8Fan

If the plaintiffs are paying this lawyer, then they are being ripped off. What the lawyer filed reads like it was written by a middle-schooler who googled law terms. It rambles on with no point. The a Disney lawyers are going to annihilate their lawyer. All these parents have done is cause people to roll their eyes and think "there is another entitled parent who thinks the world revolves around their autistic child." It gives all of the great parents who do truly advocate for their children a bad name. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should also be very afraid for their kids after they (the parents) are gone, because the world isn't going to cater to them like their parents do. 

The biggest issue for me is this - why do people hold Disney to such high (almost impossible) standards, but they don't hold other places to the same standards? Our local zoos, parks, movie theaters, etc don't do nearly as much as Disney, but I don't see people suing them so that their kid doesn't have to wait in line.


----------



## lanejudy

asta said:


> I hope this is within the terms of this discussion but a concern was expressed about happens when you return with your DAS pass and a ride has temporarily shut down. When this happened with a normal FP I thought when the ride reopened the CMs would honor that FP no matter what the return time. I would think that the DAS pass would be the same. I'm probably missing something but that seems like a simple solution.



You are correct in how a FP was handled in the past if the ride closed temporarily.  This probably remains true in DL/DCA as well.

However, now with FP+ at WDW, I believe if a ride has a closure, those impacted are sent a message through MDE to reschedule (possibly giving an extra "free" FP+ though reports of that are not consistent).

Agree that the DAS should be handled similarly, but now with no paper FP and the restriction to one DAS return time, it would need to be a paper FP of sorts.


----------



## Mrsjvb

if Disney tried to please everyone, they'd end up pleasing no one.

these is no way they can  be reasonably expected to  cater to every single individual's needs.


sure DAS does not work  for everyone.   for some people it is better than nothing.   for others it's working  perfectly fine, and for others it will  mean that Disney can no longer be an enjoyable place where you can accomplish anything


Perception is everything.  Guest A gets  to loop because  not allowing it woudl cause screaming meltdowns  that will be danger to Guest A and  everyone around him.

 Guest B see's that Guest A gets to stay in the ride vehicle and gets angry as HE has  to get out of his and is not allowed to stay too.   CM will not and cannot breach Guest A's privacy by blabbing that  they have a special GAS that  lets them loop. .  all Guest B sees is a PERCEIVED  Unfairness in way Guest A is being treated.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

asta said:


> I hope this is within the terms of this discussion but a concern was expressed about happens when you return with your DAS pass and a ride has temporarily shut down. When this happened with a normal FP I thought when the ride reopened the CMs would honor that FP no matter what the return time. I would think that the DAS pass would be the same. I'm probably missing something but that seems like a simple solution.



I think the problem comes in that with a DAS return time, you can't get another time until you either get the down attraction time crossed off or you ride the attraction.  

For example, say you have a wait time of 40 minutes to ride IASW and can ride it beginning 10:20am.  You get there at say 10:30am and discover the ride has gone down.  You waited the 40 minutes for IASW.  You currently have to get that return time crossed off your DAS card and decide what attraction you want to go on and get a return time for that attraction.  Still using the same example, you get a return time for Peter Pan for 50 minutes later.  You can't ride Peter Pan until 11:10am.  That means you have been waiting to ride an attraction since 9:40am which is 1.5 hours of waiting.  Say those individuals who were in line at 10:10am when IASW went down and they were given a FP to another attraction, they cut at least an hour off of the time it took them to ride an alternative attraction.  Hope that makes sense - it is drop dead week at work with the end of the FY on Friday so my brain isn't functioning too well.  

I agree that the DAS card holder and their party should also receive a FP like everyone else.


----------



## OurBigTrip

StitchesGr8Fan said:


> If the plaintiffs are paying this lawyer, then they are being ripped off. What the lawyer filed reads like it was written by a middle-schooler who googled law terms. It rambles on with no point.



I agree 100%.  The plaintiffs' filing is very unprofessional and overly emotional, IMO.


----------



## SMD

Mrsjvb said:


> if Disney tried to please everyone, they'd end up pleasing no one.
> 
> these is no way they can  be reasonably expected to  cater to every single individual's needs.
> 
> 
> sure DAS does not work  for everyone.   for some people it is better than nothing.   for others it's working  perfectly fine, and for others it will  mean that Disney can no longer be an enjoyable place where you can accomplish anything
> 
> 
> Perception is everything.  Guest A gets  to loop because  not allowing it woudl cause screaming meltdowns  that will be danger to Guest A and  everyone around him.
> 
> Guest B see's that Guest A gets to stay in the ride vehicle and gets angry as HE has  to get out of his and is not allowed to stay too.   CM will not and cannot breach Guest A's privacy by blabbing that  they have a special GAS that  lets them loop. .  all Guest B sees is a PERCEIVED  Unfairness in way Guest A is being treated.



I think the idea that DAS is a "one size fits all" accommodation is one of the issues they're litigating. Though it is kind of lost in all of the hyperbole. Of course, other accommodations are offered based on need, the ability to avoid stairs, or seating options for guests with visual impairments. It just seems like in this case, all the plaintiffs are claiming a very similar issue.

Also, I don't think that immediate and repeat access to rides is a perceived unfairness at all. If the standby line is 40 minutes, how many times should a single party be allowed to ride while standby guests wait those 40 minutes. 10 times? The standby line wouldn't remain at 40 minutes, if that were the case.


----------



## wilkeliza

When I was trained on DAS we were told that we could issue a new time if the return time from the previous attractiom had lapsed. It didnt have to be crossed out or used.

Also if you are in the standby line and an attraction goes down they don't often give fastpasses. Only those in the boarding area or fastpass+ line are given return passes. I only know this because I waited 50 minutes in the TSMM queue just for it to close. We asked about fastpasses since we had already waited so long. We were specifically told only those who had made it past the merge or who had fastpasses that were marked as used but were not would recieve a return pass.


----------



## aaarcher86

SMD said:


> I think the idea that DAS is a "one size fits all" accommodation is one of the issues they're litigating. Though it is kind of lost in all of the hyperbole. Of course, other accommodations are offered based on need, the ability to avoid stairs, or seating options for guests with visual impairments. It just seems like in this case, all the plaintiffs are claiming a very similar issue.  Also, I don't think that immediate and repeat access to rides is a perceived unfairness at all. If the standby line is 40 minutes, how many times should a single party be allowed to ride while standby guests wait those 40 minutes. 10 times? The standby line wouldn't remain at 40 minutes, if that were the case.



I do think that's something the plaintiffs are saying, but I also think that the things they want accommodated that aren't met with the 'one size fits all' are not things Disney needs to accommodate. 

I think a lot of the parents are using the 'one size does not fit all' perspective because that's the idea behind educational accommodations. As far as businesses and what they have to do, they're essentially taking care of every issue in regards to accommodation except for the physical wait time. 

IMO, it's as unrealistic to expect to go to Disney and not have a wait as it is to go to a farm and not experience dust. They just go hand and hand.


----------



## StitchesGr8Fan

aaarcher86 said:


> I think a lot of the parents are using the 'one size does not fit all' perspective because that's the idea behind educational accommodations. As far as businesses and what they have to do, they're essentially taking care of every issue in regards to accommodation except for the physical wait time.



Exactly. Going to Disney is an OPTIONAL vacation. It's not like providing an education, which is mandatory, and teaches skills required for life. Disney isn't keeping a disabled person from being able to function in life to their fullest potential. 

To expect Disney to provide a personalized experience for each person with a disability is not feasible. This isn't programming a name in to a database so Mickey knows your name. This is hundreds of thousands of people a year who each have specific needs that have to be explained to another human.


----------



## SteveMouse

StitchesGr8Fan said:


> Exactly. Going to Disney is an OPTIONAL vacation. It's not like providing an education, which is mandatory, and teaches skills required for life. Disney isn't keeping a disabled person from being able to function in life to their fullest potential.  To expect Disney to provide a personalized experience for each person with a disability is not feasible. This isn't programming a name in to a database so Mickey knows your name. This is hundreds of thousands of people a year who each have specific needs that have to be explained to another human.



On a more fundamental note, education access has legislation other than the ADA which applies to program services (and to some extent physical components).


----------



## KathyRN137

Yes, a special-needs family trip to Disney is certainly _optional,_ just as any vacation is to any family. Reasonable accommodations are provided to ensure that special-needs families continue to have this option available to them -- just like any other family. It is a valid quality of life issue.

It appears that all the fighting, arguing and disagreement centers on that one very subjective word: _reasonable._ What seems reasonable to one person may, very naturally, appear to be unreasonable to another based upon their culture, value systems and individual life experiences.

It's unfortunate that the complaint was written the way it was; the language has been extremely divisive. It has only served to validate that ableism and egocentrism are alive and well in our society. 


*Kathy*


----------



## ttintagel

A lot of what's alleged in the lawsuit won't hold water, but there is still a lot more Disney really should be doing to make an equal experience for guests with disabilities. Unfortunately, if this suit goes badly, which it looks like it will, then there's not much chance that the legitimate problems with the new system will get addressed.


----------



## OurBigTrip

KathyRN137 said:


> Yes, a special-needs family trip to Disney is certainly _optional,_ just as any vacation is to any family. Reasonable accommodations are provided to ensure that special-needs families continue to have this option available to them -- just like any other family. It is a valid quality of life issue.
> 
> It appears that all the fighting, arguing and disagreement centers on that one very subjective word: _reasonable._ What seems reasonable to one person may, very naturally, appear to be unreasonable to another based upon their culture, value systems and individual life experiences.
> 
> It's unfortunate that the complaint was written the way it was; the language has been extremely divisive. It has only served to validate that ableism and egocentrism are alive and well in our society.
> 
> 
> *Kathy*



You hit the nail on the head when you stated that the debate centers around the word "reasonable".  

I would add that the language of the complaint also served to validate that an extreme sense of entitlement is alive and well among _some _members of the disabled community, specifically, the plaintiffs in the law suit and those that support the lawsuit.


----------



## OurBigTrip

ttintagel said:


> A lot of what's alleged in the lawsuit won't hold water, but there is still a lot more Disney really should be doing to make an equal experience for guests with disabilities. Unfortunately, if this suit goes badly, which it looks like it will, then there's not much chance that the legitimate problems with the new system will get addressed.



Disney isn't required to provide an equal experience, they are required to provide equal access, which the DAS provides.  It may not be the access that the plaintiffs want or are used to under the GAC,  but it is equal.


----------



## ttintagel

OurBigTrip said:


> Disney isn't required to provide an equal experience, they are required to provide equal access, which the DAS provides.  It may not be the access that the plaintiffs want or are used to under the GAC,  but it is equal.



Right; I guess I phrased that clumsily.


----------



## Mrsjvb

ttintagel said:


> A lot of what's alleged in the lawsuit won't hold water, but there is still a lot more Disney really should be doing to make an equal experience for guests with disabilities. Unfortunately, if this suit goes badly, which it looks like it will, then there's not much chance that the legitimate problems with the new system will get addressed.



it is not about an equal experience..it's about equal ACCESS.

NO ONE'S experience will equal anyone else's

I'd love to 'experience' the fireworks show  on par with anyone else.   will never happen due to my issues, ( which are not sensory in  nature)

there is no sane/reasonable accommodation that Disney can make that would allow me to do so.  but they do let me sit in the WC accessible areas which is all the law requires.


----------



## ttintagel

Mrsjvb said:


> it is not about an equal experience..it's about equal ACCESS.
> 
> NO ONE'S experience will equal anyone else's
> 
> I'd love to 'experience' the fireworks show  on par with anyone else.   will never happen due to my issues, ( which are not sensory in  nature)
> 
> there is no sane/reasonable accommodation that Disney can make that would allow me to do so.  but they do let me sit in the WC accessible areas which is all the law requires.



Yes, as I said above, I phrased that clumsily. In my mind, the experience was equal access, but it came out as equal experience.


----------



## OurBigTrip

ttintagel said:


> Yes, as I said above, I phrased that clumsily. In my mind, the experience was equal access, but it came out as equal experience.



I do that all the time!


----------



## jcb

Just from a legal standpoint (because I have only very limited practical experience with the issue), Disney's obligation is to make reasonable modifications that will provide disabled guests with the “full and equal enjoyment” given to non-disabled guests. DOJ regulations explain that full and equal enjoyment means “the right to participate and to have an equal opportunity to obtain the same results as others to the extent possible with such accommodations as may be required by the Act and these regulations. It does not mean that an individual with a disability must achieve an identical result or level of achievement as persons without a disability.” 

 So (and this is really my point) while I agree one issue is what is a "reasonable modification," another issue may very well be what is the "full and equal enjoyment" as it relates to visiting one of the Disney theme parks.  How the court defines the "enjoyment" issue will likely play a large role in what modification is reasonable.


----------



## OurBigTrip

jcb said:


> Just from a legal standpoint (because I have only very limited practical experience with the issue), Disney's obligation is to make reasonable modifications that will provide disabled guests with the full and equal enjoyment given to non-disabled guests. DOJ regulations explain that full and equal enjoyment means the right to participate *and to have an equal opportunity to obtain the same results as others to the extent possible* with such accommodations as may be required by the Act and these regulations. It does not mean that an individual with a disability must achieve an identical result or level of achievement as persons without a disability.
> 
> So (and this is really my point) while I agree one issue is what is a "reasonable modification," another issue may very well be what is the "full and equal enjoyment" as it relates to visiting one of the Disney theme parks.  How the court defines the "enjoyment" issue will likely play a large role in what modification is reasonable.



The bolded part says it all - the equal opportunity to obtain the same results as others.

The DAS provides that.


----------



## aaarcher86

ttintagel said:


> A lot of what's alleged in the lawsuit won't hold water, but there is still a lot more Disney really should be doing to make an equal experience for guests with disabilities. Unfortunately, if this suit goes badly, which it looks like it will, then there's not much chance that the legitimate problems with the new system will get addressed.



Such as? I don't see Disney's system differing much from what other parks have in place.


----------



## aaarcher86

KathyRN137 said:


> Yes, a special-needs family trip to Disney is certainly optional, just as any vacation is to any family. Reasonable accommodations are provided to ensure that special-needs families continue to have this option available to them -- just like any other family. It is a valid quality of life issue.  It appears that all the fighting, arguing and disagreement centers on that one very subjective word: reasonable. What seems reasonable to one person may, very naturally, appear to be unreasonable to another based upon their culture, value systems and individual life experiences.  It's unfortunate that the complaint was written the way it was; the language has been extremely divisive. It has only served to validate that ableism and egocentrism are alive and well in our society.  Kathy



I think it's safe to say 'reasonable accommodations' end when they start to infringe on other people.


----------



## BillSears

aaarcher86 said:


> I think it's safe to say 'reasonable accommodations' end when they start to infringe on other people.



Well that only works when everyone is reasonable.  Having a sign language interpreter off to the side of a show is reasonable.  But some people might complain that the movement is distracting them and therefore no signing should be allowed.

Infringing on other people in small ways would probably be reasonable.


----------



## aaarcher86

BillSears said:


> Well that only works when everyone is reasonable.  Having a sign language interpreter off to the side of a show is reasonable.  But some people might complain that the movement is distracting them and therefore no signing should be allowed.  Infringing on other people in small ways would probably be reasonable.



I don't think that's a valid complaint. The interpreter doesn't affect the actual show for the person not using them. If guests are given instant FP access, it affects the actual wait for other guests. A guest perceiving the infringement doesn't mean it's quantifiably happening.


----------



## BillSears

aaarcher86 said:


> I don't think that's a valid complaint. The interpreter doesn't affect the actual show for the person not using them. If guests are given instant FP access, it affects the actual wait for other guests. A guest perceiving the infringement doesn't mean it's quantifiably happening.



I agree that the infringement of many guests receiving instant FPs would be noticeable.  The point I was making is that you shouldn't claim any infringement is automatically wrong.

How's this then, setting aside certain spots along the parade route is an infringement on others.  They might want to be in that spot  because other spots they like have been filled.  While waiting for a parade I see many people told that the spaces are reserved for wheelchair users and almost always the spaces do fill up before the parade starts.  But it is infringing on their ability to sit in an open spot when they were there before the wheelchair user.

And I do sometimes get distracted by the signing.  It's not something I would want to have taken away but the show is more immersive for me without it.


----------



## aaarcher86

BillSears said:


> I agree that the infringement of many guests receiving instant FPs would be noticeable.  The point I was making is that you shouldn't claim any infringement is automatically wrong.  How's this then, setting aside certain spots along the parade route is an infringement on others.  They might want to be in that spot  because other spots they like have been filled.  While waiting for a parade I see many people told that the spaces are reserved for wheelchair users and almost always the spaces do fill up before the parade starts.  But it is infringing on their ability to sit in an open spot when they were there before the wheelchair user.  And I do sometimes get distracted by the signing.  It's not something I would want to have taken away but the show is more immersive for me without it.



The parade line doesn't work either.  If 1/10 of the parade route is WC reserved the non disabled has 9/10 at their disposal. Spots being filled has nothing to do with the handicap spot. There's no direct effect on the non disabled guest. Mthe obligation isn't to provide the seat the guest wants, just a seat. 

Just like having a handicap spot in the movie theater doesn't take away from the movie for other patrons.


----------



## BillSears

aaarcher86 said:


> The parade line doesn't work either.  If 1/10 of the parade route is WC reserved the non disabled has 9/10 at their disposal. Spots being filled has nothing to do with the handicap spot. There's no direct effect on the non disabled guest. Mthe obligation isn't to provide the seat the guest wants, just a seat.
> 
> Just like having a handicap spot in the movie theater doesn't take away from the movie for other patrons.



But the quest who is there in front of the reserved wheelchair spot now has to spend time to go find another spot.  I've taken time away from them just like extra FPs take time away from others in line.


----------



## SteveMouse

aaarcher86 said:


> The parade line doesn't work either....



Not to mention, of course, that it's kind if hard to see the parade (access) from a seated position when behind people who are standing. 

Almost always, for Illuminations @Epcot, I actively encourage  parents with kids to let their children sit in front of my ECV or wheelchair for a better view. Since the kids are shorter than my head, everybody wins.


----------



## aaarcher86

BillSears said:


> But the quest who is there in front of the reserved wheelchair spot now has to spend time to go find another spot.  I've taken time away from them just like extra FPs take time away from others in line.



What?

 I'm not completely familiar with how WC areas for parades work in detail, but I'd assume that a CM wouldn't allow a guest to hold a parade spot in the reserved section.   

As far as FP, everyone has the opportunity to get one, just like a parade spot.

I totally get the point you're trying to make, but I really don't think there are many situations (or any that I can think of) that are as clearly unequal or relatable as the old GAC usage.


----------



## BillSears

Sorry let me clarify.

But the non-disabled guest who is there in front of the reserved wheelchair spot now has to spend time to go find another spot because they are not allowed to sit there. I've taken time away from them just like immediate access through the Fastpass line would take time away from others in line. 

I just feel that we're all in the park together and sometimes we have to give and take a bit so that we all can enjoy the parks.  Stating that any infringement is wrong is what I have a disagreement with.  At some point the infringement becomes too large but some smaller infringements would be reasonable.


----------



## KathyRN137

Mrsjvb said:


> it is not about an equal experience..it's about equal ACCESS.



Agreed. 

When the DAS issue was first being "discussed" in social media there was one comment that struck me in particular. This person wrote, "No offense to parents of kids with autism, BUT if your child can't handle the noise and crowds, perhaps a theme park vacation isn't for you." 

I wrote back that his comment was the same as telling the parent of a child without the ability to walk that "if your child can't handle stairs, perhaps tall buildings aren't for you."

It is not about equal experience, it's about equal ACCESS. If you do not live with a person with severe developmental and/or sensory issues it is a difficult concept to grasp. 

The accommodation in question is not front-of-the-line or immediate access to attractions, it is _accelerated access_ to attractions -- reduced wait time as had been previously provided to some, not all, who utilized the old GAC system. Certain individuals DO require accelerated access, not an "alternate waiting environment" in order to access attractions successfully.

I know that a good number of people without disabilities or intimate experience with those who have disabilities do not want to hear that, but in many cases it is true. Nevertheless, giving accelerated access to these disabled individuals is viewed as an "infringement" by people who are supportive of accommodating the disabled, but not if it means any sacrifice on their part.   

_Accelerated access_ is to some as a _wheelchair ramp_ is to others. It is about ACCESS, not enjoyment, and certainly not entitlement.

Yes, there are lots of folks who try to game the system and, yes, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to structure and regulate such a system to ensure that every person who asks for accommodation actually requires it, especially the way the ADA is written. I'm not saying that I have the answer, because I don't.

Finally, it is truly regrettable that this complaint was written with such ridiculously emotional language that portrays these families as victims with an over-developed sense of entitlement. I do not support it and believe it has done more harm than good. 

It has had an extremely negative effect on the public's acceptance of people with cognitive disabilities and it's perception of the family members who care for and advocate for them daily. Reading the many comments on this and other forums has been a very sobering experience.


*Kathy*


----------



## Coonhound

KathyRN137 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> When the DAS issue was first being "discussed" in social media there was one comment that struck me in particular. This person wrote, "No offense to parents of kids with autism, BUT if your child can't handle the noise and crowds, perhaps a theme park vacation isn't for you."
> 
> I wrote back that his comment was the same as telling the parent of a child without the ability to walk that "if your child can't handle stairs, perhaps tall buildings aren't for you."
> 
> It is not about equal experience, it's about equal ACCESS. If you do not live with a person with severe developmental and/or sensory issues it is a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> The accommodation in question is not front-of-the-line or immediate access to attractions, it is _accelerated access_ to attractions -- reduced wait time as had been previously provided to some, not all, who utilized the old GAC system. Certain individuals DO require accelerated access, not an "alternate waiting environment" in order to access attractions successfully.
> 
> I know that a good number of people without disabilities or intimate experience with those who have disabilities do not want to hear that, but in many cases it is true. Nevertheless, giving accelerated access to these disabled individuals is viewed as an "infringement" by people who are supportive of accommodating the disabled, but not if it means any sacrifice on their part.
> 
> _Accelerated access_ is to some as a _wheelchair ramp_ is to others. It is about ACCESS, not enjoyment, and certainly not entitlement.
> 
> Yes, there are lots of folks who try to game the system and, yes, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to structure and regulate such a system to ensure that every person who asks for accommodation actually requires it, especially the way the ADA is written. I'm not saying that I have the answer, because I don't.
> 
> Finally, it is truly regrettable that this complaint was written with such ridiculously emotional language that portrays these families as victims with an over-developed sense of entitlement. I do not support it and believe it has done more harm than good.
> 
> It has had an extremely negative effect on the public's acceptance of people with cognitive disabilities and it's perception of the family members who care for and advocate for them daily. Reading the many comments on this and other forums has been a very sobering experience.
> 
> 
> *Kathy*



But accelerated access is another way of saying "cutting in line past all the people who have been waiting". It's bad manners. 
Also when does accelerated access turn into a front of the line pass, because with the GAC you either entered through the exit or you went thru the fastpass line...to give someone an accelerated line, should we ask them how long they are able to wait and ensure they aren't having to wait longer than whatever time they say? If we do that we are back to square one, because everyone is going to say "I can't wait at all, or I can't wait more than 5 minutes, or 10 minutes, etc.
The fact is, no one wants to wait. 
It's an unreasonable accommodation to assume you can go to a busy, crowded theme park and somehow magically not wait in lines. 
I don't think when people say "perhaps a theme park isn't right for you" that they're being mean...they're being honest and realistic...sometimes the truth hurts...if you can't handle noise, crowds, long lines and waiting ...then disney doesn't sound like a good place for you to go  They can't somehow make all the lines disappear for you without allowing you to cut in front of waiting people. I'm really surprised you seem to think that it's okay to allow your child to cut in line or to display for them that that would be acceptable behavior.  
it sounds mean to say "perhaps disney isn't right for you" but we all are responsible for ourselves and our families and sometimes we have to take a hard look at what our abilities are and be realistic about what our children can and cannot handle, and make decisions accordingly. There are things we simply don't try to do with our kids because we know they can't handle it. My son is not autistic but has PTSD and cannot handle crowds, therefore it is my job as his parent to work with him to help him but it is also my job as his father to not place him into situations that are too much for him.
We cannot expect others to make unreasonable accommodations for us that would have any kind of impact on others (allowing our kids to cut ahead of all the other people waiting in line) because that's not reasonable and it's our job as parents to make decisions for our kids and take ownership of our responsibility- it's not Disney's job to handle my child with kid gloves. It's my job to know what my child can and can't handle and plan my trip accordingly. It's about personal responsibility.


----------



## kaytieeldr

BillSears said:


> Sorry let me clarify.
> 
> But the non-disabled guest who is there in front of the reserved wheelchair spot now has to spend time to go find another spot because they are not allowed to sit there. I've taken time away from them just like immediate access through the Fastpass line would take time away from others in line.
> 
> I just feel that we're all in the park together and sometimes we have to give and take a bit so that we all can enjoy the parks.  Stating that any infringement is wrong is what I have a disagreement with.  At some point the infringement becomes too large but some smaller infringements would be reasonable.


I have to disagree. Pthe wheelchair viewing areas are clearly marked, and are generally monitored. Anyone not needing ambulatory who positions themselves in front of one is responsible for their own decision and their own need to relocate.


----------



## sukhakuli

KathyRN137 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> When the DAS issue was first being "discussed" in social media there was one comment that struck me in particular. This person wrote, "No offense to parents of kids with autism, BUT if your child can't handle the noise and crowds, perhaps a theme park vacation isn't for you."
> 
> I wrote back that his comment was the same as telling the parent of a child without the ability to walk that "if your child can't handle stairs, perhaps tall buildings aren't for you."
> 
> It is not about equal experience, it's about equal ACCESS. If you do not live with a person with severe developmental and/or sensory issues it is a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> The accommodation in question is not front-of-the-line or immediate access to attractions, it is _accelerated access_ to attractions -- reduced wait time as had been previously provided to some, not all, who utilized the old GAC system. Certain individuals DO require accelerated access, not an "alternate waiting environment" in order to access attractions successfully.
> 
> I know that a good number of people without disabilities or intimate experience with those who have disabilities do not want to hear that, but in many cases it is true. Nevertheless, giving accelerated access to these disabled individuals is viewed as an "infringement" by people who are supportive of accommodating the disabled, but not if it means any sacrifice on their part.
> 
> _Accelerated access_ is to some as a _wheelchair ramp_ is to others. It is about ACCESS, not enjoyment, and certainly not entitlement.
> 
> Yes, there are lots of folks who try to game the system and, yes, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to structure and regulate such a system to ensure that every person who asks for accommodation actually requires it, especially the way the ADA is written. I'm not saying that I have the answer, because I don't.
> 
> Finally, it is truly regrettable that this complaint was written with such ridiculously emotional language that portrays these families as victims with an over-developed sense of entitlement. I do not support it and believe it has done more harm than good.
> 
> It has had an extremely negative effect on the public's acceptance of people with cognitive disabilities and it's perception of the family members who care for and advocate for them daily. Reading the many comments on this and other forums has been a very sobering experience.
> 
> 
> *Kathy*



Sorry, I disagree. I do understand kids being OCD and rigid. Believe me, I do. We worked with my ds for YEARS to teach him to be able to wait in line. It's not just about Disney, but the grocery store, the doctor's office, the lunch line at school and so on. He needs to be able to wait. It's super hard for him. It's hard for all of us trying to distract him constantly. But this is a super important skill for him to have, so we keep at it. I just don't think that Disney needs to allow kids to have instant access or loop constantly. 

At DL they have a Nemo ride in a submarine. If you can't transfer, they have an "alternate experience" for you. Is that fair? You don't get to ride the ride at all, you sit and watch the ride. Some people could argue that it is unfair. But it falls under the ADA's statue of access. They have access to the ride. It's not the exact same thing, but they do get to see it. But for some reason, you don't see people with physical disabilities suing Disney about it. Why is it that the cognitive disability parents, or at least some of them, are so unhappy with the accommodations they do get? I don't get it.


----------



## OurBigTrip

KathyRN137 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The accommodation in question is not front-of-the-line or immediate access to attractions, it is _accelerated access_ to attractions -- reduced wait time as had been previously provided to some, not all, who utilized the old GAC system. Certain individuals DO require accelerated access, not an "alternate waiting environment" in order to access attractions successfully.



The GAC was never supposed to provide accelerated access, but that's what it morphed into.  And while that is not why everyone used the GAC, there is little question that the majority of the people wanted it for that, and the accelerated access was certainly the basis for the people that paid the disabled to "escort" them through the parks.  

And while in general I disagree with the notion of "if they can't handle it, don't come", I do believe that if the ONLY way a guest can access an attraction is to have a shorter wait time, then they probably shouldn't come to WDW, because that kind of preferential treatment is too much of an infringement on the experience of other guests.


----------



## Gracie09

Coonhound said:


> But accelerated access is another way of saying "cutting in line past all the people who have been waiting". It's bad manners.  Also when does accelerated access turn into a front of the line pass, because with the GAC you either entered through the exit or you went thru the fastpass line...to give someone an accelerated line, should we ask them how long they are able to wait and ensure they aren't having to wait longer than whatever time they say? If we do that we are back to square one, because everyone is going to say "I can't wait at all, or I can't wait more than 5 minutes, or 10 minutes, etc. The fact is, no one wants to wait. It's an unreasonable accommodation to assume you can go to a busy, crowded theme park and somehow magically not wait in lines. I don't think when people say "perhaps a theme park isn't right for you" that they're being mean...they're being honest and realistic...sometimes the truth hurts...if you can't handle noise, crowds, long lines and waiting ...then disney doesn't sound like a good place for you to go  They can't somehow make all the lines disappear for you without allowing you to cut in front of waiting people. I'm really surprised you seem to think that it's okay to allow your child to cut in line or to display for them that that would be acceptable behavior.  it sounds mean to say "perhaps disney isn't right for you" but we all are responsible for ourselves and our families and sometimes we have to take a hard look at what our abilities are and be realistic about what our children can and cannot handle, and make decisions accordingly. There are things we simply don't try to do with our kids because we know they can't handle it. My son is not autistic but has PTSD and cannot handle crowds, therefore it is my job as his parent to work with him to help him but it is also my job as his father to not place him into situations that are too much for him. We cannot expect others to make unreasonable accommodations for us that would have any kind of impact on others (allowing our kids to cut ahead of all the other people waiting in line) because that's not reasonable and it's our job as parents to make decisions for our kids and take ownership of our responsibility- it's not Disney's job to handle my child with kid gloves. It's my job to know what my child can and can't handle and plan my trip accordingly. It's about personal responsibility.



I have to agree that as parents it is part of our job to know when something is simply too much for our children. For example my dd1 cannot deal with the beach. The combination of the heat, sand, vastness of the water etc bring her to a meltdown as soon as she looks at it. (She has sensory issues among other challenges.) doesn't sound too bad, right, except having grown up on long island and spending my entire summer on the beach, it's my happy place and something I was exited to share with my children. My other dd loves the beach. So even though my parents live on the beach and we live by the jersey shore, we don't go. The nature of the beach is such that other than removing the barrier (essentially the sand) there is no way for my dd to access it. At Disney the lines, noise, flashing lights etc is part of the experience. They even theme the lines to incorporate them into the experience. In fact people use to complain that when using the gac they couldn't experience the themed lines. For some, no matter what Disney does they will not be able to have an equivalent experience. That doesn't mean Disney has to create an individual plan for that person, this isn't eduction, they just have to have a reasonable accommodation.  What thy have created has been used in many other parks for years. I don't see people suing cedar point or universal both of whom have a similar program that predates disneys.


----------



## jon18uk

KathyRN137 said:


> Agreed.
> When the DAS issue was first being "discussed" in social media there was one comment that struck me in particular. This person wrote, "No offense to parents of kids with autism, BUT if your child can't handle the noise and crowds, perhaps a theme park vacation isn't for you."
> 
> I wrote back that his comment was the same as telling the parent of a child without the ability to walk that "if your child can't handle stairs, perhaps tall buildings aren't for you."



Unfortunately that can be true too, that a day out a building with stairs isn't suitable for someone who cannot handle them.
For example a 1,100 year old Castle here in England is a tourist attraction. if you want to walk to the top of the tallest tower and along the ramparts this would involve walking hundreds of steps. Although other areas of the castle are accessible to some degree due to the nature of an old building many areas cannot be adapted. For these accessibility reasons I would not recommend it as a day out for someone with no mobility.
In a similar way if I knew someone who was not good with crowds and standing in line I would suggest that a day at a theme park may not be enjoyable for them.
I have a friend with claustrophobia and crowding issues and he frequently decides not to go to the theatre with is as he doesn't like the feeling of being stuck in the middle of a row, for that reason i would rarely recommend he joins us.
Not every experiance is suitable for all and although best efforts can be made (and both the USA and UK have laws to mandate equal access) it isn't possible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.


----------



## aaarcher86

KathyRN137 said:


> Accelerated access is to some as a wheelchair ramp is to others.



 I don't find that accurate. Accelerated access would be the equivalent of a business needing to make sure you can get up that ramp.    

   If a WC user is alone and doesn't have the ability to wheel themselves up the ramp, the business doesn't need to provide additional assistance.  Your analogy is the equivalent of WC users demanding personal pushers to get up ramps and access the business. 

 I really feel like sometimes we advocate so much in an educational, daily setting, that we forget that educational rights are much more vast. Business do not need to provide EVERY tool or method for access that a person feels is necessary. There are 2 sides to the accommodations. This is what you're owed legally, and this is what you desire.

Most people also don't look at the fact that the DAS is MEANT to be used with FP+, which is essentially 3x you get accelerated access. There's no reason at all that combining the 2 systems together you wouldn't be able to get minimal waits for a good chunk of your day. Alternate them. Just because it's no longer easy breezy doesn't mean it's not a possibility, but Disney doesn't have to hand it to you.


----------



## Mrsjvb

KathyRN137 said:


> The accommodation in question is not front-of-the-line or immediate access to attractions, it is _accelerated access_ to attractions -- reduced wait time as had been previously provided to some, not all, who utilized the old GAC system. Certain individuals DO require accelerated access, not an "alternate waiting environment" in order to access attractions successfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kathy*



but accelerated access IS unfair to everyone else.   sorry but unless you pay for the  super deluxe VIP tour or are a MAW tripper, you  ( generic you) are NOT entitled to get anything  faster than the guy standing next to you.

the accommodations for accelerated access are built in to FP+ and a good touring plan.    

none of my needs are met with a GAS so I do not  qualify for one/am entitled to one.   but I  also have  fatigue issues and cannot  do a 12 hour day in the parks.  i get really annoyed at the ones who whinge and say that Junior is so disabled he can only do 2 rides and then he is done for the day so obviously he  deserves to get on faster.

 Umm no.  first of all there is a whole helluva lot more than rides to enjoy at Disney.  second of all, on a good day i MIGHT be able to manage 3 rides before basically being knackered and needing to take a LONG break( which I accomplish by TS meals or a nice long show or sit down ride like Carousel of Progress).


----------



## KathyRN137

I thank you for your responses, however, I'm afraid that we must agree to disagree.

Disney allowed the GAC to "morph" into an accelerated access accommodation because over the past 10 years the numbers of children with autism and related disorders has skyrocketed. When attendance was low post 9/11, Disney had no problem marketing themselves as the most accommodating and disability-family-friendly vacation destination in the world. Accommodations were freely provided to improve attendance. Now that low attendance is no longer a concern, the company has no need of the disabled population and accommodations were drastically reduced.

Make no mistake about it, the GAC system was not replaced because of rampant abuse. That is the way Disney is spinning the story.

Yes, abuse existed, but it was not the reason for the change. The system was changed because the number of families (like mine) who were in need of, and thus legitimately requesting, the GAC was increasing dramatically, as is the number of children in our country who are developing autism spectrum disorders.

The two biggest reasons that accelerated access is no longer being provided as an accommodation for guests with cognitive disabilities are:

1) It required that guests work on "the honor system" and provide a realistic and truthful description of their needs. Clearly, this was difficult if not impossible to validate and enforce.

2) Guests without intimate knowledge of these disabilities complain that the providing accelerated access to guests with severe cognitive disabilities is "unfair" to them. 

I do not think that the accelerated access accommodation is unfair. However, I firmly believe that it is an accommodation that is impossible to provide, given the unscrupulous nature of many individuals and the overarching intolerance of our society toward that which they do not understand and with which they do not empathize.

As one person expressed, quite openly and honestly when addressing families of children with severe autism. "It sucks to be you."

Yes. Yes, it does.

I don't expect you to understand; but it would be a kinder and gentler world if  people would at least try, instead of implying that we should just stay home with our - quote - "speshul snowflakes" and not bring them and their siblings to Disney because it is spoiling the vacation experience of the non-disabled.

To these people I say, that as much as I try to understand where you are coming from, I cannot help but feel that you are preaching to the choir when you try to lecture me on _what is unfair_. No one understands the raw unfairness of life better than the mother of a child with autism.

I understand why the system needed to be changed. I do not support the ADA complaint brought by these 16 families and although the underlying pain and grief in their complaint does resonate with me, I do not believe that they speak for me and for all parents on the spectrum. 

Having said that, it would be a mistake to view all of us as possessing feelings of entitlement just because Life dealt us a crappy hand. It's not the cards you're dealt that matter, it's how you play them.

I'm grateful for the accommodations that Disney will offer my family on our next vacation. But do not for one minute think that that because I choose to stay in the game that I am out to cheat the other players at the table. 


*Kathy*


----------



## intheshadows

KathyRN137 said:


> 2) Guests without intimate knowledge of these disabilities complain that the providing accelerated access to guests with severe cognitive disabilities is "unfair" to them.
> 
> *Kathy*



Let me give you this example that I witnessed last summer:

A small child (4-6 years old) has been waiting patiently to see a character. A MAW child comes up, cuts the line. Mother of small child is courteous and tells the child, "We will wait a little longer."

As soon as the MAW child leaves, a GAC holding family accosts the line handler. They demand to be escorted to the front of the line because the mother says they "don't wait because her son has autism."

Again, the first child is told they are going to wait just a little longer.

Another GAC family comes up, makes the same demand, and is taken ahead of the child who has been in line. 

The mother of the patient child finally asks the character handler what is going on, and the handler says, "I have to let them through. They have the card."

At which point, the character takes their required break, and the child who had waited patiently does not get a visit.

Please, tell me how this is fair to the child who did nothing wrong and waited patiently? Should we slight him?

This is why the GAC was a problem. Imagine this happening over and over on ride after ride...delaying the FP queue with GAC holders and their families, plus regular FP...and people who figured out how to "hold" a FP until that was stopped.


----------



## Mrsjvb

KathyRN137 said:


> I.
> 
> Disney allowed the GAC to "morph" into an accelerated access accommodation because over the past 10 years the numbers of children with autism and related disorders has skyrocketed. When attendance was low post 9/11, Disney had no problem marketing themselves as the most accommodating and disability-family-friendly vacation destination in the world. Accommodations were freely provided to improve attendance. Now that low attendance is no longer a concern, the company has no need of the disabled population and accommodations were drastically reduced.  Bull twinkies.  it morphoed into that because parents of Spectrumn children insisted that was the ONLY way they could   do Disney and the company's reputation for being over the top in  accommodating the 'customer is always right theorem' was severely abused.
> 
> Make no mistake about it, the GAC system was not replaced because of rampant abuse. That is the way Disney is spinning the story.   Nope.    it became too big for its britches and the USE( not ABuse)  could no longer be sustained within the constraints of the existing  infrastructure
> 
> Yes, abuse existed, but it was not the reason for the change. The system was changed because the number of families (like mine) who were in need of, and thus legitimately requesting, the GAC was increasing dramatically, as is the number of children in our country who are developing autism spectrum disorders.   again, nope.   the numbers of people with the issue has not changed.  the number of people demanding special treatment because of i having a name for it now has.  in my day 40 years ago, someone who today woudl be labeled mildly or moderately autistic was  just a brat who couldn't wait his turn.
> 
> The two biggest reasons that accelerated access is no longer being provided as an accommodation for guests with cognitive disabilities are:
> 
> 1) It required that guests work on "the honor system" and provide a realistic and truthful description of their needs. Clearly, this was difficult if not impossible to validate and enforce.
> 
> 2) Guests without intimate knowledge of these disabilities complain that the providing accelerated access to guests with severe cognitive disabilities is "unfair" to them.   and it is.  having a disease/ASD or whatever is not a valid reason to get accelerated access.
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to understand; but it would be a kinder and gentler world if  people would at least try, instead of implying that we should just stay home with our - quote - "speshul snowflakes" and not bring them and their siblings to Disney because it is spoiling the vacation experience of the non-disabled.   My 18 year old Nephew is about as severely autistic as you can get.  non verbal;, regular has violent fits that has gotten him kicked out of every  Capital District school district in NY and he now attends across the state border.    he has put both his parents in the hospital several times with SERIOUS injuries and as soon as a spot opens up for him in the local  adult nursing home that can handle his issues, he;s going.  it would have been the epitome of  insanity to even CONSIDER bringing him to disney let alone any local  theme park.  and hos three siblings have had to miss out on a normal childhood too.
> 
> To these people I say, that as much as I try to understand where you are coming from, I cannot help but feel that you are preaching to the choir when you try to lecture me on _what is unfair_. No one understands the raw unfairness of life better than the mother of a child with autism.  and there you go again making your issues out to be something  that only a select few  can possibly understand if I don;lt have a spectrum child I have no right to even  dare to  comment whatsoever.    try being told at the age of five that not only do they NOT knwo what is wrong with you, you will never walk again and will probably be dead by 12.   what is UNFAIR is that I lost any hope of a 'normal' childhood that day  just as finally as your kid did the day he was diagnosed.
> 
> 
> 
> *Kathy*




just because I am not on the Spectrum does not mean I have no empathy or haven't walked a mile in your shoes.  I experienced  discrimination too growing up.   may not be the exact type but it was discrimination nonetheless.  and I predate the ADA so even more options were denied to me growing up.


----------



## SueM in MN

This thread has stayed remarkably well on task and little arguing so far

Please continue to keep it that way so or can remain open as a respectful discussion

I do want to point out that the term 'speshul snowflakes' is a very 'loaded term'. 
It has not appeared in this thread until a few posts ago and was entered by a parent of a child with autism. So, please no characterizations that people on this thread are using that term thru the whole discussion.


----------



## asc

what i think some will never understand is that equality in the case of the disabled might mean that they wait less time or get what other consider to be preferred treatment.

no amount of debate will change some views on this unless.  anything preferred that my child gets will be perceived by this group of people as extra and why they can not get the same extra my child gets.

i have given up trying or trying to rationalize that equally and accommodation does mean differential treatment.

that said, if i could trade my child's disability in exchange for your ability to wait less time in line, then let's chat. i would gladly wait more for my child to not be disabled.  in fact, i would wait in line, get to the front again, then let everyone else in line ahead of me until there was NO more line and then i would go on the ride.

i think most parents would.  it is nice, as a parent of disabled child, to, on a limited occasion, catch a break.  whether that happens to be person that instead of writing a return time to come back in 30 minutes writes a shorter time - and make no mistake about it, there is NO way anyone could think our child is not disabled - then i take it.  because i know that those breaks are few and far between.  

one need only look at the bleak employment outlook for my child.

i am 100% certain that we will have to support her for the rest of her life and then hope, that one of my nieces or nephews is responsible enough and i have found an independent trustee to ensure she is taken care of when i and my wife are long gone.  she might have a job, but that will be because of an organization that values inclusion in the work force and the intangible value diversity brings to the work force.  will it be enough to support her, no way - and i would love to be totally wrong on this point.  ...... and i am certain another worker will probably expect to get the extra treatment she does.

[just to be clear, my child's disability is not autism]


----------



## mistysue

KathyRN137 said:


> The two biggest reasons that accelerated access is no longer being provided as an accommodation for guests with cognitive disabilities are:
> 
> 1) It required that guests work on "the honor system" and provide a realistic and truthful description of their needs. Clearly, this was difficult if not impossible to validate and enforce.
> 
> 2) Guests without intimate knowledge of these disabilities complain that the providing accelerated access to guests with severe cognitive disabilities is "unfair" to them.
> 
> ...
> To these people I say, that as much as I try to understand where you are coming from, I cannot help but feel that you are preaching to the choir when you try to lecture me on _what is unfair_. No one understands the raw unfairness of life better than the mother of a child with autism.
> 
> I understand why the system needed to be changed. I do not support the ADA complaint brought by these 16 families and although the underlying pain and grief in their complaint does resonate with me, I do not believe that they speak for me and for all parents on the spectrum.
> 
> Having said that, it would be a mistake to view all of us as possessing feelings of entitlement just because Life dealt us a crappy hand. It's not the cards you're dealt that matter, it's how you play them.
> 
> I'm grateful for the accommodations that Disney will offer my family on our next vacation. But do not for one minute think that that because I choose to stay in the game that I am out to cheat the other players at the table.
> 
> 
> *Kathy*



Kathy,
It may help you to realize (I mean come to terms with, you obviously comprehend it) that autistic children are not the only people meant to utilize the DAS. There are many many disabilities that are difficult and families of autistic children are not the only families struggling and going through difficulties. That applies both at Disney and in regular life. You aren't as alone in struggling as it sounds like you feel you are.

That said, I agree with much of what you are saying and I do feel for you, but  suggest that you might find things easier if you realize there are many more people struggling for all sorts of non-autism reasons as well. 

I would also like to toss out there the idea that accelerated access, which I'm sure is an actual need for some, is such an appetizing dangling carrot that somebody has to draw the line on who gets it. Right now that line is drawn at MAW kids. If that were an option, who gets it? How do you request it? How to be sure people aren't exaggerating to get it? What happens what child A and child B have identical situations but one gets that card and the other doesn't? What happens when all the other autistic kids you know get it and your child doesn't for some random reason? It can't simply be given to everybody who asks because everybody can come up with a reason they should have it vs. the next guy.
So it's complicated. (as you know) I suspect that most people who are so vocally against it wouldn't be if they understood some clear system to figure people who legitimately needed it. There is no system so with the potential for abuse that the idea comes across as crazy and infringing on everybody- because if offered on a wide and easy to get scale it would be. Even just looking at Autism, it's a wide spectrum, there is no good solid yes/no line for needing assistance.


----------



## Disneylvr

intheshadows said:


> Let me give you this example that I witnessed last summer:
> 
> A small child (4-6 years old) has been waiting patiently to see a character. A MAW child comes up, cuts the line. Mother of small child is courteous and tells the child, "We will wait a little longer."
> 
> As soon as the MAW child leaves, a GAC holding family accosts the line handler. They demand to be escorted to the front of the line because the mother says they "don't wait because her son has autism."
> 
> Again, the first child is told they are going to wait just a little longer.
> 
> Another GAC family comes up, makes the same demand, and is taken ahead of the child who has been in line.
> 
> The mother of the patient child finally asks the character handler what is going on, and the handler says, "I have to let them through. They have the card."
> 
> At which point, the character takes their required break, and the child who had waited patiently does not get a visit.
> 
> Please, tell me how this is fair to the child who did nothing wrong and waited patiently? Should we slight him?
> 
> This is why the GAC was a problem. Imagine this happening over and over on ride after ride...delaying the FP queue with GAC holders and their families, plus regular FP...and people who figured out how to "hold" a FP until that was stopped.



GAC was not for character meet and greets and in fact that was stated on our GAC's and verbally stated to us by CM's. If that was allowed last summer in a character line, that was a CM error.


----------



## aaarcher86

I think most people here believe it was use and not abuse that caused the change from the GAC to the DAS. 

Regardless of what we feel entitled to, the ADA doesn't require an accommodation that negatively impacts operations. Since accelerated access does just that, it's not required. How we all feel about it doesn't really matter.


----------



## aaarcher86

Can we also please not start playing disability Olympics. We would all move mountains for our kids to live 'normal' lives. 

That kind of argument is attempting to hold people at emotional fun point and has no place in this thread.


----------



## asc

aaarcher86 said:


> I think most people here believe it was use and not abuse that caused the change from the GAC to the DAS.
> 
> Regardless of what we feel entitled to, the ADA doesn't require an accommodation that negatively impacts operations. Since accelerated access does just that, it's not required. How we all feel about it doesn't really matter.



i think we will just have to agree to disagreed that it does.  but then again, that is not for you or I to decide really, whether we like it or not.


----------



## asc

aaarcher86 said:


> Can we also please not start playing disability Olympics. We would all move mountains for our kids to live 'normal' lives.
> 
> That kind of argument is attempting to hold people at emotional fun point and has no place in this thread.



again, another opinion, that you will have to accept that people don't agree with.


----------



## aaarcher86

asc said:


> i think we will just have to agree to disagreed that it does.  but then again, that is not for you or I to decide really, whether we like it or not.



That's not actually an opinion. It's stated in the ADA, which is what dictates what accommodations Disney is obligated to give.


----------



## aaarcher86

asc said:


> again, another opinion, that you will have to accept that people don't agree with.



Well, that's fine. Since emotions and feelings don't have bearing on a legal obligation or decision it seems pretty clear. 

I could only request then that other posters not engage in emotional responses. That will only get this thread closed.


----------



## mttmilner

I agree with aaarcher86. I would really like to keep this thread going and not get it shut down.

Obviously this issue brings out a lot of passion in a lot of people. 

I will say this. It seems that every time this issue is raised those of us siding with Disney are thought to be uncaring, cold hearted, and a variety of other things. I wish that wasn't the case. I wish that we could have a rational conversation with valid reasons being brought forth on both sides of the argument. 

One thing I haven't seen is this and I'm hoping Kathy, or someone else in her position, can answer. What would you like to see done? What kind of compromise could be reached so both sides would be happy. I think we all know the days of the GAC are over so what's next? I think that's what is going to hurt this lawsuit is it doesn't appear to ask for anything besides bemoaning the loss of the GAC. Like a previous poster stated, due to the varying degrees ASD and other disabilities, and with growing online forums, it's hard for Disney to give one ASD child something without all the other parents wanting it. 

My suggestion would be as follows. When you get your DAS return time instead of it being 10 minutes shorter than the wait time, it's 10 minutes longer, and when you come back, instead of going through the fast pass line, you do get immediate access. You would also only be able to have one return time at a time. The child would still not be able to ride the same ride multiple times in a row, but it would allow them to not have to wait in the line which appears to cause so many problems. 

That's just my suggestion and I'm sure it isn't perfect but I would love to hear some other compromises.


----------



## LilyWDW

asc said:


> i think we will just have to agree to disagreed that it does.  but then again, that is not for you or I to decide really, whether we like it or not.



Actually, the ADA is very clear in the fact that a business does not have to provide every single possible situation for every single possible person. It is also clear the the experience may not be the same person to person and it doesn't have to be. This isn't an "agree" or "disagree" issue. It is clearly spelled out in the law.

Perhaps, being from Canada, the law is different there and thus there is some confusion?


----------



## Mrsjvb

mttmilner said:


> I also have a difficult time differentiating between front of the line or immediate access and accelerated access. If the average wait time is 60 minute, how much of that would need to be cut off for it to be accelerated access for those individuals that need it. Like a previous poster stated, if they did that then everyone would say they could only wait in line for 5-10 minutes and we would be right back where we started from.



you know, now that I think about it, they are ALREADY getting accelerated access.. they get ten minutes knocked off the standby wait time on their DAS.

so once again we are back to the definition of 'reasonable'.   is ten minutes less reasonable?  20?   45?   a percentage of the  current wait time?

and for the ones who will argue that the FP+ line can  still be 20 minutes long, and thus the total wait is actually longer..well, what do you suggest?   penalizing  the rest of the guests by allowing even fewer FP+  tickets be issued per hour so that the FP+ line is nonexistent?   a new, separate line  requiring having to hire more CMs to man so that  DAS holders can skip  even the  FP+ wait too?


----------



## 2tinkerbell

Personally, I have a problem with the accelerated access issue.  I think that was the problem with the GAC.  Too many individuals needing accelerated access. I also tend to believe that it was difficult to draw the line on who needed it and who didn't.  One can say that Disney just made the over use issue up, however, if you look at the raw numbers (how many GACs a day could be issued for Autism alone and how many people a day are in the parks)you can see that Disney isn't making that up.  Sorry, but, I think Disney would have an idea of the usage and therefore, I tend to believe them when they say it was use and not abuse that caused the demise of the GAC.  

When I disagree with someone's point of view, I am told that I do not understand and I have no empathy.  Sorry, but, I totally do understand and I have empathy as I also have a child who is on the spectrum.  BTDT 

I, personally, can't look at life in terms of black and white, fair or unfair.  It is what it is - sometimes grey, sometimes white, sometimes black, and many times colorful (to say the least). Ron Suskind, in his book "Life Animated" talks about his son, Owen, who is on the spectrum.  Ron states that "Owen is just like you and I, only more so and less so."  He says that children on the spectrum are "different, not diminished."  I guess that is what makes me "different" because I can't and won't look at my life or my DD's life as unfair.  I simply can't get into the argument of fair versus unfair because it is an emotional argument and when emotions are involved, no one wins, no one understands, no one cares, etc.  If I choose to look at my life as unfair, no one can make it fair just as no one made it unfair.  

I think that there is something said to the personal responsibility issue to.  I am not advocating the extreme of keeping your child home if they can't handle crowds, noise, heat, etc.  Nor am I an advocate of putting my child in a situation that she simply can't handle.  Because of this, yes, my child does miss out on some things, but, she also is successful in the experiences she has. I have to take the personal responsibility for making choices whether my DD can be successful or not and setting up situations, where I can, for her to be successful.  I have the responsibility to teach my child to do that for herself.   For example, we learned that the FP lines are busiest at the beginning and the end of the hour, so we didn't use either our FP or DAS return time during those times.   

Yes, my DD has obtained a DAS card which she and I utilized last January at the DLR.  I felt it was better than the GAC!  I felt that the DAS was equal.  I felt so strongly about our success using FP and DAS that I wrote to Meg Crofton about it.  Yes, I am taking my DD to DLR again because of our experience.


----------



## asta

You don't have to look very deep to see that the old GAC system had to be be done away with. It provided such a tremendous benefit that many people were able to justify a need for it. I really don't think there were that many cheating the system to get one. Instead many people can come up with a legitimate reason that someone in their group is just as deserving as other people that were using the GAC. Speaking globally, not specifically, my or my child's disability is more important to me than yours is. It is evident from reading here that many others feel the same way about the issues they face. Your issue is near and dear to you and it is easy to attach an elevated urgency to it. What you can't do is think that urgency diminishes someone else's need.

The fault in the old system was not in the 'other' park guests but in a poorly designed system that had to be changed.


----------



## OurBigTrip

KathyRN137 said:


> Yes, abuse existed, but it was not the reason for the change. The system was changed because the number of families (like mine) who were in need of, and thus legitimately requesting, the GAC was increasing dramatically, as is the number of children in our country who are developing autism spectrum disorders.



Not all of the families that were using the "alternate entrance" GAC needed the unlimited FP that the GAC provided.  They wanted it, but they didn't need it - it was overused.


----------



## Coonhound

asc said:


> what i think some will never understand is that equality in the case of the disabled might mean that they wait less time or get what other consider to be preferred treatment.
> 
> no amount of debate will change some views on this unless.  anything preferred that my child gets will be perceived by this group of people as extra and why they can not get the same extra my child gets.
> 
> i have given up trying or trying to rationalize that equally and accommodation does mean differential treatment.
> 
> that said, if i could trade my child's disability in exchange for your ability to wait less time in line, then let's chat. i would gladly wait more for my child to not be disabled.  in fact, i would wait in line, get to the front again, then let everyone else in line ahead of me until there was NO more line and then i would go on the ride.
> 
> *since it is impossible for anyone to trade places with you, there is no point to this line of thinking and it really adds nothing to the discussion.*
> 
> i think most parents would.  it is nice, as a parent of disabled child, to, on a limited occasion, catch a break.  whether that happens to be person that instead of writing a return time to come back in 30 minutes writes a shorter time - and make no mistake about it, there is NO way anyone could think our child is not disabled - then i take it.  because i know that those breaks are few and far between.
> 
> *accommodations at Disney are to allow access to rides, they are not meant to make up for hardships you or your child incur in everyday life.*
> 
> one need only look at the bleak employment outlook for my child.
> 
> *again, employment has nothing to do with this thread.*
> 
> i am 100% certain that we will have to support her for the rest of her life and then hope, that one of my nieces or nephews is responsible enough and i have found an independent trustee to ensure she is taken care of when i and my wife are long gone.  she might have a job, but that will be because of an organization that values inclusion in the work force and the intangible value diversity brings to the work force.  will it be enough to support her, no way - and i would love to be totally wrong on this point.  ...... and i am certain another worker will probably expect to get the extra treatment she does.
> 
> [just to be clear, my child's disability is not autism]



My comments in bold. I think we should strive to stay on-topic.


----------



## OurBigTrip

So, back to the lawsuit...if we could strip away the overly emotional verbiage and the wild allegations that Disney put the DAS in place to drive away the disabled, is there anyone that believes the suit has any level of merit?


----------



## mttmilner

I can't imagine it does. I think the fact that half of the plantiffs either haven't been since it went into effect or have been but didn't use the DAS will hurt. Also, I think it will hurt that they don't specifically state what it is they want. 

To me, the lawsuit reads an angry breakup note and not a lawsuit. There accusations are full of emotional responses and not facts and the facts they do bring up (Disney planted the story of GAC abuse, Disney wanting to rid the parks of disabled people, Disney telling their employees to be rude to guests) will not only be impossible to prove, but they don't pass the eye test.


----------



## wilkeliza

OurBigTrip said:
			
		

> So, back to the lawsuit...if we could strip away the overly emotional verbiage and the wild allegations that Disney put the DAS in place to drive away the disabled, is there anyone that believes the suit has any level of merit?



I see no level of merit because what Disney is offering is the same as many other major theme parks all over the US. On top of that the only one that actually visited the parks Disney claims their records show the transaction couldn't of happened as described.


----------



## aaarcher86

OurBigTrip said:


> So, back to the lawsuit...if we could strip away the overly emotional verbiage and the wild allegations that Disney put the DAS in place to drive away the disabled, is there anyone that believes the suit has any level of merit?



No. They cited the 2 things from the ADA that are relevant. 

1. Unlimited, shortened wait times are not something required. 

2.  They are not required to offer something that hinders operations. 

After those two things, nothing else really matters.


----------



## jcb

OurBigTrip said:


> So, back to the lawsuit...if we could strip away the overly emotional verbiage and the wild allegations that Disney put the DAS in place to drive away the disabled, is there anyone that believes the suit has any level of merit?


 
 It is quite difficult to get past the wild allegations.

If I could, I can't imagine the parents will get a return of GAC or "near immediate" access.  If the parents can show, in practice, that DAS is such an abysmal failure that it means Disney is not willing to individually evaluate the modification their child needs, then perhaps.  (I am not saying DAS works or not, I'm not qualified to say.)

 But even here, the question would then be, what modification is reasonable under the circumstances.  Disney doesn't have to provide every desired modification, just a modification that permits the full and equal enjoyment.


----------



## CPT Tripss

OurBigTrip said:


> So, back to the lawsuit...if we could strip away the overly emotional verbiage and the wild allegations that Disney put the DAS in place to drive away the disabled, is there anyone that believes the suit has any level of merit?



Nope


----------



## 2tinkerbell

aaarcher86 said:


> No. They cited the 2 things from the ADA that are relevant.
> 
> 1. Unlimited, shortened wait times are not something required.
> 
> 2.  They are not required to offer something that hinders operations.
> 
> After those two things, nothing else really matters.



I agree.  

I personally hope that the lawsuit is dismissed, which, if I read correctly, is what Disney is asking.


----------



## TulipsNZ

What accommodations would help those who need immediate access.  

If their were a central DSA booth that could monitor ride wait times?  Then those with a card could approach the booth inform which ride they want to ride and get a pass for that ride with the estimated wait time for the line as it stands?  That way they don't have to approach the ride and leave yet still have to wait the same length of time as other patrons.  

I have no idea if this sort of thing would work but just theorising options that may help.


----------



## LilyWDW

OurBigTrip said:


> So, back to the lawsuit...if we could strip away the overly emotional verbiage and the wild allegations that Disney put the DAS in place to drive away the disabled, is there anyone that believes the suit has any level of merit?



Note: I am not a lawyer and I have not worked with the ADA in the capacity of a theme park. I HAVE worked with it when it comes to design in general.

Now that I have made sure everyone is aware of where I am coming from, I do not think that this lawsuit has merit. All one has to do is look at the ADA itself as to what Disney is required to do. They already provide a way for people to ACCESS the attraction that takes into account that waits in lines can be hard for some people. This is giving them equal access which is all the ADA requires of a business (except in specific situations where it can be required to have more (education) or allowed to have less (historical preservation) but Disney does not fall into any of these). 

Now, a bit more of a personal note. The idea that the ability to loop could be considered "equal" is something I can not wrap my head around. Like I have said before, I have anxiety, depression, OCD, and PTSD. I have also been seen for, but not diagnosed with, autistic tendencies. Would I love to be able to ride my favorite attraction over and over (Haunted Mansion in my case if you cared)? Heck yes. Is that a fair accommodation? Heck no. I should also say that if I plan to ride something and it is down, it is very hard for me to get off that fact. I focus on it and it can be difficult for me to change my focus. But that is for me to deal with and Disney shouldn't be required to give me a FP or something instead. Why? Because it is not something that someone without my problems would EVER have access to... which means my access would be greater and not equal any longer.


----------



## North of Mouse

jcb said:


> Disney doesn't have to provide every desired modification, just a modification that permits the full and equal enjoyment.



Disney 'can't' give everyone full and equal enjoyment. I have 'neck' issues which prevents me going on coasters (which I used to love), but Disney cannot give me equal enjoyment of riding them like many others have. But that's 'my' problem, not Disneys. I 'can' have the access, just not the enjoyment, and that is definitely not a fault of theirs.

We all have to have the personal responsibility of dealing with the hand that we are given.


----------



## MickeyWheels

As a parent of a child with severe special needs, we have a rule... if you cannot wait a reasonable amount of time you do not get to ride the ride.  My child has been pulled out of lines when near the front because she chose to melt down.  Its a life skill.  She waits in line to get to the Park, waits in line to get in the park, waits in line to get the DAS, waits in line for the return time, and waits in line to get on the ride.  It's part of going to Disney. Yes, we use the DAS (more for her physical disability than her sensory/anxiety) but we rarely get back exactly when the return time is. We get the return time, we set the alarm on the clock so she knows when we get to go back, then we go and do something distracting (Hidden Mickey hunt, see how many people with blue shoes we can spot, etc)  Life is not going to give my child a front of the line pass. If she cannot wait a reasonable amount of time we skip the ride.  We make better choices on behavior and we get to ride the rides.  Yes many kids are more severe than my kid, but in life no one will give you a fastpass, so instead you have to find ways for the kids to learn a life skill.  

Also, I miss the alternative waiting area. My child has severe brittle bone and lines are a physical danger to her.  When they had the safe waiting areas we could hang out 30 minutes or more safely until it was our turn and it worked great.

As for the comment that a ramp was the same as accelerated access... that is so wrong.  a ramp is a walkway. Everyone can use it .  Its a simple access path.   Accelerated access means you bypass everyone who waited patiently on that ramp.  

All this said.... I strongly believe kids with cancer and other near end stage illnesses should get a front of line pass. THOSE are the kids it was designed for initially. For kids with a short life expectancy so they could do Disney and build memories with their family within their health endurance.  My kid has a 3 hour window before she needs to rest due to her health decline,and a front of line pass would be great,  but we have never used "front of line" because we feel that she is no better or different than anyone else, and she CAN wait for the reward of riding the ride or she can skip the ride.  Its a parenting choice.


----------



## KathyRN137

SueM in MN said:


> I do want to point out that the term 'speshul snowflakes' is a very 'loaded term'.
> It has not appeared in this thread until a few posts ago




Agreed, Sue. I quoted this offensive term from another board, not this one. No one here has used these words. Term used for illustrative purposes only.

Thanks,

*Kathy*


----------



## lelalittlelegs

I don't know why I'm writing this as no one will read it and it really doesn't touch on the debate but I just wanted to pipe up and say that as the mother of an autistic child who also has cerebral palsy due to a birth related brain injury (and trust me, being autistic is the least serious condition) as well as several other life limiting diseases, my life as the mother of an autistic child is not unfair or hard and it definitely does NOT suck to be me. Like I said, pointless post, but I don't want anyone to think that ALL parents of severely disabled children feel hard done by in life. My DD is awesome and life is what you make it.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

lelalittlelegs said:


> I don't know why I'm writing this as no one will read it and it really doesn't touch on the debate but I just wanted to pipe up and say that as the mother of an autistic child who also has cerebral palsy due to a birth related brain injury (and trust me, being autistic is the least serious condition) as well as several other life limiting diseases, my life as the mother of an autistic child is not unfair or hard and it definitely does NOT suck to be me. Like I said, pointless post, but I don't want anyone to think that ALL parents of severely disabled children feel hard done by in life. My DD is awesome and life is what you make it.


----------



## kaytieeldr

Not pointless, and I'm reading it.


----------



## Goofy14sure

OurBigTrip said:


> So, back to the lawsuit...if we could strip away the overly emotional verbiage and the wild allegations that Disney put the DAS in place to drive away the disabled, is there anyone that believes the suit has any level of merit?



I don't think that it does, the DAS policy is basically the same as other theme parks (Six Flags, Universal). If they were in violation of the ADA, they would have already have been sued.


----------



## SMD

mttmilner said:


> My suggestion would be as follows. When you get your DAS return time instead of it being 10 minutes shorter than the wait time, it's 10 minutes longer, and when you come back, instead of going through the fast pass line, you do get immediate access. You would also only be able to have one return time at a time. The child would still not be able to ride the same ride multiple times in a row, but it would allow them to not have to wait in the line which appears to cause so many problems.
> 
> That's just my suggestion and I'm sure it isn't perfect but I would love to hear some other compromises.



I think that that's a nice idea, but not very practical. One of the issues is that so many people use the DAS that immediate access will end up being immediate access to a DAS return line separate from the FP line. CMs are then sorting people onto the ride from 3 queues, DAS, FP and standby. I just don't see that working out well for anyone.

At DL, many rides don't have FP and the queues are not accessible. Often there are so many DAS guests returning that guests in wheelchairs are given return times. Now, I don't think that's inherently unfair, because a DAS user has already waited, and a wheelchair user, while they have no choice to do standby, is being given an open ended return time. It just illustrates that it's use, not abuse that is the main issue.


----------



## WheeledTraveler

SMD said:


> At DL, many rides don't have FP and the queues are not accessible. Often there are so many DAS guests returning that guests in wheelchairs are given return times. Now, I don't think that's inherently unfair, because a DAS user has already waited, and a wheelchair user, while they have no choice to do standby, is being given an open ended return time. It just illustrates that it's use, not abuse that is the main issue.



As far as I know, wheelchair return cards (at both US parks) do have an end time. They have to be used within the hour after the return time. One person can have multiple wheelchair return cards at one time. I'm fairly certain that someone posted back post-DAS implementation that at DL some of the wheelchair return cards were not for the same wait as the standby line because one of the uses is to try to avoid having 5 people who need a wheelchair accessible vehicle all returning at the same time. So while occasionally times on the wheelchair return cards might be a little shorter than the wait for the standby line, the wait could just as easily could be for the same length or even longer.


----------



## SMD

WheeledTraveler said:


> As far as I know, wheelchair return cards (at both US parks) do have an end time. They have to be used within the hour after the return time. One person can have multiple wheelchair return cards at one time. I'm fairly certain that someone posted back post-DAS implementation that at DL some of the wheelchair return cards were not for the same wait as the standby line because one of the uses is to try to avoid having 5 people who need a wheelchair accessible vehicle all returning at the same time. So while occasionally times on the wheelchair return cards might be a little shorter than the wait for the standby line, the wait could just as easily could be for the same length or even longer.



The wheelchair return times are completely independent of the standby time at DL. Here was my experience last year:

POTC, standby time was about 20 minutes, WC return was for 2 hours later, waited 10+ minutes after returning.

HMH, standby time was about 45 minutes, WC return time was for 20 minutes, sent straight to the elevator after returning, but would have had to wait awhile to load a buggy, ride broke down, took a ReAd and left.

Jingle Cruise (yes, there was an overlay is year), standby time was about an hour, WC return time was for 5 minutes, waited 40+ minutes after returning, we were not waiting for the accessible boat.


----------



## wilkeliza

I believe Disneyland and WDW are different when it comes to wheelchairs. 

Much more of WDW is accessible so they often will go through the standard line and then wait for the wheelchair car to come around. 

When the line isn't wheelchair accessible they are given a return time similar to the posted wait time and taken through either the exit or fast pass line.


----------



## SueM in MN

mttmilner said:


> I agree with aaarcher86. I would really like to keep this thread going and not get it shut down.
> 
> Obviously this issue brings out a lot of passion in a lot of people.
> 
> I will say this. It seems that every time this issue is raised those of us siding with Disney are thought to be uncaring, cold hearted, and a variety of other things. I wish that wasn't the case. I wish that we could have a rational conversation with valid reasons being brought forth on both sides of the argument.
> 
> One thing I haven't seen is this and I'm hoping Kathy, or someone else in her position, can answer. What would you like to see done? What kind of compromise could be reached so both sides would be happy. I think we all know the days of the GAC are over so what's next? I think that's what is going to hurt this lawsuit is it doesn't appear to ask for anything besides bemoaning the loss of the GAC. Like a previous poster stated, due to the varying degrees ASD and other disabilities, and with growing online forums, it's hard for Disney to give one ASD child something without all the other parents wanting it.
> 
> *My suggestion would be as follows. When you get your DAS return time instead of it being 10 minutes shorter than the wait time, it's 10 minutes longer, and when you come back, instead of going through the fast pass line, you do get immediate access. You would also only be able to have one return time at a time. The child would still not be able to ride the same ride multiple times in a row, but it would allow them to not have to wait in the line which appears to cause so many problems. *
> 
> That's just my suggestion and I'm sure it isn't perfect but I would love to hear some other compromises.


That is a good suggestion, but it would be very difficult to implement.
First of all, I don't think most people would be very happy to get a DAS Return Time for 10 minutes more than the current wait.  So, it would be difficult foot the front line CMs.

And, the biggest problem would be that very few attractions have a way to bring someone to the front.

During our last 2 trips, we used Fastpass Plus and DAS, along with going on attractions in the area with short waits. 
Our experience during Spring break this year was that the Fastpass + lines looked very long, but move quickly and we usually were  consistently in the  line for less than 10 minutes. Sometimes there were people standing (even blocking) the line while they waited for their time to come and others had problems scanning their Magicbands or scanned and were too early (or had the correct time, but the wrong attraction). Once you get past that point, the lines moved along.

Someone had posted a video of a Fastpass + line to show the long, snaking line and what they thought was 2 guests in ECVs cutting into the line. 
But, when you actually listened to the audio, it was clear most of the people were not actually ready to go in. You could hear the CM telling people to move up to enter and people not moving.


lelalittlelegs said:


> I don't know why I'm writing this as no one will read it and it really doesn't touch on the debate but I just wanted to pipe up and say that as the mother of an autistic child who also has cerebral palsy due to a birth related brain injury (and trust me, being autistic is the least serious condition) as well as several other life limiting diseases, my life as the mother of an autistic child is not unfair or hard and it definitely does NOT suck to be me. Like I said, pointless post, but I don't want anyone to think that ALL parents of severely disabled children feel hard done by in life. My DD is awesome and life is what you make it.



My youngest DD has cerebral palsy and a number of other disabling conditions.
I get where you are coming from - her life is our reality and I love her the way she is because there are no other options.
If life gave us some lemons, I'm going to make the best lemonade I can possibly make.
I truly believe in all the quotes in my signature.


WheeledTraveler said:


> As far as I know, wheelchair return cards (at both US parks) do have an end time. They have to be used within the hour after the return time. One person can have multiple wheelchair return cards at one time. I'm fairly certain that someone posted back post-DAS implementation that at DL some of the wheelchair return cards were not for the same wait as the standby line because one of the uses is to try to avoid having 5 people who need a wheelchair accessible vehicle all returning at the same time. So while occasionally times on the wheelchair return cards might be a little shorter than the wait for the standby line, the wait could just as easily could be for the same length or even longer.


Yes - especially at DL where there are less attractions that are totally accessible.


----------



## SueM in MN

wilkeliza said:


> I believe Disneyland and WDW are different when it comes to wheelchairs.
> 
> Much more of WDW is accessible so they often will go through the standard line and then wait for the wheelchair car to come around.
> 
> When the line isn't wheelchair accessible they are given a return time similar to the posted wait time and taken through either the exit or fast pass line.


That is correct.
Most of the lens at WDW are actually accessible thru the standard line.
Sometimes, there is a different place to load - for example, at Buzz a Lightyear at MK, the Fastpass + and regular line is wheelchair accessible. When guests reach CM asking how many are in your party at the boarding area, guests without mobility  devices make a turn to the right and load within a few feet.
Guests with mobility devices are sent straight at that point into a hallway that leads to the unload area.

The only attractions at WDW that have return times for guests using wheelchairs are the ones that are not accessible. So, attractions like Small World which has a separate accessible entrance.


----------



## lanejudy

lelalittlelegs said:


> I don't know why I'm writing this as no one will read it and it really doesn't touch on the debate but I just wanted to pipe up and say that as the mother of an autistic child who also has cerebral palsy due to a birth related brain injury (and trust me, being autistic is the least serious condition) as well as several other life limiting diseases, my life as the mother of an autistic child is not unfair or hard and it definitely does NOT suck to be me. Like I said, pointless post, but I don't want anyone to think that ALL parents of severely disabled children feel hard done by in life. My DD is awesome and life is what you make it.



  I so agree!  I couldn't imagine DD any other way than "her."  Life is what you make of it, and it's perfect for me!


----------



## MickeyWheels

2tinkerbell said:


>



Not pointless at all! I agree! With life threatening health issues, my childs "behavioral" issues are the least of the concern in lines.  Go enjoy the park!  People who think they need front of line often are feeling that way because they fear how their child will react rather than how their child is acting.  The anxiety is exhausting! I get it.  And in spite of the challenges... my kid is absolutely amazing


----------



## MickeyWheels

By the way, since some have misinterpreted, I am not pitting one disability against another, I am saying we all have to work with the system we have and find ways to make it work and help Disney see how it can be improved.  Its a team


----------



## blondietink

lelalittlelegs said:


> I don't know why I'm writing this as no one will read it and it really doesn't touch on the debate but I just wanted to pipe up and say that as the mother of an autistic child who also has cerebral palsy due to a birth related brain injury (and trust me, being autistic is the least serious condition) as well as several other life limiting diseases, my life as the mother of an autistic child is not unfair or hard and it definitely does NOT suck to be me. Like I said, pointless post, but I don't want anyone to think that ALL parents of severely disabled children feel hard done by in life. My DD is awesome and life is what you make it.



Yea that!  I hate being called a "special" parent.  UGH!  I love both my sons just the way they are.  Sure, there are frustrating days, but I imagine any parent of any child could say that.


----------



## MickeyWheels

KathyRN137 said:


> Agreed, Sue. I quoted this offensive term from another board, not this one. No one here has used these words. Term used for illustrative purposes only.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> *Kathy*



We use the term "special snowflake" in reference to a child with severe Osteogenesis imprefecta who needs prayers due to medical issues going on actively.  My child is a special snowflake.  So I think it depends on the context of the term. It can be endearing or derogatory depending on the context


----------



## SueM in MN

MickeyWheels said:


> We use the term "special snowflake" in reference to a child with severe Osteogenesis imprefecta who needs prayers due to medical issues going on actively.  My child is a special snowflake.  So I think it depends on the context of the term. It can be endearing or derogatory depending on the context


I can see how it can be endearing - snowflakes are pretty unique and special. 
But, you might not be aware, when spelled 'speshul snowflake' it is generally meant as derogatory.


----------



## SueM in MN

I think many people can agree that the wording of the lawsuit itself is causing a lot of the ill will. 
My comments are in blue and the quotes from the lawsuit in italics. From page 16 of the lawsuit:
_
COMPLAINT 
The DAS card itself reveals Disney's motivations: 
1) Disney replaced its generically-titled "Guest Assistance Card" with the stigma emphasizing title of "Disability Access Service" card. There can be no plausible good faith reason for deliberately re-naming the card in this manner. _
I can think of many plausible reasons - one of them is that guests without disabilities WERE actually using that title to rationalize that it was for guests who wanted assistance, not for guests with disabilities. Specifically, I have seen blogs where people with healthy pregnancies or several healthy children used the name of the card to rationalize that it was not for guests with disabilities, but for any guest. 
_2) Disney now insists upon taking a photograph of the disabled guest at the commencement of each two-week period the guest visits the Disney Parks. Non-disabled  persons are not required to submit to the taking of their photograph. There can be no plausible good faith reason for adding this pre-condition to disabled persons' entry to the Disney Parks._
The good reason for this was so that the CMs can actually identify who the card belongs to and make sure that person is actually the one using it. 

From pages 24 and 25 of the lawsuit:
_The "rented invalid" problem never existed to any extent which necessitated a massive overhaul of Disney's policies for accommodating disabled persons. Rather, Disney influenced the release and/ or spread of such articles, for the specific purpose of creating cover for its planned rollout of the DAS program. Disney wanted the public to view 
the "rented invalid" problem as an epidemic of fraud, with Disney as its victim. _
The lawsuit doesn't propose any reasons for the "planned rollout of the DAS program" that I could see other than that the lawsuit alleges that Disney wants to get rid of people with autism from their parks.
_45. One facet of the DAS is that guests with mobility challenges are removed entirely from the DAS system. Disney now refuses to even acknowledge that persons in wheelchairs are disabled. Guests with wheelchairs are now told that the queues are fully accessible for them so they may wait in lines with the non-disabled persons. _
It apparently is not apparent to the people in the lawsuit that the ADA requires accessible queues, and that is all that is needed or wanted by many guests using wheelchairs whose primary need is met by accessible lines.
_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. If there was a problem with non-disabled guests "renting" persons in wheelchairs for a day, the problem could not occur with persons like Plaintiffs._
This is why a lot of the discussions about the lawsuit have gone to pitting one disability against another - the lawsuit is doing just that (and threw everyone else under the bus.
Not to mention that two of the parties in the lawsuit are complaining that they were not able to access attractions with the short waits they were accustomed to with GAC  or loop on popular attractions......on a Christmas trip, starting Christmas Day. 
And, quite a few mention their child can't wait, needs to go on attractions without waiting and had to loop popular attractions that normally have long waits. 
It doesn't matter if most people with disabilities are reasonable in their expectations, in how they used GACs and in what they do now. 

THESE are the things people have heard about and read about in the internet - just google 'disabilities' or 'autism' 'GAC' 'Disney' and read what some people put out there about how they used GAC as a 'golden ticket'. It doesn't matter that most of us didn't do that; people assume everyone did because that is what they have read. 

THESE are the things that cause people without disabilities to make the comments they do after blog posts or articles about the lawsuit or about the DAS. 

THESE are the things that are causing the pitting of one disability against the other in the discussions. We need to realize that we are all in this together and people with disabilities fighting about whose disability is worst doesn't solve anything and hurts everyone in the long run.


----------



## cassiejo2711

lelalittlelegs said:


> I don't know why I'm writing this as no one will read it and it really doesn't touch on the debate but I just wanted to pipe up and say that as the mother of an autistic child who also has cerebral palsy due to a birth related brain injury (and trust me, being autistic is the least serious condition) as well as several other life limiting diseases, my life as the mother of an autistic child is not unfair or hard and it definitely does NOT suck to be me. Like I said, pointless post, but I don't want anyone to think that ALL parents of severely disabled children feel hard done by in life. My DD is awesome and life is what you make it.



Yes. This. I read and nodded and got tears in my eyes. We all have struggles and they are all different, but that doesn't mean my life has to be any less happy as a result. I have a great life, and I know I take a lot less for granted now.


----------



## MickeyWheels

SueM in MN said:


> I think many people can agree that the wording of the lawsuit itself is causing a lot of the ill will.
> My comments are in blue and the quotes from the lawsuit in italics. From page 16 of the lawsuit:
> _
> COMPLAINT
> The DAS card itself reveals Disney's motivations:
> 1) Disney replaced its generically-titled "Guest Assistance Card" with the stigma emphasizing title of "Disability Access Service" card. There can be no plausible good faith reason for deliberately re-naming the card in this manner. _
> I can think of many plausible reasons - one of them is that guests without disabilities WERE actually using that title to rationalize that it was for guests who wanted assistance, not for guests with disabilities. Specifically, I have seen blogs where people with healthy pregnancies or several healthy children used the name of the card to rationalize that it was not for guests with disabilities, but for any guest.
> _2) Disney now insists upon taking a photograph of the disabled guest at the commencement of each two-week period the guest visits the Disney Parks. Non-disabled  persons are not required to submit to the taking of their photograph. There can be no plausible good faith reason for adding this pre-condition to disabled persons' entry to the Disney Parks._
> The good reason for this was so that the CMs can actually identify who the card belongs to and make sure that person is actually the one using it.
> 
> From pages 24 and 25 of the lawsuit:
> _The "rented invalid" problem never existed to any extent which necessitated a massive overhaul of Disney's policies for accommodating disabled persons. Rather, Disney influenced the release and/ or spread of such articles, for the specific purpose of creating cover for its planned rollout of the DAS program. Disney wanted the public to view
> the "rented invalid" problem as an epidemic of fraud, with Disney as its victim. _
> The lawsuit doesn't propose any reasons for the "planned rollout of the DAS program" that I could see other than that the lawsuit alleges that Disney wants to get rid of people with autism from their parks.
> _45. One facet of the DAS is that guests with mobility challenges are removed entirely from the DAS system. Disney now refuses to even acknowledge that persons in wheelchairs are disabled. Guests with wheelchairs are now told that the queues are fully accessible for them so they may wait in lines with the non-disabled persons. _
> It apparently is not apparent to the people in the lawsuit that the ADA requires accessible queues, and that is all that is needed or wanted by many guests using wheelchairs whose primary need is met by accessible lines.
> _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. If there was a problem with non-disabled guests "renting" persons in wheelchairs for a day, the problem could not occur with persons like Plaintiffs._
> This is why a lot of the discussions about the lawsuit have gone to pitting one disability against another - the lawsuit is doing just that (and threw everyone else under the bus.
> Not to mention that two of the parties in the lawsuit are complaining that they were not able to access attractions with the short waits they were accustomed to with GAC  or loop on popular attractions......on a Christmas trip, starting Christmas Day.
> And, quite a few mention their child can't wait, needs to go on attractions without waiting and had to loop popular attractions that normally have long waits.
> It doesn't matter if most people with disabilities are reasonable in their expectations, in how they used GACs and in what they do now.
> 
> THESE are the things people have heard about and read about in the internet - just google 'disabilities' or 'autism' 'GAC' 'Disney' and read what some people put out there about how they used GAC as a 'golden ticket'. It doesn't matter that most of us didn't do that; people assume everyone did because that is what they have read.
> 
> THESE are the things that cause people without disabilities to make the comments they do after blog posts or articles about the lawsuit or about the DAS.
> 
> THESE are the things that are causing the pitting of one disability against the other in the discussions. We need to realize that we are all in this together and people with disabilities fighting about whose disability is worst doesn't solve anything and hurts everyone in the long run.



_____________

Regarding the picture..... you can have them take a photo of a photo (they just need to physically see the person getting the card before doing so) OR you can opt to NOT get the DAS if a photo is too invasive.


----------



## SueM in MN

MickeyWheels said:


> _____________
> 
> Regarding the picture..... you can have them take a photo of a photo (they just need to physically see the person getting the card before doing so) OR you can opt to NOT get the DAS if a photo is too invasive.


True.
And you can also chose to take a picture of a parent or guardian.

At first, they needed a new picture each time a renewal card was issued, but now if you bring back your previous DAS,they are able to read a code on it to access your file with the previous picture.


----------



## SMD

One of the complaints in the suit is that the word "disability" appears below the picture. That seems easy enough to fix.

How many people on this board and in the Facebook group that recruited the plaintiffs have admitted that other members of their family used the GAC while the family member who was given the GAC was resting in the room or chose not to ride the attraction? I wonder how many people who dispute the need for pictures were taking advantage of that loophole.


----------



## MickeyWheels

SMD said:


> One of the complaints in the suit is that the word "disability" appears below the picture. That seems easy enough to fix.
> 
> How many people on this board and in the Facebook group that recruited the plaintiffs have admitted that other members of their family used the GAC while the family member who was given the GAC was resting in the room or chose not to ride the attraction? I wonder how many people who dispute the need for pictures were taking advantage of that loophole.


+++++++++++++

In our case my daughters name was on the GAC but because I also am a wheelchair user and we needed the GAC for wheelchair access on some rides, we were actually instructed to use the card for me even though it was in her name. This was because they only allowed one GAC per family. The new DAS requires a separate one for each family member with a disability.


----------



## SMD

MickeyWheels said:


> +++++++++++++
> 
> In our case my daughters name was on the GAC but because I also am a wheelchair user and we needed the GAC for wheelchair access on some rides, we were actually instructed to use the card for me even though it was in her name. This was because they only allowed one GAC per family. The new DAS requires a separate one for each family member with a disability.



I usually go to DLR, where many rides aren't wheelchair accessible, and technically one didn't need a GAC to load through the exit. In reality, it was probably easiest to just get one to have something to show the CM. I have seen families with multiple GAC at DL, though. They were pretty strict on the 6 person limit (printed on the GAC, they'd sometimes accommodate larger parties at the ride). They were also issuing GAC with long expiration dates, so I imagine many APs were just getting a new one before the first expired to accommodate large parties. The fact that they will now issue a DAS for a party over 6 (with everyone present) is actually an improvement over the GAC. Of course, I'm sure many people who had a few long expiring GACs and were splitting up their parties probably don't like the fact that records are now being kept when a DAS is issued.


----------



## MickeyWheels

SMD said:


> I usually go to DLR, where many rides aren't wheelchair accessible, and technically one didn't need a GAC to load through the exit. In reality, it was probably easiest to just get one to have something to show the CM. I have seen families with multiple GAC at DL, though. They were pretty strict on the 6 person limit (printed on the GAC, they'd sometimes accommodate larger parties at the ride). They were also issuing GAC with long expiration dates, so I imagine many APs were just getting a new one before the first expired to accommodate large parties. The fact that they will now issue a DAS for a party over 6 (with everyone present) is actually an improvement over the GAC. Of course, I'm sure many people who had a few long expiring GACs and were splitting up their parties probably don't like the fact that records are now being kept when a DAS is issued.



_____________
The concept of where to draw the line on "family" for the DAS is a tough one! We were in line behind a "family" of 18 at DLR.  There were 6 or 8 adults in the group. One wheelchair. But clearly another child could have also been disabled so no Im not judging, but it brings up the question of where should the line be?  They are good about accommodating larger groups on the DAS, but I think in these cases they need to try and link the DAS with the FP.  When we meet friends we do not add them to our "family" we try to coordinate their FP time. Problem is the FP are now gone 6 mo in advance so even thats a poor option.  Not sure what the right answer is these days other than just go, be honest, and enjoy the trip and not worry what others are doing.


----------



## SMD

MickeyWheels said:


> _____________
> The concept of where to draw the line on "family" for the DAS is a tough one! We were in line behind a "family" of 18 at DLR.  There were 6 or 8 adults in the group. One wheelchair. But clearly another child could have also been disabled so no Im not judging, but it brings up the question of where should the line be?  They are good about accommodating larger groups on the DAS, but I think in these cases they need to try and link the DAS with the FP.  When we meet friends we do not add them to our "family" we try to coordinate their FP time. Problem is the FP are now gone 6 mo in advance so even thats a poor option.  Not sure what the right answer is these days other than just go, be honest, and enjoy the trip and not worry what others are doing.



That's a good point about drawing the line. It would be nice if a large group could stay together all day, but in reality, any group of 10-12 guests isn't going to be in the same ride vehicle most of the time, standby, FP or DAS. On POTC or Star Tours, maybe it's not such a big deal to fill 2 rows instead of 1 for a large group. But on rides where the vehicle only seats 4, or a ride like Dumbo or teacups, I can see where it's a strain on ride operation after awhile. I think that VIP tours are limited to 10, so I guess they have a system worked out for groups at least that size.


----------



## Wendydagny

I for one am pleased that there is an official policy on large party size and the DAS. We have six children, and my oldest is 14, so it's not like they are adults. We were always allowed to stay together with the GAC, but that was unofficial and always a but worrisome. 

I am bothered by the lawsuit and the grouping of disability in the ensuing discussion because the assumption is that there are mobility issues and cognitive issues, and that's it. My child has BOTH and neither are the real reason she needs a GAC. 

The other assumption is that immediate access is only needed for autism and that the need for immediate access always equals the need for looping. That is simply not the case. I've seen a few comments where no one questions that wish children need/deserve immediate access. The reality is that those wish children come back to disney, and they sometimes stubbornly live for a lot longer than people think they should  their needs don't really change on repeat trips. 

My child took a rush wish trip in 2010, and her medical situation has only worsened since then. We have returned to Disney 6 times since that trip. Many of our trips actually left our other five children behind because her medical needs were just too intense to manage everything. We used the GAC for immediate access to attractions, but not for looping. Even doing that, our usage was minimal because of her limitations. 

We have done two trips with the DAS, and while we have made it work, it makes our trips significantly more difficult. The level of my child's needs are obvious within seconds of seeing her. We have encountered many CM's on these trips that do not like the changes that limit their ability to help us-- we have had countless CMs fudge return times (on their own), and I have never been allowed to wait in a non-FP character line because the CM's will come grab us and say not on my watch. We have never had a guest glare at us and wonder why my child is getting special treatment. In fact, quite the opposite-- I have guests who insist we get in front of them, and my child once got a clapping standing ovation at ETWB. I have had so many pixie dust moments and tears streaming down your face moments thanks to Disney and the CM's and guests there.

I feel a need to interject here because I know I mentioned rides like test track, etc earlier in the thread. Yes I take my scary very ill child on  a few specific rides that technically are not completely safe for someone in their condition. So do most people on wish trips-- my child's outcome will be the same, even if I don't let her ride any thrill rides. But there have been several trips that she has been to unwell to even think about riding these rides. 

Anyway-- I know of many people with children whose needs are as complex as my daughters who have decided that They can no longer make Disney work for them. Which IMO is sad. The group of "stubbornly living wish kids on non wish trips" isn't represented a lot and it's important to remember them.


----------



## SueM in MN

MickeyWheels said:


> +++++++++++++
> 
> In our case my daughters name was on the GAC but because I also am a wheelchair user and we needed the GAC for wheelchair access on some rides, we were actually instructed to use the card for me even though it was in her name. This was because they only allowed one GAC per family. The new DAS requires a separate one for each family member with a disability.


That was one issue with GACs.
There never was a requirement for GAC for wheelchair access, but many people, including guests and some CMs thought there was. Requiring some 'proof' like a GAC to use the wheelchair accessible entrance with a wheelchair would be against the law (ADA).

So, how did that happen?
1) There WAS a GAC stamp to use the wheelchair accessible entrance that was meant for guests with mobility needs who did NOT have a wheelchair. That stamp was also sometimes given out when guests did not plan to use their wheelchair in line.
CMs at Guest Relations also sometimes gave it out to guests with wheelchairs who insisted they needed a GAC (this is what I have been told by CMs). It actually did nothing that the person could not do with just their wheelchair.

2) When MK and Epcot opened, most lines were not wheelchair accessible and guests with wheelchairs used a different entrance, often the exit.
In the late 1980s thru 1990s, WDW started renovated lines to create Mainstream Access, which was required by the ADA. Mainstream Access means attractions are accessible thru the main line, as much as possible, the same way other guests access the attraction. The Studio and AK were built with Mainstream access, so have not changed any of their lines.
Guests who had visited previously came back to use what had been the 'handicapped entrance' and were told they could not use it with just a wheelchair and needed a GAC. It had often become the "alternate entrance" used by guests with other types of needs or other types of needs in addition to mobility needs.
Many people did not realize the regular line was now accessible and thought their only way in was to get a GAC. 

3) Fastpass came into use. Sometimes, guests with wheelchairs were sent thru the Fastpass line because there was a short wait in the regular line and sending them to it slowed down the regular line. Sometimes it was pixie dust. In most cases, no explanation was given, so the guest thought it was the handicapped entrance. When they came back to the Fastpass entrance to ride again, they were told they needed a GAC to use that entrance.
That was the "alternate entry" and a GAC was needed for guests with other needs or who had other needs beside the mobility device.

4) some guests with wheelchairs has other needs and did need a GAC with an alternate entry stamp or they were traveling with someone else who had a GAC for that entrance.

Confusing?
It was very confusing to both guests and CMs. Some CMs thought anyone using a wheelchair also needed a GAC - and would send guests back to Guest Relations to get one.
My family was told a number of times that we needed to have a GAC to bring our daughter's wheelchair in line or bypass stairs. Several times, we had Fastpasses and were told we needed a GAC to use the Fastpass line!
Once, we waited in the regular line at Splash Mountain, but the CM at the wheelchair gate just before getting to the stairs told us she could not let us through because "that would be cutting". 
In all cases, when we asked for a Supervisor, the CM was told it was against the law to require a guest with a mobility device to have a GAC just to use the accessible line.
I know that a lot of people didn't ask for a supervisor, but just went back to Guest Relations to try to get a GAC. 



MickeyWheels said:


> _____________
> The concept of where to draw the line on "family" for the DAS is a tough one! We were in line behind a "family" of 18 at DLR.  There were 6 or 8 adults in the group. One wheelchair. But clearly another child could have also been disabled so no Im not judging, but it brings up the question of where should the line be?  They are good about accommodating larger groups on the DAS, but I think in these cases they need to try and link the DAS with the FP.  When we meet friends we do not add them to our "family" we try to coordinate their FP time. Problem is the FP are now gone 6 mo in advance so even thats a poor option.  Not sure what the right answer is these days other than just go, be honest, and enjoy the trip and not worry what others are doing.


Just so you are aware - for most attractions, not all of the Fastpasses are released at the same time. Some are held for same day release and some become available closer to the time of the trip.
So, if you have things you want, keep looking, even to the day you are going you the park.


----------



## asc

LilyWDW said:


> Actually, the ADA is very clear in the fact that a business does not have to provide every single possible situation for every single possible person. It is also clear the the experience may not be the same person to person and it doesn't have to be. This isn't an "agree" or "disagree" issue. It is clearly spelled out in the law.
> 
> Perhaps, being from Canada, the law is different there and thus there is some confusion?



no.  the law is similar.

in Canada, businesses have an obligation to accommodate up to undue hardship.  that is what the human rights codes in each province require.

so it is similar as in the US.  

that means that not all businesses would have to, say provide services in sign language, however, larger companies might have to accommodate the same since what is undue hardship for one business is not for another.

I don't think accelerated access to rides is deleterious to Disney's business.  That said, I think they can come up with a way to accommodate the variety of needs better than they do.  Perhaps this might mean some don't wait at all.  I can live with that.

That is what I did not agree with.  As to how far a business must go to accommodate persons with additional needs, that is what courts are for.  Therefore, my other comment was it is really not for us to decide that.  

Just like here, courts determine what is undue hardship for a business.

That's all.

[I will add that regardless of what the legal obligation is or may be, I would think that a large organization like Disney could go above and beyond if they wanted to.]


----------



## Napria

I've pretty much stayed off these boards since my son with multiple disabilities got older.  Everyone has different issues and Sue has done a fantastic job of moderating this board (you have the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of a saint, Sue) but the ignorance I read about here just gets my blood pressure up.  I'm not talking about ignorance from people posting here, but the things like this lawsuit that people post about on here.

The one glaring thing after reading Sue's comments was the plaintiff's issue with the word "disability" Okay...  I know it's more politically correct to say "differently abled" or some other positively phrased euphemism, but does this mean the "Americans with Disabilities Act"  will be sued next for the derogatory word?

My son has many physical and cognitive issues. He needs accommodations in everyday life.  I don't know if he will want to go into the Parks or not next trip, but if he does AND if he wants to go on any rides we will have absolutely no problem with Disney's taking his picture, putting it on a DAS and issuing it to him.  They are doing it to help him, regardless of the wording.

And if people have a problem with the word "disabled" they need to start with changing the name of ADA.  In my opinion Disney is just trying to follow in the spirit of that legal act.

Just my .02.


----------



## SMD

Wendydagny said:


> The other assumption is that immediate access is only needed for autism and that the need for immediate access always equals the need for looping. That is simply not the case.



Every child in the suit has autism. Since this thread is based on that, it will probably keep circling back to that.



Wendydagny said:


> I've seen a few comments where no one questions that wish children need/deserve immediate access.



I think most people would agree that they deserve the access because it is their Wish trip.



Wendydagny said:


> The reality is that those wish children come back to disney, and they sometimes stubbornly live for a lot longer than people think they should  their needs don't really change on repeat trips.



Wow.



Wendydagny said:


> We have done two trips with the DAS, and while we have made it work, it makes our trips significantly more difficult. The level of my child's needs are obvious within seconds of seeing her. We have encountered many CM's on these trips that do not like the changes that limit their ability to help us-- we have had countless CMs fudge return times (on their own), and I have never been allowed to wait in a non-FP character line because the CM's will come grab us and say not on my watch. We have never had a guest glare at us and wonder why my child is getting special treatment. In fact, quite the opposite-- I have guests who insist we get in front of them, and my child once got a clapping standing ovation at ETWB. I have had so many pixie dust moments and tears streaming down your face moments thanks to Disney and the CM's and guests there.



Agree to disagree, but no kid should automatically get to skip all the lines just because they previously took a Wish trip. It's not some precedent that gets set for your level of pixie dust. If you skip a character line once because a CM pulls you out of line, and you realize that going forward it will be too hard to do it any other way, it's on you to decide if it's worth doing it again, not on Disney to keep pixie dusting you. Honestly, you sound a little entitled here.



Wendydagny said:


> The group of "stubbornly living wish kids on non wish trips" isn't represented a lot and it's important to remember them.


Um, how do you feel about a kid with leukemia who gets a trip? He has to survive treatment and get his immune system back up. He might be back in shape, playing little league before he could get his Wish trip. Should he not get special treatment on his Wish trip?


----------



## aaarcher86

asc said:


> no.  the law is similar.  in Canada, businesses have an obligation to accommodate up to undue hardship.  that is what the human rights codes in each province require.  so it is similar as in the US.  that means that not all businesses would have to, say provide services in sign language, however, larger companies might have to accommodate the same since what is undue hardship for one business is not for another.  I don't think accelerated access to rides is deleterious to Disney's business.  That said, I think they can come up with a way to accommodate the variety of needs better than they do.  Perhaps this might mean some don't wait at all.  I can live with that.  That is what I did not agree with.  As to how far a business must go to accommodate persons with additional needs, that is what courts are for.  Therefore, my other comment was it is really not for us to decide that.  Just like here, courts determine what is undue hardship for a business.  That's all.



 Since the law here spells out that accommodations don't need to be given if they alter the operation of the business, and Disney has cited it specifically in the rebuttal, I don't see how there is much question.   

If GAC holders were adding to the wait of the standby line and causing less FP to be given out, that kind of ends the debate.   You may not believe it, but you can clearly run the numbers yourself and see how many guests were walking straight into the FP lines each day. I'm sure someone has the article citing HALF of the people in line at Radiator Springs had a GAC on opening day (paraphrasing).  

How would you suggest disney decide who gets more accommodations/no wait and who doesn't?


----------



## North of Mouse

asc said:


> I don't think accelerated access to rides is deleterious to Disney's business.  That said, I think they can come up with a way to accommodate the variety of needs better than they do.
> 
> [I will add that regardless of what the legal obligation is or may be, I would think that a large organization like Disney could go above and beyond if they wanted to.]



I'm sorry but I just don't agree with this. Disney does and 'has been' going above and beyond what most any other business does in regards to being  'handicap friendly'. 'Accelerated' access was becoming a very big problem for them because of the sheer number of people that were using (some abusing) them.

It (the GAC) was being used in ways it was not intended, and was getting out of hand, over whelming attractions, and was impacting all other guests.

The DAS was created, and serves the purpose for which it is intended (perfect, no) but there will never be a 'one size fits all' for people needing assistance in any form.

Disney isn't perfect, but just ask the sheer number of guests needing assistance which park (business) is the most accommodating to their 'needs' and you will hear 'Disney'! 

'All' places must 'meet' ADA requirements, but Disney has and does go beyond!


----------



## asta

Wendydagny said:


> I for one am pleased that there is an official policy on large party size and the DAS. We have six children, and my oldest is 14, so it's not like they are adults. We were always allowed to stay together with the GAC, but that was unofficial and always a but worrisome.
> 
> I am bothered by the lawsuit and the grouping of disability in the ensuing discussion because the assumption is that there are mobility issues and cognitive issues, and that's it. My child has BOTH and neither are the real reason she needs a GAC.
> 
> The other assumption is that immediate access is only needed for autism and that the need for immediate access always equals the need for looping. That is simply not the case. I've seen a few comments where no one questions that wish children need/deserve immediate access. The reality is that those wish children come back to disney, and they sometimes stubbornly live for a lot longer than people think they should  their needs don't really change on repeat trips.
> 
> My child took a rush wish trip in 2010, and her medical situation has only worsened since then. We have returned to Disney 6 times since that trip. Many of our trips actually left our other five children behind because her medical needs were just too intense to manage everything. We used the GAC for immediate access to attractions, but not for looping. Even doing that, our usage was minimal because of her limitations.
> 
> We have done two trips with the DAS, and while we have made it work, it makes our trips significantly more difficult. The level of my child's needs are obvious within seconds of seeing her. We have encountered many CM's on these trips that do not like the changes that limit their ability to help us-- we have had countless CMs fudge return times (on their own), and I have never been allowed to wait in a non-FP character line because the CM's will come grab us and say not on my watch. We have never had a guest glare at us and wonder why my child is getting special treatment. In fact, quite the opposite-- I have guests who insist we get in front of them, and my child once got a clapping standing ovation at ETWB. I have had so many pixie dust moments and tears streaming down your face moments thanks to Disney and the CM's and guests there.
> 
> I feel a need to interject here because I know I mentioned rides like test track, etc earlier in the thread. Yes I take my scary very ill child on  a few specific rides that technically are not completely safe for someone in their condition. So do most people on wish trips-- my child's outcome will be the same, even if I don't let her ride any thrill rides. But there have been several trips that she has been to unwell to even think about riding these rides.
> 
> Anyway-- I know of many people with children whose needs are as complex as my daughters who have decided that They can no longer make Disney work for them. Which IMO is sad. The group of "stubbornly living wish kids on non wish trips" isn't represented a lot and it's important to remember them.



My sympathy to your situation but your post reads like an abuse of the courtesies extended by WDW. I thought WISH trips were designed to be *once* in a life time experiences with magical courtesies extended to very ill children. It just seems wrong to expect those conditions on other trips. Where does Disney draw the line? If you need multiple MAW type trips maybe that should be approached with MAW granting multiple trips instead of expecting Disney to always give you front of the line access.


----------



## SueM in MN

*Please keep in mind that there are real people with real feelings posting and reading here. 
If you would not want it said about you it your child, please keep it to yourself. Other people don't want to have it said about them or their child either. 

This thread has stated open longer than I thought it would, but if it is getting too personal, it will be closed. *


----------



## Wendydagny

Wow. Obviously everything I say is constantly being misinterpreted so I will now out after a few responses for clarification. 

I never abused my child's pass or used if in any way than was suggested by disney. When we used it for immediate access my daughter was spending an average of 3-4 hours in the park per day and accessing maybe 4 attractions per day. 

I have never in a single time asked a cm to let my child skip a character line. They seek my child out and are insistent. 

I have no problem with people on wish trips who are well when they take the trip. My child is not one of those kids. She will not get well.

I do have a problem saying that some wish children who don't get well but happen to stay alive should not be able to come back to disney because their needs are too great. 

I am not entitled not do I ask or require that Disney or you (general you) do anything. Just because someone's needs are great does not mean they are entitled. 

Ido not expect pixie dust to be legalized. 

I'm saying it's sad that a group of kids who used to be served by the GAC is no longer served and is opting to not go.


----------



## MickeyWheels

Wendydagny said:


> I for one am pleased that there is an official policy on large party size and the DAS. We have six children, and my oldest is 14, so it's not like they are adults. We were always allowed to stay together with the GAC, but that was unofficial and always a but worrisome.
> 
> I am bothered by the lawsuit and the grouping of disability in the ensuing discussion because the assumption is that there are mobility issues and cognitive issues, and that's it. My child has BOTH and neither are the real reason she needs a GAC.
> 
> The other assumption is that immediate access is only needed for autism and that the need for immediate access always equals the need for looping. That is simply not the case. I've seen a few comments where no one questions that wish children need/deserve immediate access. The reality is that those wish children come back to disney, and they sometimes stubbornly live for a lot longer than people think they should  their needs don't really change on repeat trips.
> 
> My child took a rush wish trip in 2010, and her medical situation has only worsened since then. We have returned to Disney 6 times since that trip. Many of our trips actually left our other five children behind because her medical needs were just too intense to manage everything. We used the GAC for immediate access to attractions, but not for looping. Even doing that, our usage was minimal because of her limitations.
> 
> We have done two trips with the DAS, and while we have made it work, it makes our trips significantly more difficult. The level of my child's needs are obvious within seconds of seeing her. We have encountered many CM's on these trips that do not like the changes that limit their ability to help us-- we have had countless CMs fudge return times (on their own), and I have never been allowed to wait in a non-FP character line because the CM's will come grab us and say not on my watch. We have never had a guest glare at us and wonder why my child is getting special treatment. In fact, quite the opposite-- I have guests who insist we get in front of them, and my child once got a clapping standing ovation at ETWB. I have had so many pixie dust moments and tears streaming down your face moments thanks to Disney and the CM's and guests there.
> 
> I feel a need to interject here because I know I mentioned rides like test track, etc earlier in the thread. Yes I take my scary very ill child on  a few specific rides that technically are not completely safe for someone in their condition. So do most people on wish trips-- my child's outcome will be the same, even if I don't let her ride any thrill rides. But there have been several trips that she has been to unwell to even think about riding these rides.
> 
> Anyway-- I know of many people with children whose needs are as complex as my daughters who have decided that They can no longer make Disney work for them. Which IMO is sad. The group of "stubbornly living wish kids on non wish trips" isn't represented a lot and it's important to remember them.



________________
I fully agree!  My child is the same! Sadly she can look "healthy" yet deformed because you cannot see her failing systems.  We could not travel to Florida at the time of my daughters Wish trip because she just was not healthy enough and they wanted to get her trip in as they did not expect her to get stronger.  Well... she is not stronger she is simply a bit more stable so we CAN make the trip and make memories, but we will still spend a lot of down time to accommodate her disability and that's OK too! We are there for memories!  

Disney is in fact wonderful and over time we see the DAS being tweaked to accommodate better and better. My fear in the lawsuit is it will lead Disney to tighten the reigns rather than continue to flex for the needs of special families.  

Earlier someone said that MAW is not for kids with life threatening illnesses and those who are potentially terminal were the minority who get wishes. Oh how wrong they are. While it is true many who do wish trips are not actively terminal, it is because if you are not fully stable you cannot travel, so kids usually get their wish early on in their disease progression so they can enjoy it while able.  There are other wish organizations that do a Wish for families of kids who are not potentially terminal, but MAW really does focus on kids with life threatening illnesses.   That said... my kid is one who beats the odds each year and we WILL celebrate that feat at Disney every year for as long as we can!  I won't quit until my child's body does. 

Every family, even those without a child with a disability, should plan Disney to be a family fun event. Go with the flow, do what you can, enjoy every moment, make memories, and go in knowing that some things will just have to wait until next trip because its not possible to do everything. With that mindset people might slow down a bit and actually enjoy Disney!  Our last trip accommodations stunk (the DAS was under test) and it resulted in an ER visit.  This trip it will be better.  Disney is striving to improve each day but they need to be told what is working so they can keep adapting and one day will have a pass that works great for our kids


----------



## StitchesGr8Fan

Back to the original topic. What happens next with the suit, and when?


----------



## Wendydagny

One more thing. 

When I talked about kids stubbornly staying alive with a wink, I was in no way being derogatory or suggesting children should die. I was being sarcastic regarding my own child's situation, when the doctors are constantly wrong re her prognosis/life expectancy. She is in 7 organ failure and survived a failed organ transplant. In reality it is a miracle that she is alive and that she lives as well as she does, but I have no level of denial that she will be with us for long, despite my fervent desires that she will live forever. 

There are many many parents with children like mine who continue to bring their children to Disney in order to live life to the fullest.


----------



## ttintagel

> That was one issue with GACs.
> 
> ...There never was a requirement for GAC for wheelchair access, but many people, including guests and some CMs thought there was...
> 
> ...CMs at Guest Relations also sometimes gave it out to guests with wheelchairs who insisted they needed a GAC (this is what I have been told by CMs)...
> 
> ...In most cases, no explanation was given, so the guest thought it was the handicapped entrance. When they came back to the Fastpass entrance to ride again, they were told they needed a GAC to use that entrance...
> 
> ...Some CMs thought anyone using a wheelchair also needed a GAC - and would send guests back to Guest Relations to get one...



What you're describing isn't problems with the GAC system itself. It's problems with the shoddy training, understaffing, and poor managerial support being given to CM's, so they weren't doing their jobs correctly. ANY system is going to end up with problems under those conditions.


----------



## AndreaA

aaarcher86 said:


> Since the law here spells out that accommodations don't need to be given if they alter the operation of the business, and Disney has cited it specifically in the rebuttal, I don't see how there is much question.
> 
> If GAC holders were adding to the wait of the standby line and causing less FP to be given out, that kind of ends the debate.   You may not believe it, but you can clearly run the numbers yourself and see how many guests were walking straight into the FP lines each day. I'm sure someone has the article citing HALF of the people in line at Radiator Springs had a GAC on opening day (paraphrasing).
> 
> How would you suggest disney decide who gets more accommodations/no wait and who doesn't?



But technically, the DAS should not be decreasing the number of people allowed to use the FP line except in that it has prevented a number of people from even going to Disney at all.

If 50 people with a DAS suddenly want to ride Radiator Springs and go get a return time, that return time will be basically the same for all of them and all 50 could conceivably return to the ride at the same time.

Universal's rules state that if the wait is 30min or less, then the person gets immediate access to the Express (FP) line - NOT to the front of that line, mind you.  I think that in light of the fact that MANY rides in DW are now seeing significantly longer waits since FP+ that such a rule change would not be amiss.


----------



## ttintagel

The discussion, both here and at Disney, seems to be happening under the [false] assumptions that:


All accommodations needed or wanted involve, or seek, faster access
Autism/developmental disorders and mobility problems are the only disabilities
All the GAC did was provide faster access
Only children have disabilities
Rigorous, training and support of CM's with the goal of consistent application isn't the #1 most important key to making any system work


Disney is also being short-sighted if they don't think they've made a TON of money on their reputation as a destination that's friendly to people with disabilities. I know I've chosen a Disney park as a destination over others in the past on the basis of that reputation alone, and I know I'm far from the only one.


----------



## Kellykins1218

ttintagel said:


> Disney is also being short-sighted if they don't think they've made a TON of money on their reputation as a destination that's friendly to people with disabilities. I know I've chosen a Disney park as a destination over others in the past on the basis of that reputation alone, and I know I'm far from the only one.




They still are a destination that's friendly to people with disabilities


----------



## MickeyWheels

Wendydagny said:


> One more thing.
> 
> When I talked about kids stubbornly staying alive with a wink, I was in no way being derogatory or suggesting children should die. I was being sarcastic regarding my own child's situation, when the doctors are constantly wrong re her prognosis/life expectancy. She is in 7 organ failure and survived a failed organ transplant. In reality it is a miracle that she is alive and that she lives as well as she does, but I have no level of denial that she will be with us for long, despite my fervent desires that she will live forever.
> 
> There are many many parents with children like mine who continue to bring their children to Disney in order to live life to the fullest.


______________
I LOVE your comment! My child forgot to follow her diagnosis as well. She has beat the odds and will continue to do so for years to come I hope!  We live daily thankful for the extra time but living like it could be our last because that is the reality! I love kids who are stubborn!!!!


----------



## AnAmericanInDisney

Displayed wait times at rides are often incorrect. Why doesn't the autism lawsuit use that (a study; they could have people online submit actual vs displayed wait times) to show that Disney does not provide parity to kids who can't wait in lines?


----------



## MickeyWheels

Curiosity question...... what portions of the lawsuit do people feel are justified (if any)?


----------



## mttmilner

ttintagel said:


> The discussion, both here and at Disney, seems to be happening under the [false] assumptions that:
> 
> 
> All accommodations needed or wanted involve, or seek, faster access
> Autism/developmental disorders and mobility problems are the only disabilities
> All the GAC did was provide faster access
> Only children have disabilities
> Rigorous, training and support of CM's with the goal of consistent application isn't the #1 most important key to making any system work
> 
> 
> Disney is also being short-sighted if they don't think they've made a TON of money on their reputation as a destination that's friendly to people with disabilities. I know I've chosen a Disney park as a destination over others in the past on the basis of that reputation alone, and I know I'm far from the only one.



If the accommodation needed or wanted is not faster access then what is it? I can't think of an instance when I have heard any of the plaintiffs ask for anything but faster access. 

Autism / developmental disorders and mobility problems are by no means the only disabilities but, like someone else said, they are the only two being mentioned. All of the plaintiffs have a child on the spectrum and their lawsuit threw those with mobility problems under the bus by saying that if you stopped giving them the GAC then all the issues would be solved. 

What did the GAC provide if not faster access? It may have started out as something more but at the end it had changed. Those with the GAC were allowed front of the line passes and the ability to ride the same ride as many times as they wanted in a row.

And I'm not sure what the question / comment is regarding only children being disabled.


----------



## aaarcher86

AndreaA said:


> But technically, the DAS should not be decreasing the number of people allowed to use the FP line except in that it has prevented a number of people from even going to Disney at all.  If 50 people with a DAS suddenly want to ride Radiator Springs and go get a return time, that return time will be basically the same for all of them and all 50 could conceivably return to the ride at the same time.  Universal's rules state that if the wait is 30min or less, then the person gets immediate access to the Express (FP) line - NOT to the front of that line, mind you.  I think that in light of the fact that MANY rides in DW are now seeing significantly longer waits since FP+ that such a rule change would not be amiss.



 I wasn't referring to the DAS. I was specifically talking about the GAC affecting the number of FP being given which is something that apparently caught the eye of Disney higher ups. 'Why aren't we giving more FP daily?'  And upon looking into it they came across their answer. 

I don't think the DAS is doing that. The DAS is virtually holding their spot in line. Those 50 people getting return times are not fluctuating the wait time since it's essentially them standing in line vs walking right through the FP line where they take a spot that wasn't accounted for in either wait. 

And while I think Universals policy is nice, they also have a fraction of the attendance Disney does and from posts I've read more rides in general.   What works for some place servicing 10,000 people may not work for a place servicing 30,000.


----------



## SMD

ttintagel said:


> The discussion, both here and at Disney, seems to be happening under the [false] assumptions that:
> 
> 
> All accommodations needed or wanted involve, or seek, faster access
> Autism/developmental disorders and mobility problems are the only disabilities
> All the GAC did was provide faster access
> Only children have disabilities
> Rigorous, training and support of CM's with the goal of consistent application isn't the #1 most important key to making any system work
> 
> 
> Disney is also being short-sighted if they don't think they've made a TON of money on their reputation as a destination that's friendly to people with disabilities. I know I've chosen a Disney park as a destination over others in the past on the basis of that reputation alone, and I know I'm far from the only one.



The suit was brought by parents of kids with autism. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. And by grease I mean the topic of discussion in this thread.

Disney may have a reputation for being a certain way, but it's not sustainable. There are more people in the parks. Not enforcing FP return times wasn't sustainable. Waits in FP queues are longer not because of FP+, but because there are more people in the parks and more people using FP. GAC wasn't sustainable because people used it. You don't get squatter's rights at Disney, where you went first, you got faster access when it was easier to give, so now you still get it now, even though there are more people and everyone is waiting longer.


----------



## MickeyWheels

aaarcher86 said:


> I want referring to the DAS. I was specifically talking about the GAC affecting the number of FP being given.
> 
> I don't think the DAS is doing that. And while I think Universals policy is nice, they also have a fraction of the attendance Disney does and from posts I've read more rides in general.   What works for some place servicing 10,000 people may not work for a place servicing 30,000.


__________
We found last trip that the Safari FP/HC/BTG line was MUCH longer than the standard line BUT there was no wheelchair access to the standard Queue so there was no option.  Those are the frustrating lines. We wait the regular line wait, then get in a FP line that is longer than the standard Queue only because we have no option to use the standard queue.  Otherwise, when we have a CHOICE to use the DAS/FP line it is up to us to choose what is best for the kids.  Should BTG's be in the FP line or should they limit the number of BTG's in one line at a time?  Not my place to say.... but I can voice our experience and bring to light something to ponder


----------



## aaarcher86

MickeyWheels said:


> __________ We found last trip that the Safari FP/HC/BTG line was MUCH longer than the standard line BUT there was no wheelchair access to the standard Queue so there was no option.  Those are the frustrating lines. We wait the regular line wait, then get in a FP line that is longer than the standard Queue only because we have no option to use the standard queue.  Otherwise, when we have a CHOICE to use the DAS/FP line it is up to us to choose what is best for the kids.  Should BTG's be in the FP line or should they limit the number of BTG's in one line at a time?  Not my place to say.... but I can voice our experience and bring to light something to ponder



I'm sorry I don't know what a BTG is off the top of my head. I can't stop thinking Brazilian Tour Group and I know that can't be right! Lol


----------



## MickeyWheels

The discussion, both here and at Disney, seems to be happening under the [false] assumptions that:
All accommodations needed or wanted involve, or seek, faster access
Autism/developmental disorders and mobility problems are the only disabilities
All the GAC did was provide faster access
Only children have disabilities
Rigorous, training and support of CM's with the goal of consistent application isn't the #1 most important key to making any system work


Disney is also being short-sighted if they don't think they've made a TON of money on their reputation as a destination that's friendly to people with disabilities. I know I've chosen a Disney park as a destination over others in the past on the basis of that reputation alone, and I know I'm far from the only one.
________________________

* The Lawsuit seems to desire that those with Autism get fast access to any and all rides. Why?  
* The GAC did not always give faster access, we used it for "safe waiting" areas where we waited our time with no problem.
* No one thinks that Mobility and cognitive disabilities are the only disabilities. BUT the Lawsuit throws everyone under the bus except Autism. Somehow they view them as needing more accommodation and exceptions than everyone else.  
* No one assumes only children have disabilities, BUT for MAW return kids they usually are children and that has been a big discussion
* Keeping the CM's trained is key to making the system work. Problem is much is up tp interpretation (IE we were denied use of the GAC for Characters at AK but not at Epcot)  

Bottom line... the lawsuit promotes Autism, and sadly is promoting resentment against many with Autism because it is frivolous.  Disney accommodates.  Work with them and its a success


----------



## mttmilner

MickeyWheels said:


> Bottom line... the lawsuit promotes Autism, and sadly is promoting resentment against many with Autism because it is frivolous.  Disney accommodates.  Work with them and its a success



I wish I could find a clapping emoticon.


----------



## SMD

MickeyWheels said:


> Bottom line... the lawsuit promotes Autism, and sadly is promoting resentment against many with Autism because it is frivolous.  Disney accommodates.  Work with them and its a success



This. 

The idea that the impetus is on Disney to ensure success is ridiculous. Anyone, DAS, GAC, MAW or not will have a better trip with a little planning and flexibility. If you need something, there are ways to advocate without throwing your hands up and insisting someone else make your trip magical.



mttmilner said:


> I wish I could find a clapping emoticon.





Does this work?


----------



## mttmilner

SMD said:


> This.
> 
> The idea that the impetus is on Disney to ensure success is ridiculous. Anyone, DAS, GAC, MAW or not will have a better trip with a little planning and flexibility. If you need something, there are ways to advocate without throwing your hands up and insisting someone else make your trip magical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this work?



Works for me


----------



## PlutoPony

What's the next step in the process of this lawsuit?  

Would love to know if the attorney is doing this pro bono or at a reduced rate.  If not, this suit could ultimately cost the plaintiffs a chunk of $$. Is immediate access + looping worth that much to them?  

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how suing Disney is viewed in FL legal circles?  I would assume the attorney took this to build his practice in the ADA compliance arena OR because going up against Disney is looked upon favorably.  It appears the primary counsel on this suit is a principal / founding partner at his firm so am a little surprised at how the suit is written with so much emotion and extraneous info included....


----------



## nobodies36

I wrote a huge post and then decided it was too long to post. 

Anyway, I did want to point out that rather than accommodate my needs as an individual and as Disney claim they do (which another central Florida park does for my specific needs which is not the DAS like accommodations they also offer but also not immediate and unlimited fastpass access like the GAC used to have) in addition to my DAS I am expected to at least try to use the system as a whole. That means even though I cannot use fastpass plus and have never been able to use fastpass (I will not go into the reasoning necessarily but if anyone wants an explanation as to why then feel free to ask) I still have to make multiple fastpass plus reservations when I know I cannot keep them for the length of stay and members of my party (14 nights and 6 guests last trip). There are advance fastpasses for the Mine Train and Anna and Elsa that I'm sure most of your families would love to have in advance. Due to the nature of my disability, any ride I wish to do requires multiple booking of the same thing over and over at different times and on different day and was 5 Mine Train bookings just to ride once. Those other 4 time I didn't make it to the ride blocked every one else of booking in advance. I would rather not have to do this, but I was told I would be looked at as an individual and only after a lot of hassle was I finally given a DAS which is of little help for my needs but since it was DAS or nothing I picked the former.

Imagine a child with autism who has an Anna and Elsa Fastpass plus booked aged ago and has to leave due to meltdown. Neither that child or the person who could have taken that fastpass under the old system of GAC (assuming the family of the child with autism used only the GAC as they did not feel the need to book fastpass plus knowing how GAC worked) got to see Anna and Elsa. 

I don't want the old GAC back, I would just like to be able to do the same rides as everyone else per day (3.9- I asked) which works with my situation/disability without having to take away from non disabled guests in the form of unused fastpass plus.

I see too much talk about DAS being better because the GAC was unfair to non disabled guests, but the truth is until Disney does more to individualize access without excess those without special needs are still losing out (and those with special needs are also losing out and even feeling the need to file that silly lawsuit) _because_ the system isn't really working. Disney cannot go back to GAC, but by having only the DAS that cannot be a catch all for access to all disabilities, those without disabilities are still losing out when it forces the disabled into _trying_ to use a system just to get access. Wouldn't you prefer if Disney just gave me 4 blank anytime any ride tokens per day on my magic band in exchange for fastpass plus rights? I would. I'm sure you would if you saw the number of advance fastpass plus reservations that could have been made by other families that went to waste at the behest of Disney and those dealing with people with disabilities. 

So it is not okay for there to be too many GACs in the Radiator Springs queue adding to the standby wait, but is okay for people with DAS (not all) to have to make reservations they cannot always keep forcing non-disabled from the fastpass plus and into the standby queue adding to the standby wait? I child who has a meltdown and has to leave the fastpass plus line is still a wasted spot.

It seems that the GAC to DAS change is not the only problem, but the implementation of fastpass plus at the same time is forcing wastage of fastpass plus advance bookings because of the issues being faced with those for whom the DAS doesn't actually accommodate.

I am glad the GAC (and the abuse of it) is gone, and whilst I think the lawsuit doesn't have a leg to stand on, I hope that showing the fact that people feel so strongly about the situation Disney will consider implementing an accommodation other than DAS (or in addition to)that provides access to all who need it whilst not hurting the non-disabled or lead to abuse.


----------



## aaarcher86

I would like to know why You can't use FP at all, if you don't mind. 

As far as a child having a meltdown in the FP line... It happens. I honestly think the CMs would work with the guests in this instance, but that's not really something that has to do with the DAS.  I don't see how Disney could account for all the 'what ifs' or unpredictability that comes with meltdowns. 

As far as the any time, anywhere tokens instead of FP+... I'm not sure they could. I'm not positive they could take away something they offer to the public. Maybe there's a way you could sign an acknowledgement, but of could see families like those in the lawsuit saying they are under duress and felt they had to agree or not be accommodated appropriately, etc. 

I'm also not sure any of he families filing would,be okay with 4 any time passes and that's it. A lot of old GAC users seem to think non GAC holders do a huge amount of rides and attractions throughout the day. I just personally can't see many people being amenable to a system like that.


----------



## asta

aaarcher86 said:


> I'm also not sure any of he families filing would,be okay with 4 any time passes and that's it. A lot of old GAC users seem to think non GAC holders do a huge amount of rides and attractions throughout the day. I just personally can't see many people being amenable to a system like that.



I agree. In several places in the lawsuit the families talked about the CMs at Guest Services handing them several passes in addition to the DAS when they complained about the DAS. Since they still filed the ławsuit, I assume 4 or any limited number of FP would not make them happy.


----------



## nobodies36

aaarcher86 said:


> I would like to know why You can't use FP at all, if you don't mind.
> 
> As far as a child having a meltdown in the FP line... It happens. I honestly think the CMs would work with the guests in this instance, but that's not really something that has to do with the DAS.  I don't see how Disney could account for all the 'what ifs' or unpredictability that comes with meltdowns.
> 
> As far as the any time, anywhere tokens instead of FP+... I'm not sure they could. I'm not positive they could take away something they offer to the public. Maybe there's a way you could sign an acknowledgement, but of could see families like those in the lawsuit saying they are under duress and felt they had to agree or not be accommodated appropriately, etc.
> 
> I'm also not sure any of he families filing would,be okay with 4 any time passes and that's it. A lot of old GAC users seem to think non GAC holders do a huge amount of rides and attractions throughout the day. I just personally can't see many people being amenable to a system like that.



I'm not trying to solve the problems the people filing the lawsuit are claiming to have as I do not see how the can be fully aware of how the DAS impacts them until they have tried it.

The meltdown is in reference to how things may have been under the GAC system and how it seems to be the implementation of both around the same time that are causing difficulties that affect disabled guest which are affecting non disabled guests. The point is it doesn't really solve the problem for those who say the GAC was excess and non disabled suffered during that time but they are still missing out on fastpass plus for their family because of an event that would have been the same outcome for the disabled guest under both systems but worse for the non-disabled guest under the DAS. Make sense? I wouldn't expect anyone to be amenable to a hypothetical idea especially as the lawsuit stinks of wanting excess. Genuine people would see the basics as suitable as long as it can work for them and the problem is that all people with autism, who the DAS may be proving difficult for various reasons, are being tarred with the same greedy brush when most would like to see nothing more than a few tweaks for their individual circumstance and needs which Disney say they are doing.

I was a GAC holder and I don't think that non-disabled guests do a lot of rides per day. I asked and the average is 3.9 which they count as 4 rides per day. Whilst I don't expect Disney to be able to implement a 4 blank fastpass per day scenario, it was just to point out that something needs to be done rather than tell disabled people just book fastpass plus and take it away from another family just so you can prove that you cannot use fastpass plus. That is not fair to non-disabled guests who would love those advance fastpass bookings but don't get them because I took them knowing I couldn't use them.

I have been disabled for almost 20 years and one symptom (which is made worse by other symptoms i have) is that I cannot regulate my circadian sleep wake cycle and that part of my brain no longer functions at all. Doctors have tried everything and I don't even fall into any of the recently categorizes circadian disturbances. The FDA approved the very first drug for general treatment this year. The only drug that can work short term (and by that I mean I can only take a massive dose for plane travel or surgery appointments etc. not daily life at Disney) is used to treat Narcolepsy and Cataplexy. I cannot up my dose more than a few times a year without risking what little relief I have gained in the last 18 months of this drug. At least my sleeping will not get stuck on nightshift for 3 months at a time and I see no daylight whatsoever. 

The bottom line is even with the maximum and best medication I still cannot tell if I will sleep 2 hours or 36 hours when I go to sleep (nothing will wake me and if I cannot get to a bed when I need to I would lie down anywhere even if it put my life at risk). That means I do not know when I will be in the park and I do not know whether that will be morning, afternoon, evening or night and it is not unusual for me to be arriving at 8pm for example. Even then I cannot spend more than a few hours a time in the park without having to go to sleep (could be a 10 hour nap) or I would sleep on a bench or in first aid to maximize my time and rides. Even when I made reservations and could no longer do those rides due to the way I was feeling I had to go through a whole big drama just to change the fastpasses once in another park (which took up a lot of my awake time). Stress makes it worse and dealing with the promise of individualized help and not getting it I didn't get on a ride for 4 days trying to sort out who could do what as I was told I had to go to each park only to be told the same thing at each park anyway. Doctors have spend years working on helping me and if there was a way they would have done it so please don't try to 'solve' my issues. I am merely using my situation as an example to show non-disabled guests that the DAS is just as intrusive to other peoples vacation as claimed the GAC was (not you or anyone on this thread, just those that treat old GAC users as automatic abusers) because Disney has the last laugh not them.

Thats fine- I have been enough times and I am limited in the rides I can do anyway I can still enjoy park time without rides. I just see all these people saying how the GAC hurt their experience as a non-disabled guest and yet since moving to the DAS system I have personally taking away much more of non-disabled guests ride time. 

By not individualizing assistance that can be workable for me it isn't just me that suffers (and it is more in principle rather than how much I want to ride things) but those who I take fastpasses from that I cannot use. I feel wrong taking that fastpass that someone else could use and I feel more negativity towards being told to book rides I cannot use than the fact that I may only get to do two rides a day under the new system.


----------



## nobodies36

asta said:


> I agree. In several places in the lawsuit the families talked about the CMs at Guest Services handing them several passes in addition to the DAS when they complained about the DAS. Since they still filed the ławsuit, I assume 4 or any limited number of FP would not make them happy.



That is the difference between needs and wants and why the lawsuit will never win.


----------



## asc

why not allow persons with a DAS to have their FP times extended or at least consider it being more flexible.  

do they not allow you to show up after the return time on the DAS?


----------



## nobodies36

asc said:


> why not allow persons with a DAS to have their FP times extended or at least consider it being more flexible.
> 
> do they not allow you to show up after the return time on the DAS?



You can show up anytime after for DAS. So that would be an workable solution for me at least as I could put the rides for the morning and if I made them great, but if I didn't and could still do them in the afternoon then that would help me big time and then not have to keep any times from other people as I would be keeping the ones I booked (perhaps just not at that time). I may actually use that if I may as a suggestion to Disney next time they make me explain my needs before telling me they cannot help. Another way I wouldn't have to be a burden for the non-disabled folk by stealing all the fastpass plus times.

I don't think it would be good enough for the lawsuit folks though!


----------



## wilkeliza

nobodies36 said:
			
		

> You can show up anytime after for DAS. So that would be an workable solution for me at least as I could put the rides for the morning and if I made them great, but if I didn't and could still do them in the afternoon then that would help me big time and then not have to keep any times from other people as I would be keeping the ones I booked (perhaps just not at that time). I may actually use that if I may as a suggestion to Disney next time they make me explain my needs before telling me they cannot help. Another way I wouldn't have to be a burden for the non-disabled folk by stealing all the fastpass plus times.
> 
> I don't think it would be good enough for the lawsuit folks though!




What might also help you is that you do not needed to be present to get a ride return time only present to use it. 

Edited to remove incorrect information.


----------



## SueM in MN

wilkeliza said:


> What might also help you is that you do not needed to be present to get a ride return time only present to use it.
> 
> That way say you are not able to return until 8pm I believe you're family would be able to have several rides already on the das and ready to use.
> 
> Some have reported that if you don't use it and try to go get another time for a different ride once time had passed they mark of the old ride but I don't remeber that in my training.


Other members of the group would be able to get ONE DAS Return Time that the person the DAS was issued to can use later that day. 

Until it is used or cancelled, that DAS Return Time is considered 'active'. 
Guests can only have one active DAS Return Time.


----------



## lanejudy

wilkeliza said:


> ... Some have reported that if you don't use it and try to go get another time for a different ride once time had passed they mark of the old ride but I don't remember that in my training.



That is standard procedure.  I'm not sure when or where you trained, but that is the basics of the DAS.  One return time is allowed.  It is even in their printed materials.


----------



## wilkeliza

SueM in MN said:
			
		

> Other members of the group would be able to get ONE DAS Return Time that the person the DAS was issued to can use later that day.
> 
> Until it is used or cancelled, that DAS Return Time is considered 'active'.
> Guests can only have one active DAS Return Time.



Thanks for the clarification.  I must admit my attraction got the bare minimum of training on the subject because we only see them during the busy season.


----------



## SMD

nobodies36 said:


> You can show up anytime after for DAS. So that would be an workable solution for me at least as I could put the rides for the morning and if I made them great, but if I didn't and could still do them in the afternoon then that would help me big time and then not have to keep any times from other people as I would be keeping the ones I booked (perhaps just not at that time). I may actually use that if I may as a suggestion to Disney next time they make me explain my needs before telling me they cannot help. Another way I wouldn't have to be a burden for the non-disabled folk by stealing all the fastpass plus times.
> 
> I don't think it would be good enough for the lawsuit folks though!



I wouldn't even worry about taking an FP spot from someone else. Everyone has the same opportunity to get them, and one less group through the FP will get another group through the standby queue a little quicker. I see not using an FP as no harm, no foul. Likewise, if I were to schedule an FP for day 2 of my trip, and something forced me to abandon it (for me that might be a bee sting), I would be happy if I could go back on day 3, 4 or 5 and be able to try standby or try for another FP. If I miss the ride, I mean I'd be disappointed because obviously it was something I wanted to do enough to schedule my FP, but hey, an unexpected thing happened, I survived it and am grateful that it didn't put a halt to my whole trip.


----------



## lanejudy

I think one thing many (plaintiffs and others) might be confusing is the concept of _working with individuals_.  Yes, Disney indicates "we will continue to work individually with our Guests to provide assistance." However, this does not automatically translate into "personalized accommodations."  It means having a one-on-one discussion with the guest (or parent) about how the individual is impacted within the parks.  The accommodations offered will still be fairly standardized (even for all the "rare" needs out there, WDW probably sees a hundred or more in a year with that same "rare" need, plus attraction CMs also have to be able to recognize how to handle the accommodation), not interfere with normal operating system of the parks, and within the ADA regulations.  That is the spirit of the ADA; not necessarily to equalize the experience itself but the access to the experience.  

Pixie dust is always a bonus and should never be expected to occur a second time.


----------



## jcb

For those that are asking what happens next with the lawsuit.

It's important to remember that the "lawsuit" is, in reality, 16 different civil actions (with multiple claims) joined together in one proceeding but it isn't a class action.  There are rules which govern the joinder of actions by different people (there have to be common issues of law or fact) and while there are probably issues in common for most of the parents claims, it could be that some claims will drop out or be tried separately.  Disney might even ask that the WDW claims be transferred to Florida for trial.

Each parent will have to independently establish an ADA violation.  Just because Disney violated the ADA in one action (so the allegation would go) doesn't mean it violated the ADA in the others.    The parents who have not been to Disney at all after DAS will have the hardest time, I expect.  

The parties can always talk settlement.  Disney could settle with one or all of the parents.  If they don't settle, then at this point, both sides will probably spend a good bit of time in discovery.  Disney will get all sorts of information regarding the condition of the children (which it will not be able to disclose) and the parents will seek discovery regarding DAS, why it was implemented.

If I were defending Disney (and I"m not), I would go though the complaint and require each parent to provide information regarding the sensational allegations, e.g., who said what, when, where and who who was present when it was said.  

Discovery can take months.

At some point, if the actions aren't settled, Disney could ask the court to dismiss the claims because the evidence is insufficient. 

The courts in Los Angeles (where this case has been filed) also have the option to require the parties to mediate.  In the Splash Mountain lawsuit, the court ordered the parties to mediate before one of the magistrate judges before letting them try the lawsuit.

As to money damages, the statutes on which they rely dont allow for anything more than small damage awards. Florida and federal law does not provide for any damage award.   Of course, the parents really want an injunction but, as I have said, I'm really not all that clear on exactly what it is they want the court to order Disney to do.  As Sue has mentioned, their request for relief merely recites boilerplate language.


----------



## nobodies36

SMD said:


> I wouldn't even worry about taking an FP spot from someone else. Everyone has the same opportunity to get them, and one less group through the FP will get another group through the standby queue a little quicker. I see not using an FP as no harm, no foul. Likewise, if I were to schedule an FP for day 2 of my trip, and something forced me to abandon it (for me that might be a bee sting), I would be happy if I could go back on day 3, 4 or 5 and be able to try standby or try for another FP. If I miss the ride, I mean I'd be disappointed because obviously it was something I wanted to do enough to schedule my FP, but hey, an unexpected thing happened, I survived it and am grateful that it didn't put a halt to my whole trip.



I know I shouldn't feel bad, but I do. I just don't think my enjoyment should come with such a wastage of resources.




lanejudy said:


> I think one thing many (plaintiffs and others) might be confusing is the concept of _working with individuals_.  Yes, Disney indicates "we will continue to work individually with our Guests to provide assistance." However, this does not automatically translate into "personalized accommodations."  It means having a one-on-one discussion with the guest (or parent) about how the individual is impacted within the parks.  The accommodations offered will still be fairly standardized (even for all the "rare" needs out there, WDW probably sees a hundred or more in a year with that same "rare" need, plus attraction CMs also have to be able to recognize how to handle the accommodation), not interfere with normal operating system of the parks, and within the ADA regulations.  That is the spirit of the ADA; not necessarily to equalize the experience itself but the access to the experience.
> 
> Pixie dust is always a bonus and should never be expected to occur a second time.



I use the term loosely and reference the open letter from Meg Crofton http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/bl...r-walt-disney-world-resort-disneyland-resort/

"...and we will continue to work individually with our Guests with disabilities to provide assistance that is responsive to their unique circumstances."

and also here http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/disney-parks-disability-access-service-card-fact-sheet/

"What will Disney Parks do if a Guest is concerned the DAS Card doesn’t meet their needs?
Disney Parks have long recognized and accommodated guests with varying needs and will continue to work individually with guests with disabilities to provide assistance that is responsive to their unique circumstances. Guests should visit Guest Relations to discuss their individual needs."

and finally here https://wdpromedia.disney.go.com/me...Disability-Access-Service-Card-2014-04-10.pdf

"Special Accommodations for Specific Circumstances
The DAS card, with its virtual wait, will accommodate many of our Guests with disabilities. We
recognize, however, that our Guests with disabilities have varying needs, and we will continue to
work individually with our Guests to provide assistance.
In unique situations, our Guest Relations staff will discuss special accommodations for persons who
are concerned the DAS Card doesn't meet their needs (e.g., for those whose disability limits the
duration of their visit to the park or limits their choice of attractions)"

When I was there in chageover day I was told not to cancel my May holiday as teething problems would be sorted out by then and I would be able to have some form of help as the CMs recognised that the DAS was not really suitable but all they were allowed to offer at the time. We did. We spend tens of thousands of dollars to go again and when we arrived with printouts of these statements and the assistance I receive at another park (which realises their DAS like program does not work and came up with a suitable alternative). I had to go to Guest Relations every day at every park (when I gave up on day 4 once I realised I was being given the run around and that no-one in the parks had the authority to do anything. I would have to wait until I returned to go much higher. 

When I am told what I was told last October and see what exactly Disney claims they will do then I do not think I expect and greater 'personalised accommodations' than they state they wish to offer. They offered nothing but rudeness actually and acted like giving me the DAS was their generosity and I should be grateful of help that isn't helpful. 

Again, I tend not to post over here and only wanted to highlight the negative impact to FP I am told to be because they do not wish to stick to the claims that they make publicly regarding people who have a need that is not covered by the DAS.

Please don't confuse what I am saying and the point I am making with the people who clearly want more than their fair share to the point of legal action. That would just be too cruel


----------



## aaarcher86

I can see why you'd feel bad (though I don't think you should) about FP. But I don't see the harm in scheduling something and changing the times around if they end up not working. If you don't use them, so be it. That happens to tons of people every day without unique circumstances. It happened with the old FP system. It's just part of the process.  I don't know if they accommodate for that in how many they give out per day (give out 100 knowing only 80 will use them, etc).  

 I'm honestly not sure how realistically they could offer the system you're suggesting. Legally, I don't think they can require you to give up FP+ to receive 4 anytime FP to use. Forcing people to pick and choose accommodations sounds like it would get hairy under the law, even if you'd sign away that you were agreeing.   

Putting it into perspective with the people from the lawsuit, I just don't think they'd go for it personally. I think the amount of people that would choose 4 anytime FP over another would be minimal (if it was possible).  If it's not possible they'd essentially be giving someone 7 FP admissions if they combine it with FP+, which I understand isn't ideal for you - just thinking of it on a global level.  At that point someone could be doing 7 rides in 3 hours which is back to the issue of the old GAC.


----------



## TulipsNZ

I posted this earlier but I think it got missed?

 My question was
What accommodations would help those who need immediate access.  

If their were a central DSA booth that could monitor ride wait times?  Then those with a card could approach the booth inform which ride they want to ride and get a pass for that ride with the estimated wait time for the line as it stands?  That way they don't have to approach the ride and leave yet still have to wait the same length of time as other patrons.  

I have no idea if this sort of thing would work but just theorising options that may help.


----------



## Gracie09

TulipsNZ said:


> I posted this earlier but I think it got missed?  My question was What accommodations would help those who need immediate access.  If their were a central DSA booth that could monitor ride wait times?  Then those with a card could approach the booth inform which ride they want to ride and get a pass for that ride with the estimated wait time for the line as it stands?  That way they don't have to approach the ride and leave yet still have to wait the same length of time as other patrons.  I have no idea if this sort of thing would work but just theorising options that may help.



Disney land has three or four booths at which people can get returns  times. There are complaints that people have to walk more, that they have to pass the ride they want to ride, that it takes them longer etc etc

Basically some people like it one way and some like it another and there is no pleasing everyone


----------



## Coonhound

Gracie09 said:


> Disney land has three or four booths at which people can get returns  times. There are complaints that people have to walk more, that they have to pass the ride they want to ride, that it takes them longer etc etc
> 
> Basically some people like it one way and some like it another and there is no pleasing everyone



I think it's kind of strange that some people want a way to get a return time at a ride that's all the way on the other side of the park from where the currently are.
For non-disabled guests, they cannot start waiting in the line until they actually approach the ride and enter the line. 
So it seems kind of improbable that you should be able to enter the line (a virtual line) for one ride when you're across the park at a different ride.


----------



## nobodies36

aaarcher86 said:


> I can see why you'd feel bad (though I don't think you should) about FP. But I don't see the harm in scheduling something and changing the times around if they end up not working. If you don't use them, so be it. That happens to tons of people every day without unique circumstances. It happened with the old FP system. It's just part of the process.  I don't know if they accommodate for that in how many they give out per day (give out 100 knowing only 80 will use them, etc).
> 
> I'm honestly not sure how realistically they could offer the system you're suggesting. Legally, I don't think they can require you to give up FP+ to receive 4 anytime FP to use. Forcing people to pick and choose accommodations sounds like it would get hairy under the law, even if you'd sign away that you were agreeing.
> 
> Putting it into perspective with the people from the lawsuit, I just don't think they'd go for it personally. I think the amount of people that would choose 4 anytime FP over another would be minimal (if it was possible).  If it's not possible they'd essentially be giving someone 7 FP admissions if they combine it with FP+, which I understand isn't ideal for you - just thinking of it on a global level.  At that point someone could be doing 7 rides in 3 hours which is back to the issue of the old GAC.



I wont be able to cancel 95% of the FP I don't make as I will only know I have missed them when I can wake up and see I have missed them. I do try to cancel any I know I wont make once I can but it doesn't really happen. More than 100 FP spaces went to waste on my last trip alone. That doesn't seem sensible to me.

I'm not actually suggesting a system. I was just trying to make an example of with blank fastpasses people without disabilities are not subject to me making multiple wasted reservations. I came up with that as an example as an implementation that had no bearing or relation in the general public fastpasses. They cannot put that system into play and my later point was even if they do implement anything new it will only be subject to abuse because proof cannot be required. I used 4 as an example because that is the average rides the average person does in a day according to Disney. 

The point was it would be nice is Disney had accommodations that they claim to have for those whose disability limits the duration of their visit. People (adults) with cancer, adults who are dying or have life limiting conditions, children who have needed a MAW trip. These are just some of the examples of people who may not be able to spend as much time in the park as everyone else. It would be nice to see an accommodation made where these people at least get to ride the average of four rides per day however they need to do that. Isn't that what Disney says they will do in the above link- find some way of helping these guests? So far my experience has not been help but told to book FP I cannot use and take them away from others so other people miss out on the FP and I still only get one or two rides a day. 

In a dream world I would like nothing more than to see an accommodation to allow someone to do the same amount of rides in a smaller space of time of needed. Sure, I was suggesting that it would have to be a system that superseded FP, but not suggesting that system itself, as it would have to be something that would still be fair and not excess and certainly not abusable by anyone who would not desperately need such an accommodation.

Although the lawsuit and reasoning is utter nonsense I am glad that it bring attention to what using the DAS means for those with disabilities it works for, those who cannot get the DAS to work for them and how the general public feels about waiting unnecessarily.

An example was used earlier with a child waiting and a MAW child going next and then a GAC and then another GAC and then the character left and the original, patient child missed out. I don't like GAC and I feel wasting 100s of FP spots every trip is so unnecessarily unfair on all the patient children. I could understand it it actually helped me nobody got the use out of those tickets and as I stated earlier my biggest worry was how the multiple dining reservations were 'solved' by credit card deposits. That would be the point I would be unable to visit at all.

I never wanted this to be about me, merely highlight what Disney are suggesting for people like me which doesn't help me, isn't what they claim they would do and takes away FP spots from others. Bringing it back to the reason for the lawsuit and the reasoning behind the GAC DAS change and use vs abuse debate. I just thought it would be interesting information whilst debating the details of the lawsuit.

Bed calls. Night all. I'll not have internet access for most of the weekend so I am not ignoring any comments and look forward to more debate and catch up on the lawsuit.


----------



## nobodies36

TulipsNZ said:


> I posted this earlier but I think it got missed?
> 
> My question was
> What accommodations would help those who need immediate access.
> 
> If their were a central DSA booth that could monitor ride wait times?  Then those with a card could approach the booth inform which ride they want to ride and get a pass for that ride with the estimated wait time for the line as it stands?  That way they don't have to approach the ride and leave yet still have to wait the same length of time as other patrons.
> 
> I have no idea if this sort of thing would work but just theorising options that may help.



I would have though this would be a good tweak for the current system to help those with autism not to have to see the ride. The time saved not having to walk to the ride (5 mins) could be taken into consideration when adding a return time from a central location.


----------



## AndreaA

Coonhound said:


> I think it's kind of strange that some people want a way to get a return time at a ride that's all the way on the other side of the park from where the currently are.
> For non-disabled guests, they cannot start waiting in the line until they actually approach the ride and enter the line.
> So it seems kind of improbable that you should be able to enter the line (a virtual line) for one ride when you're across the park at a different ride.



Well they are already doing it at one park, so they should do it at the others.  I hardly think the possible 5-10min a disabled person might be saving is worth quibbling about.  If people are really that concerned about people in less-fortunate health situations than themselves getting such a minor advantage, then I really do think it's down to pettiness at that point.  Especially since it's unlikely to be used for many cross-park rides which is where the most advantage would be.   People usually tour one area at a time, especially those with low tolerance for the park environment.


----------



## Wendydagny

Coonhound said:


> I think it's kind of strange that some people want a way to get a return time at a ride that's all the way on the other side of the park from where the currently are.
> For non-disabled guests, they cannot start waiting in the line until they actually approach the ride and enter the line.
> So it seems kind of improbable that you should be able to enter the line (a virtual line) for one ride when you're across the park at a different ride.



Because trekking across the park to get a card signed is difficult for someone with a disablity? When the DAS info was initially released, my first thought was that the new system would increase walking time for the people who have the most difficult time walking. 

Yes, there are ways to get around this somewhat with good use of FP+ and a good touring plan, but many people who go to Disney don't have the maps imprinted in their brains like I do.


----------



## TulipsNZ

Gracie09 said:


> Disney land has three or four booths at which people can get returns  times. There are complaints that people have to walk more, that they have to pass the ride they want to ride, that it takes them longer etc etc
> 
> Basically some people like it one way and some like it another and there is no pleasing everyone



Why do people complain that they have to approach a ride and leave if they able to get a return time elsewhere?


----------



## Wendydagny

Also I don't doubt that the previous poster was told the average non-disabled guest experiences 3.9 attractions per day, but tbh when I think about it that makes me really scratch my head. I can maybe see that at AK or DHS where there are fewer attractions, and many are shows with long run times. But I have a hard time believing that in regards to the magic kingdom because of its high number of short length attractions, many with reasonable waits for large parts of the day. I can't be the only one thinking that as an average is low. That means for every person following Josh's easywdw plans, there is more than one person not experiencing ANY attractions at all.  am I the only one? 

I guess I'd be curious how that number breaks down by park.


----------



## aaarcher86

AndreaA said:


> Well they are already doing it at one park, so they should do it at the others.  I hardly think the possible 5-10min a disabled person might be saving is worth quibbling about.  If people are really that concerned about people in less-fortunate health situations than themselves getting such a minor advantage, then I really do think it's down to pettiness at that point.  Especially since it's unlikely to be used for many cross-park rides which is where the most advantage would be.   People usually tour one area at a time, especially those with low tolerance for the park environment.



I'd like to see a combo of at ride/kiosks implemented at both parks.


----------



## aaarcher86

TulipsNZ said:


> Why do people complain that they have to approach a ride and leave if they able to get a return time elsewhere?



WDW you go to the ride. DL you go to a kiosk.


----------



## aaarcher86

Wendydagny said:


> Also I don't doubt that the previous poster was told the average non-disabled guest experiences 3.9 attractions per day, but tbh when I think about it that makes me really scratch my head. I can maybe see that at AK or DHS where there are fewer attractions, and many are shows with long run times. But I have a hard time believing that in regards to the magic kingdom because of its high number of short length attractions, many with reasonable waits for large parts of the day. I can't be the only one thinking that as an average is low. That means for every person following Josh's easywdw plans, there is more than one person not experiencing ANY attractions at all.  am I the only one?   I guess I'd be curious how that number breaks down by park.



  I recall something similar being written when FP+ was implemented but it referred to the average number of FP used not overall rides. It's why they said they went with 3 FP+ reservations.


----------



## asta

Wendydagny said:


> Because trekking across the park to get a card signed is difficult for someone with a disablity? When the DAS info was initially released, my first thought was that the new system would increase walking time for the people who have the most difficult time walking.
> 
> Yes, there are ways to get around this somewhat with good use of FP+ and a good touring plan, but many people who go to Disney don't have the maps imprinted in their brains like I do.



DAS does nothing to address or help those who have a difficult time walking. Apparently if that is your concern WDW will just tell you that a wheelchair is the only help with your problem.


----------



## asta

AndreaA said:


> Well they are already doing it at one park, so they should do it at the others.  I hardly think the possible 5-10min a disabled person might be saving is worth quibbling about.  If people are really that concerned about people in less-fortunate health situations than themselves getting such a minor advantage, then I really do think it's down to pettiness at that point.  Especially since it's unlikely to be used for many cross-park rides which is where the most advantage would be.   People usually tour one area at a time, especially those with low tolerance for the park environment.



The concern is not pettiness over a 5-10 time for a single person. The whole GAC situation became untenable because of the large number of people using the GAC to skip lines.


----------



## AndreaA

aaarcher86 said:


> I'd like to see a combo of at ride/kiosks implemented at both parks.



Oh yes, I should have mentioned that I think getting DAS return times at the attractions is also allowed.

As to why people don't want to go to the attraction, get a time and then come back...  Well, some people might have an autistic person with them who wouldn't understand why they aren't riding the ride while they are there.  Other people may have their limited stamina sapped by having to do something like climb the big hill to BTMRR and then go back down (since there is no shade there and nothing to do) and then go back up again.  I'm sure there are many more reasons.

Completely off-topic but I really HATE that WDW thinks that the answer to every mobility issue is for the person to get a wheelchair.  So they have to pay extra money to tour the parks, even though they really don't need a wheelchair, they just need to not have to stand in a slow moving line.  Before anyone says that there is more walking between the rides, I'd counter that WALKING is often much easier than standing still or barely moving.  I could walk back and forth across the park with no difficulty, but standing in a line makes my back, neck, shoulders and hips very stiff.  If I'm will to still wait for my fair turn, I don't see why I should just be told "Get an ECV".  Do they really want MORE of those menaces in the parks?

I should add that I would not ever consider getting a DAS for my minor issues, I was just using them as an example of how even I find long lines difficult, so I can completely see how someone with more serious problems would find one very helpful.




asta said:


> The concern is not pettiness over a 5-10 time for a single person. The whole GAC situation became untenable because of the large number of people using the GAC to skip lines.



So you really think people would start to abuse the DAS in order to save 5-10 minutes maybe twice a day when traveling between distant lands????  They'd probably wait longer than that in Guest Services trying to get the darn thing!


----------



## Wendydagny

aaarcher86 said:


> I recall something similar being written when FP+ was implemented but it referred to the average number of FP used not overall rides. It's why they said they went with 3 FP+ reservations.



That makes sense to me, completely. I wonder if the CM speaking to the PP was confused.


----------



## Gracie09

asta said:


> DAS does nothing to address or help those who have a difficult time walking. Apparently if that is your concern WDW will just tell you that a wheelchair is the only help with your problem.



wheelchair, ecv, rollantor (walker with a seat), cane with a seat, regular walker, stroller as a walker (dh found this was the best solution for him and they gave his  stroller as a wheelchair pass so he used it in line), the ability to avoid stairs.  I'm sure there are some options I missed.

They also don't provide hearing aides for those that need them.  Or glasses. or noise cancelling headphones or any other personal device needed to counter a disability.


----------



## Wendydagny

asta said:


> DAS does nothing to address or help those who have a difficult time walking. Apparently if that is your concern WDW will just tell you that a wheelchair is the only help with your problem.



It's also fairly difficult to make extra trips across the park in a wheelchair.  And many DAS users also use mobility devices.


----------



## SteveMouse

Wendydagny said:


> It's also fairly difficult to make extra trips across the park in a wheelchair.  And many DAS users also use mobility devices.



And multiple trips across the park does just great things for battery conservation for ECVs and power wheelchairs.


----------



## aaarcher86

Why are people making back and forth treks across the park (WDW because I have no idea what the layout of DL is)? Splash  and BTMRR are really the only solitary things I can think of. Going back and forth multiple times between lands is completely avoidable in most cases.


----------



## TulipsNZ

I completely understand the not wanting to walk around and around just to get passes, I'm just trying to think of ways to make things work.  I also understand an autistic child not understanding arriving at a ride and then having to leave again.  I just read earlier in the thread someone wrote they had to go to the ride to get the wait time & was thinking if there were a number of nominated points in the park that those with a DAS could get a wait time it would help.  

I have stamina issues and am dreading the waiting and standing, I'm far better walking than standing but do not want to be in a wheelchair or ECV because I struggle standing in lines.  I have got myself a cane chair for leaning on or sitting if I have time. 

I think any solution that would enable access to wait times at many many points within the park without approaching a specific ride would be very staff intensive, each point would need to monitor wait times at rides as accurately as possible keeping in mind the number of potential DAS waits already given for that ride.  I just think multiple ride activation points would be better than taking an autistic child to a ride and leaving.

I also think (and no idea how this would be logistically possible) that a number of rollators with chairs should be available for those with stamina issues at the head of each queue, these would belong to that ride queue and be returned to the head of the queue when that person reached the ride. yes this would require another person to return the rollators so yet more staff but it would I think greatly help the number of people who currently are having to get ECV's or a wheelchair when their only issue is standing long periods.
Still thinking out loud really but I wish things were easy for all people.


----------



## Wendydagny

aaarcher86 said:


> Why are people making back and forth treks across the park (WDW because I have no idea what the layout of DL is)? Splash  and BTMRR are really the only solitary things I can think of. Going back and forth multiple times between lands is completely avoidable in most cases.



I do agree with this, and splash is actually the ride I have in mind when I mention trekking. I do however find Epcot to be pretty much a series of solitary attractions as well.


----------



## Goofy14sure

asta said:


> DAS does nothing to address or help those who have a difficult time walking. Apparently if that is your concern WDW will just tell you that a wheelchair is the only help with your problem.



That's correct. Disney accommodated mobility challenged folks by making almost all of the lines accessible by wheelchairs and ECVs   This cut down the number of people that needed DAS and helped with the usage problems related to GAC.  As for the extra cost, wheelchairs and ECVs are considered medical equipment and Disney does not provide medical equipment or supplies


----------



## Goofy14sure

aaarcher86 said:


> Why are people making back and forth treks across the park (WDW because I have no idea what the layout of DL is)? Splash  and BTMRR are really the only solitary things I can think of. Going back and forth multiple times between lands is completely avoidable in most cases.



I was thinking the same thing. Multiple park crossing would be hard on anyone, even the healthy folk


----------



## Goofy14sure

Double post, sorry


----------



## aaarcher86

Wendydagny said:


> I do agree with this, and splash is actually the ride I have in mind when I mention trekking. I do however find Epcot to be pretty much a series of solitary attractions as well.



That's true. I just think with 3 FP+ it still wouldn't require a ton of back and forth walking - at least no more than it was grabbing legacy FP for rides.

On a side note, we don't ride much at Epcot so it's entirely possible I'm not familiar with the vast expanse of some of the rides.


----------



## Coonhound

nobodies36 said:


> The point was it would be nice is Disney had accommodations that they claim to have for those whose disability limits the duration of their visit. People (adults) with cancer, adults who are dying or have life limiting conditions, children who have needed a MAW trip. These are just some of the examples of people who may not be able to spend as much time in the park as everyone else. It would be nice to see an accommodation made where these people at least get to ride the average of four rides per day however they need to do that. Isn't that what Disney says they will do in the above link- find some way of helping these guests? So far my experience has not been help but told to book FP I cannot use and take them away from others so other people miss out on the FP and I still only get one or two rides a day.
> 
> In a dream world I would like nothing more than to see an accommodation to allow someone to do the same amount of rides in a smaller space of time of needed. Sure, I was suggesting that it would have to be a system that superseded FP, but not suggesting that system itself, as it would have to be something that would still be fair and not excess and certainly not abusable by anyone who would not desperately need such an  accommodation.



I get what you're saying but disney doesn't need to try to make sure one gets to ride the same number of rides per day that the average person rides.
First, how do you decide who is an average guest, and how many rides they should have been able to do based on whose opinion?
Second, people don't always so full days in the parks for various reasons. Some of which have to do with disabilities and some don't. Elderly, pregnant, families with small children who need breaks, people who don't like to be out during the hottest part of the day, people who aren't disabled but tire easily so went back to the hotel early, people who don't go on too many rides because they tend to get motion sickness, people who have to leave because their flight home leaves early, people who didn't get to do anything at all in the park that day because a member of their party suddenly got sick so they had to leave for the day this wasting their ticket? 
Do we need to make sure everyone experiences a certain ideal number of rides during the time they have available in the parks? 
People tour the parks in various ways, for various reasons, and what they choose to do with the time they have available to them is their own decision.


----------



## goofieslonglostsis

nobodies36 said:
			
		

> I know I shouldn't feel bad, but I do. I just don't think my enjoyment should come with such a wastage of resources.
> 
> I use the term loosely and reference the open letter from Meg Crofton http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2013/10/guest-assistance-card-program-update-for-walt-disney-world-resort-disneyland-resort/
> 
> "...and we will continue to work individually with our Guests with disabilities to provide assistance that is responsive to their unique circumstances."
> 
> and also here http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/disney-parks-disability-access-service-card-fact-sheet/
> 
> "What will Disney Parks do if a Guest is concerned the DAS Card doesn’t meet their needs?
> Disney Parks have long recognized and accommodated guests with varying needs and will continue to work individually with guests with disabilities to provide assistance that is responsive to their unique circumstances. Guests should visit Guest Relations to discuss their individual needs."
> 
> and finally here https://wdpromedia.disney.go.com/media/wdpro-assets/dlr/help/guest-services/guests-with-disabilities/Disney-Parks-Disability-Access-Service-Card-2014-04-10.pdf
> 
> "Special Accommodations for Specific Circumstances
> The DAS card, with its virtual wait, will accommodate many of our Guests with disabilities. We
> recognize, however, that our Guests with disabilities have varying needs, and we will continue to
> work individually with our Guests to provide assistance.
> In unique situations, our Guest Relations staff will discuss special accommodations for persons who
> are concerned the DAS Card doesn't meet their needs (e.g., for those whose disability limits the
> duration of their visit to the park or limits their choice of attractions)"
> 
> When I was there in chageover day I was told not to cancel my May holiday as teething problems would be sorted out by then and I would be able to have some form of help as the CMs recognised that the DAS was not really suitable but all they were allowed to offer at the time. We did. We spend tens of thousands of dollars to go again and when we arrived with printouts of these statements and the assistance I receive at another park (which realises their DAS like program does not work and came up with a suitable alternative). I had to go to Guest Relations every day at every park (when I gave up on day 4 once I realised I was being given the run around and that no-one in the parks had the authority to do anything. I would have to wait until I returned to go much higher.
> 
> When I am told what I was told last October and see what exactly Disney claims they will do then I do not think I expect and greater 'personalised accommodations' than they state they wish to offer. They offered nothing but rudeness actually and acted like giving me the DAS was their generosity and I should be grateful of help that isn't helpful.
> 
> Again, I tend not to post over here and only wanted to highlight the negative impact to FP I am told to be because they do not wish to stick to the claims that they make publicly regarding people who have a need that is not covered by the DAS.
> 
> Please don't confuse what I am saying and the point I am making with the people who clearly want more than their fair share to the point of legal action. That would just be too cruel



Not meant as a judgement or to discredit your experience, just to anecdote the other side of the coin. My most recent trip was during the change, had a little under a week of gac policy and 3.5 weeks of new policy. Obviously with its infancy, newness and learning-as-we-go that can come with it. And was worked with amazingly and indeed personalised. 

Knew base info going into the change and am used to needing to be flexible where possible and a good dose of realism always working wonders. Did not go in expecting else, let alone ask, fish or hint. Just wanted some details I hadnt gotten clear otherwise and needed to switch systems. CM very quickly got a very good picture of my situation esp. given how difficult it can be to understand even for medical professionals. Almost fell out of my chair when cm voiced her conclusions regarding my needs and what could or couldnt be helpfull. Within no time put in order.

Magical fotl? Heck no obviously!!! Even just my, back than, max 30 minutes of window is too limiting for that and imho nothing ever warrents direct access (great part of wish trips which I hope stays, but dont view it as option aside that) and that is the easiest and least important factors we looked at and into. Days without experiencing anything? Heck yes. But I had much better experience ratio from both medical and enjoyment standview than ever with the gac. Also perhaps with more... making sure, who's to say? My entering park, visit GR and directly exiting again was noticed and remarked upon. Also gets some weird looks from security during first days of a visit by entering and exiting like lightning but they soon nough get used to it, even remembering name, some needs that stood. After that always the nicest folks and even trying to help out.

At the moment working on a first trio fully bedridden. Difficulty getting it done trying to avoid flying and living on the other side of the Atlantic but beyond that little practicality Im again positively impressed how they can offer me options, access and true enjoyment. At the same time I know not all view it the way I have done last year or do now, when looking at some same or alike challenges and accomodations offered/not offered. I know some even find they are being "banished" through the system in place. So many people so many opinions apparently.

Very long story but core comes down to message that I know from first hand experience there is some room for some individualisation other than "das fits all". Its not for me to know or say another can or cannot expect nor what that can look (very sad, but indeed there is a subgroup that does fish for i-want-x-what-do-ineed-to-get-it that is so blatently its obviously not someone just having issues properly expressing themselves) like but did want to get my experience out.


----------



## Coonhound

asta said:


> DAS does nothing to address or help those who have a difficult time walking. Apparently if that is your concern WDW will just tell you that a wheelchair is the only help with your problem.



This is true, disneys answer is to bring or rent a mobility device if you have mobility issues. 
They do not want to issue a DAS because there is another option. Perhaps not what would be the preferable option, but it is an acceptable option. 
They have already given equal access by making the lines accessible. 
Also, it is not disneys responsibility to provide equipment. They don't provide noise canceling headphones, iPads, suctioning gear, adult diapers, cooling vests, the list could go on and on.
People say "I don't have mobility issues in everyday life, so I don't want a scooter!" But *it IS possible to have mobility issues at Disney that you DON'T have in everyday life. Which is why you need a mobility device at Disney that you DONT need in everyday life.*


----------



## CPT Tripss

Why does one "have" to go back and forth across the park repeatedly?  Seems like something one either chooses to do or chooses not to do.  Traveling in the park at a slow pace my mean that I get fewer attractions than someone moving at a quicker pace, but it certainly is not a barrier to access that Disney needs to accommodate.  It may well affect my enjoyment, but not my access.


I must be missing something.  If one does not enter a park, how can Disney possibly make a reasonable accommodation for the missed attractions?


As far as where does the suit go . . . Discovery will be interesting.  I would really love to be "a fly on the wall" when plaintiffs are deposed.  I have a hunch that some of them will, intentionally or not, throw others "under the (proverbial) bus.


----------



## goofieslonglostsis

Coonhound said:
			
		

> I get what you're saying but disney doesn't need to try to make sure one gets to ride the same number of rides per day that the average person rides.
> First, how do you decide who is an average guest, and how many rides they should have been able to do based on whose opinion?
> Second, people don't always so full days in the parks for various reasons. Some of which have to do with disabilities and some don't. Elderly, pregnant, families with small children who need breaks, people who don't like to be out during the hottest part of the day, people who aren't disabled but tire easily so went back to the hotel early, people who don't go on too many rides because they tend to get motion sickness, people who have to leave because their flight home leaves early, people who didn't get to do anything at all in the park that day because a member of their party suddenly got sick so they had to leave for the day this wasting their ticket?
> Do we need to make sure everyone experiences a certain ideal number of rides during the time they have available in the parks?
> People tour the parks in various ways, for various reasons, and what they choose to do with the time they have available to them is their own decision.



Agreed. Asides from that, just the number of those you could make it stick thwy do much less due to health or disability reasons are HUGE. Heck, even if Disney would be so crude as to state "we'll limit it to those who can proof a life expectancy of less than 5 years" the numbers are staggering. After all, staggering amounts if folks put disney on bucket lists. The numbers alone imho would clogg up so much it does more harm overall than good.

But than again, I dont read/view it as disney offering a so-called average experience. I see it as them offering access, some great extra magic for wish trips. The not average isnt disneys blame, responsibility nor them to "make up for" used very loosely, since my view is it would negatively impact others unacceptably and that of itself will undo the whole "average" it ones started out with). Sometimes life hands out lemons and for some it can mean a below so-called average nr of rides. If any thats mother natures "blame" and just sometimes life is what it is.


----------



## beaprn

cmwade77 said:


> I think that there are possible solutions that Disney should explore, but there is definitely some merit to the lawsuit as it stands right now.
> 
> Mind you most of the problems are not what official Disney policy is, but rather what has become the operating norm for those with DAS cards and other needs, such as wheelchairs, not being able to do stairs, etc.
> 
> Where the lawsuit doesn't have merit is that they expect to be able to completely bypass the wait time.
> 
> So, I am guessing the courts will order Disney to do something to accommodate them, but not require Disney to eliminate the waiting.
> 
> My thoughts are that the courts will order Disney to eliminate the return times and instead say the card is not valid for the length of the standby line after riding the attraction.




But that is what this person wants no waiting, be able to plan out their day without having to worry about stressors such as lines. I am sorry but every parent should want their child to feel special but not at the expense of bypassing everybody else. Everyone would love to be able to finish their day at 5pm. I understand this person's children have issues however if they are that "fragile" she should not be taking them into the parks especially during Xmas week ,expecting everyone to stop and allow her family a stress free vacation. In the "real world" you wait your turn or at Disney come back at a predetermined time, those are your choices, anywhere else you wait in line with everyone else. If these children are so prone to "meltdowns" I feel sorry for them when their pushy mother is not around any longer.  How is it that she did not read up on this after the first incident and fast pass options or make any changes in her plans. She apparently did no homework on any alternate plans for her children's issues. No she expected Disney to cave just because she kept the issue brewing. This is not going away, the law states Disney has to accommodate the disabled not totally wipe out any expectations of a waiting time. The old system was being abused and not only with the incident the news about people hiring disabled people to get them to the front of the line. With the old system at times the wheelchairs with all their families would be lined up outside the disabled entrance like there was an old time healing going on inside. Most theme parks now have similar disabled systems in place so going anywhere else is not going to help again because the old systems were being abused. It is interesting that she owns Disney vacation property which is not cheap and was coming to WDW several times a year before they adjusted the system but complains about having to pay a babysitter to help her deal with her children. I came to WDW one time with my sister who needed a wheelchair because she could not stand for long periods of time (due to circulation issue) and her two grandchildren. She received a GAC for the front of the line. This was several years ago and a lot of the lines would not accommodate wc in regular line and while I understood this, each time we went to the front of the line I felt little embarrassed to be bypassing all those people in line, but that is just me. I personally think the new system is fairer but the people who have been used to the old system are use to that system and they do not want to wait in line. I am sorry this family does not feel the magic in their vacations anymore and her daughter no longer feels like a princess.  Actually if you think about it- the discrimination was going on with the old system because they were being treated differently than everyone else because of their disability and now they are being treated like everyone else. They have to wait their turn but they do not have to wait in line. Just my two cents worth.


----------



## sunshinehighway

aaarcher86 said:


> Why are people making back and forth treks across the park (WDW because I have no idea what the layout of DL is)? Splash  and BTMRR are really the only solitary things I can think of. Going back and forth multiple times between lands is completely avoidable in most cases.



I wonder if the trekking back and forth is simply because people who are used to the old  "GAC as fastpass" are not used to doing one area at a time.  
I imagine it's a whole new way of touring for some people and that can be difficult to get used to.


----------



## asc

I would have thought that a large organization like disney would have a way to program the whole FP+ and MB's in a way that guest services could suspend the expiration of the FP+'s of a guest with a DAS or come up with a way that they are still usable even though expired as long as the person using them shows their DAS.  This would make the FP+'s usable at times beyond their expiration and/or coming up with a way that when you go to use them, they initially get denied and then you show your DAS to overide the same.  then people would have the same amount of FP+'s as everyone else.


----------



## sunshinehighway

asc said:


> I would have thought that a large organization like disney would have a way to program the whole FP+ and MB's in a way that guest services could suspend the expiration of the FP+'s of a guest with a DAS or come up with a way that they are still usable even though expired as long as the person using them shows their DAS.  This would make the FP+'s usable at times beyond their expiration and/or coming up with a way that when you go to use them, they initially get denied and then you show your DAS to overide the same.  then people would have the same amount of FP+'s as everyone else.



DAS users are given the same number of FP+s as everyone else. I understand there will be occasions DAS users miss their return times but that's true of non DAS users as well.


----------



## aaarcher86

asc said:


> I would have thought that a large organization like disney would have a way to program the whole FP+ and MB's in a way that guest services could suspend the expiration of the FP+'s of a guest with a DAS or come up with a way that they are still usable even though expired as long as the person using them shows their DAS.  This would make the FP+'s usable at times beyond their expiration and/or coming up with a way that when you go to use them, they initially get denied and then you show your DAS to overide the same.  then people would have the same amount of FP+'s as everyone else.



  So essentially 3 anytime FP for DAS users?   I wouldn't be opposed to a bit of wiggle room, but I imagine people would push it and it would just never be enough. 

FP times can be changed and DAS times have no expiration. There's such a high number of reasons anyone could miss their FP time, I just personally an not a fan of the idea. And with so many current issues regarding FP+ I think it'd be disastrous in its current state.


----------



## OurBigTrip

asc said:


> I would have thought that a large organization like disney would have a way to program the whole FP+ and MB's in a way that guest services could suspend the expiration of the FP+'s of a guest with a DAS or come up with a way that they are still usable even though expired as long as the person using them shows their DAS.  This would make the FP+'s usable at times beyond their expiration and/or coming up with a way that when you go to use them, they initially get denied and then you show your DAS to overide the same.  then people would have the same amount of FP+'s as everyone else.



DAS users already have the same number of FP+  as everyone else.


----------



## intheshadows

One thing to remember:

Per ADA, Disney DOES NOT have to "change the nature of the experience." For example, if someone is terrified of the dark, Disney does not have to turn on the lights in Space Mountain or Haunted Mansion. 

Also, if someone does not meet height requirements (by disability or otherwise) they are not permitted to ride. 

If you cannot be safely strapped into the restraints due to missing limbs, body shape, etc, no amusement park is required to provide an "accommodation" to allow you to ride it.


----------



## StitchesGr8Fan

I've asked this before, but I think it was missed. Why do people hold Disney to such higher standards than anywhere else? 

There are lines and waits everywhere in life, but you don't see people suing the supermarket (checkout line), highway department (traffic), or local amusement parks or zoos because their kids can't wait. I recall one poster on an old thread that said her ASD child freaked out when they stopped for traffic lights, but she still wanted to take a trip to Disney and was upset that her child would have to wait sometimes.


----------



## North of Mouse

StitchesGr8Fan said:


> I've asked this before, but I think it was missed. Why do people hold Disney to such higher standards than anywhere else?
> 
> There are lines and waits everywhere in life, but you don't see people suing the supermarket (checkout line), highway department (traffic), or local amusement parks or zoos because their kids can't wait. I recall one poster on an old thread that said her ASD child freaked out when they stopped for traffic lights, but she still wanted to take a trip to Disney and was upset that her child would have to wait sometimes.



Disney's great reputation perhaps???? No matter how good it is, some people always think they deserve more???  Entitlement????

Both of the above??? Out to get what 'they' want, regardless of who they 'trod' on in the process?? This sometimes starts out as little children always getting their way - why not as adults also??


----------



## asc

OurBigTrip said:


> DAS users already have the same number of FP+  as everyone else.



I know that.  I am suggesting that there are times when those with additional needs might miss the windows for the same and the FP does not expire.

I agree with aaarcher86, don't think that would be enough for those here but might help with those of us who find that from time to time we miss windows that are entirely related to our child's needs.


----------



## wilkeliza

asc said:
			
		

> I know that.  I am suggesting that there are times when those with additional needs might miss the windows for the same and the FP does not expire.
> 
> I agree with aaarcher86, don't think that would be enough for those here but might help with those of us who find that from time to time we miss windows that are entirely related to our child's needs.



I can see both sides of this but a family whose child does not have a disability may miss a FP due to need as well. Little ones need to nap and if pushed much longer will reach melt down mode. Family decides it is best to head back to resort even though they have a fp. They aren't sure when they will return because JR might be done for the day. Family chooses to change their FP to whatever is available later that day. 

Family 2's child suddenly becomes violently ill and has to be rushed back to resort. Family 2 has no clue when they will make it back to the park. FP is missed.

The secnerios could go on but are similar a family misses their FP due to a need. Should they also get the ok to come back whenever and use that FP even though they aren't disabled? It was their need that prevented them from making it.


----------



## Mrsjvb

asc said:


> I know that.  I am suggesting that there are times when those with additional needs might miss the windows for the same and the FP does not expire.
> 
> I agree with aaarcher86, don't think that would be enough for those here but might help with those of us who find that from time to time we miss windows that are entirely related to our child's needs.



lots of people miss a FP+ window due to unexpected or unrelated issues: emergency potty break and the lines are huge.   your TS lunch ran long cuz you got seated late.   got  caught up shopping for the perfect Olaf Tee shirt.  just plain not keeping track of time.   

something that has bugged me since the rollout of DAS that  is petty I admit but still rubs me the wrong way esp when  people piss and moan about not being able to do as much as 'normal' people and think they should be allowed to cram twice as much in .

 you already ARE.

 Family A and Family B wants to do 7DMT. Family A used their FP+ selection on something else so they get in the SB line which is at 60 minutes.  for the next hour they will be standing around  trying to get "its a Small World' out of their head.  

Family B with a DAS walks up at the same time and gets a Return time for 50 minutes away.   for the next 45 minutes THEY can :  ride another ride, go shopping, grab a bite to eat,  go pee, get a picture with Eeyore.  any one of those things.   

in the same time frame, Family B has accomplished  more than Family A. 

I also have serious issues with the notion of "NEEDING" accelerated access.  everyone WANTS it..no one NEEDS it.. not even   disabled( mentally or physical)  it is up tot each family/group/individual to  put a limit on what they will  deal with.. for instance I will not get into any SB line that has a listed wait time of more than 30 minutes( Except Soaring.. that one I go 45 cuz I am besotted with that ride)

and I also have issues with some  people's  opinion that the only thing worth  mentioning/doing are the rides Parades and fireworks.   between shows,  just wandering around soaking up atmosphere or catching a street performer, you can accomplish quite a bit in a limited time period.


----------



## aaarcher86

We head back to Disney at the end of September. I plan to do a full time write up of our trip with FP+, DAS, etc. 

Granted, we aren't 'go go go' type tourers but I think it'll be interesting to see it all laid out in regards to how much people can get done.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

Personally, I feel that the people who are part of the lawsuit want FOTL access, plain and simple.  I feel that they are pitting their child's disability against all other disabilies (evidenced by throwing those who need wheelchairs under the bus).  They are trying to make their experience so tramatic that there is no way that they won't be given FOTL passes - at least that is how it feels they are thinking.  

I believe that if you approach the situation with an opened mind that Disney will work with you.  I also believe that if you have the mindset that the only accommodation that you need is FOTL passes, you will be disappointed and will come away feeling that Disney isn't doing anything for those with disabilities.  

Note: by FOTL passes, I am talking about any time, any attraction fast passes and/or accelerated access.

Personally, I feel that when there are so many people demanding "special" treatment, no one gets anything.  It is hard to draw the line so they just don't do it.  That is the one thing that I noticed about the DAS: the CM's are available to give Pixie Dust and go the extra mile.  I even confirmed this with a Manager in GR when we stopped by to fill out a couple of cards.


----------



## ttintagel

mttmilner said:


> If the accommodation needed or wanted is not faster access then what is it? I can't think of an instance when I have heard any of the plaintiffs ask for anything but faster access.



This discussion stopped being strictly about only the plaintiffs of the lawsuit a long time ago; a lot of pages have gone by with general discussion of how the DAS isn't helping everybody who needs assistance.



mttmilner said:


> What did the GAC provide if not faster access? It may have started out as something more but at the end it had changed.



The most important thing it provided for me is accommodation for visual disability: it made sure I got to sit where I could see, and got CMs to slow  belts for loading and unloading. At some attractions, it did get CMs to allow me to enter through a safer entrance, but that was only needed at a few attractions and was rarely used.

And before anyone says, You can just ask the CMs for those accommodations, I can _assure _you in no uncertain terms that on the occasions when I didnt have the card that told them that they HAD to give them, more than half the time they wouldn't. (Heck, some of them refused even WITH it, but that was mainly at one attraction.) You cant rely on the kindness of strangers.



mttmilner said:


> And I'm not sure what the question / comment is regarding only children being disabled.



I was remarking that most of the online discussion here and elsewhere centers around children with disabilities rather than including both children and adults.


----------



## ttintagel

SMD said:


> You don't get squatter's rights at Disney, where you went first, you got faster access when it was easier to give, so now you still get it now, even though there are more people and everyone is waiting longer.



The number of times I've gotten faster access at a Disney park, I can count on the fingers of one hand. I said in my original post that faster access isn't the only concern of people with disabilities.

There may be more people coming to the parks now than there have been in the past - but how many of those people are coming because of the reputation Disney created for itself? How many of them are people with disabilities who will come once and decide it isn't worth the effort to return?


----------



## wilkeliza

ttintagel said:
			
		

> This discussion stopped being strictly about only the plaintiffs of the lawsuit a long time ago; a lot of pages have gone by with general discussion of how the DAS isn't helping everybody who needs assistance.
> 
> The most important thing it provided for me is accommodation for visual disability: it made sure I got to sit where I could see, and got CM&#146;s to slow  belts for loading and unloading. At some attractions, it did get CM&#146;s to allow me to enter through a safer entrance, but that was only needed at a few attractions and was rarely used.
> 
> And before anyone says, &#147;You can just ask the CM&#146;s for those accommodations,&#148; I can assure you in no uncertain terms that on the occasions when I didn&#146;t have the card that told them that they HAD to give them, more than half the time they wouldn't. (Heck, some of them refused even WITH it, but that was mainly at one attraction.) You can&#146;t rely on the kindness of strangers.
> 
> I was remarking that most of the online discussion here and elsewhere centers around children with disabilities rather than including both children and adults.



When you have been denied the services provided for those with visual disability dogs you do anything about it like ask to speak with a manager?  Also how did they deny you?  I can imagine if you try to show up to a show only a few minutes before site time they may have none of these seats left. I am not trying to deny your experiences but trying to find out if you did anything to let Disney know a CM is not following their own rules. Plus you mentioned one specific attraction. Was there perhaps something about the attraction that made the accommodation invalid?


----------



## thankudrivethru

ttintagel said:


> *The number of times I've gotten faster access at a Disney park, I can count on the fingers of one hand. I said in my original post that faster access isn't the only concern of people with disabilities*.
> 
> There may be more people coming to the parks now than there have been in the past - but how many of those people are coming because of the reputation Disney created for itself? How many of them are people with disabilities who will come once and decide it isn't worth the effort to return?



Faster access? ? There is two lines, a FP line and a standby line, the standby line is for those that don't have a choice but to wait minutes upon minutes (or hours) with using a FP or just don't have one for various reasons. FP line is for FP holders and DAS users. I consider FP line fast access. You are getting _fast access _w\the DAS,ttintagel. You want light speed access? How would that be fair to those park guests who are in the standby line waiting for their turn?


----------



## thankudrivethru

ttintagel said:


> This discussion stopped being strictly about only the plaintiffs of the lawsuit a long time ago; a lot of pages have gone by with general discussion of how the DAS isn't helping everybody who needs assistance.
> 
> And before anyone says, You can just ask the CMs for those accommodations, I can _assure _you in no uncertain terms that on the occasions when I didnt have the card that told them that they HAD to give them, more than half the time they wouldn't. (Heck, some of them refused even WITH it, but that was mainly at one attraction.) You cant rely on the kindness of strangers.



How did they deny you? I don't get how they denied you if you had the DAS on you. I have never heard of that happening.


----------



## aaarcher86

ttintagel said:


> There may be more people coming to the parks now than there have been in the past - but how many of those people are coming because of the reputation Disney created for itself? How many of them are people with disabilities who will come once and decide it isn't worth the effort to return?



I personally feel that guests who have not experienced the GAC in the past find the DAS a fine accommodation. I think the high cost and outrageous amounts of planning would be more of a deterrent than the DAS system.


----------



## aaarcher86

ttintagel said:


> This discussion stopped being strictly about only the plaintiffs of the lawsuit a long time ago; a lot of pages have gone by with general discussion of how the DAS isn't helping everybody who needs assistance.  The most important thing it provided for me is accommodation for visual disability: it made sure I got to sit where I could see, and got CM&#146;s to slow  belts for loading and unloading. At some attractions, it did get CM&#146;s to allow me to enter through a safer entrance, but that was only needed at a few attractions and was rarely used.  And before anyone says, &#147;You can just ask the CM&#146;s for those accommodations,&#148; I can assure you in no uncertain terms that on the occasions when I didn&#146;t have the card that told them that they HAD to give them, more than half the time they wouldn't. (Heck, some of them refused even WITH it, but that was mainly at one attraction.) You can&#146;t rely on the kindness of strangers.  I was remarking that most of the online discussion here and elsewhere centers around children with disabilities rather than including both children and adults.



That sounds more like it has to do with poor CM training, not the DAS system itself since you don't need one for vision issues.


----------



## lanejudy

thankudrivethru said:


> Faster access? ? There is two lines, a FP line and a standby line, the standby line is for those that don't have a choice but to wait minutes upon minutes (or hours) with using a FP or just don't have one for various reasons. FP line is for FP holders and DAS users. I consider FP line fast access. You are getting _fast access _w\the DAS,ttintagel. You want light speed access? How would that be fair to those park guests who are in the standby line waiting for their turn?



I believe ttintagel was explaining that the previous GAC program did not always provide him/her with "faster access" -- which it often did.  However, that depended on which GAC stamp.  ttintagel had a GAC for vision disabilities, which did not necessarily provide access through the FP line.


----------



## SMD

ttintagel said:


> There may be more people coming to the parks now than there have been in the past - but how many of those people are coming because of the reputation Disney created for itself? How many of them are people with disabilities who will come once and decide it isn't worth the effort to return?



I've never seen Disney advertise based on their reputation for customer service, disability accommodations or pixie dust. They aren't recognized and don't win an especially high number of customer service awards or accolades. And no business is required to live up to the high (or too high) expectations of individuals when it is no longer operationally feasible to do so. Heck, if Disney decided tomorrow to stop giving out free buttons, yes, many people would be disappointed, but who would say that they have a reputation for doing it, so are therefore obligated to keep doing in in perpetuity.


----------



## lanejudy

thankudrivethru said:


> How did they deny you? I don't get how they denied you if you had the DAS on you. I have never heard of that happening.



From previous posts, I believe ttintagel's primary needs are vision-related.  Therefore a DAS would not be issued.  The guests must request vision-related accommodations at each attraction.  When the DAS first rolled out, I did read several posts complaining that vision accommodations were being ignored when requested, though I haven't heard as much about that since last winter so hopefully CMs were retrained to better accommodate the needs of those with vision-related issues.


----------



## AnAmericanInDisney

SMD said:


> I've never seen Disney advertise based on their reputation for customer service, disability accommodations or pixie dust. They aren't recognized and don't win an especially high number of customer service awards or accolades. And no business is required to live up to the high (or too high) expectations of individuals when it is no longer operationally feasible to do so. Heck, if Disney decided tomorrow to stop giving out free buttons, yes, many people would be disappointed, but who would say that they have a reputation for doing it, so are therefore obligated to keep doing in in perpetuity.



Ever heard of "The Disney Institute?" Disney used to sell their customer service model to other businesses and charge for speakers and consultants. I hope they don't do that anymore, because their customer service is not anything other industries should be copying at this point in time.

ETA: Oh looky, they're still doing it: http://disneyinstitute.com/?CMP=KNC....DI.SM.02.01&gclid=CLPlkoi7z78CFWho7Aod6CQAdw


----------



## karice2

BillSears said:


> Well that only works when everyone is reasonable.  Having a sign language interpreter off to the side of a show is reasonable.  But some people might complain that the movement is distracting them and therefore no signing should be allowed.
> 
> Infringing on other people in small ways would probably be reasonable.



I always love the interpreter. The disney ones are usually very animated.


----------



## BillSears

SMD said:


> I've never seen Disney advertise based on their reputation for customer service, disability accommodations or pixie dust. They aren't recognized and don't win an especially high number of customer service awards or accolades. And no business is required to live up to the high (or too high) expectations of individuals when it is no longer operationally feasible to do so. Heck, if Disney decided tomorrow to stop giving out free buttons, yes, many people would be disappointed, but who would say that they have a reputation for doing it, so are therefore obligated to keep doing in in perpetuity.





AnAmericanInDisney said:


> Ever heard of "The Disney Institute?" Disney used to sell their customer service model to other businesses and charge for speakers and consultants. I hope they don't do that anymore, because their customer service is not anything other industries should be copying at this point in time.
> 
> ETA: Oh looky, they're still doing it: http://disneyinstitute.com/?CMP=KNC....DI.SM.02.01&gclid=CLPlkoi7z78CFWho7Aod6CQAdw



And of course there is the whole Be Our Guest ad campaigns that have been around for years. "The service here is never second best."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INfjQYjQeUY


----------



## asc

looks like some people are missing the issue raised that ones "disability" results in one missing the FP time.  sure, those same people can miss the FP time for various reasons - and i guess this lends to abuse - but one poster clearly indicated that they quite legitimately could miss as a result of their disability.

all i was trying to suggest was a way that did not deprive this person of their entitlement to use FP+

all i was trying to suggest that when a person with such need go and explain their needs to guest services, one accommodation, other than a DAS, would be to advise them that they may be deprived of their entitlement to use FP+ if their ability" results in one missing the FP time. 

as another notes, probably would not satisfy the plaintiffs in this situation.


----------



## wilkeliza

asc said:
			
		

> looks like some people are missing the issue raised that ones "disability" results in one missing the FP time.  sure, those same people can miss the FP time for various reasons - and i guess this lends to abuse - but one poster clearly indicated that they quite legitimately could miss as a result of their disability.
> 
> all i was trying to suggest was a way that did not deprive this person of their entitlement to use FP+
> 
> all i was trying to suggest that when a person with such need go and explain their needs to guest services, one accommodation, other than a DAS, would be to advise them that they may be deprived of their entitlement to use FP+ if their ability" results in one missing the FP time.
> 
> as another notes, probably would not satisfy the plaintiffs in this situation.



Not missing the point that it is the disability that causes them to miss it but just saying that someone can miss their fp for a variety of reasons and if suddenly the accomidation is your FP never expires I bet you will see more people abusing it.


----------



## CPT Tripss

asc said:


> looks like some people are missing the issue raised that ones "disability" results in one missing the FP time.  sure, those same people can miss the FP time for various reasons - and i guess this lends to abuse - but one poster clearly indicated that they quite legitimately could miss as a result of their disability.
> 
> all i was trying to suggest was a way that did not deprive this person of their entitlement to use FP+
> 
> all i was trying to suggest that when a person with such need go and explain their needs to guest services, one accommodation, other than a DAS, would be to advise them that they may be deprived of their entitlement to use FP+ if their ability" results in one missing the FP time.
> 
> as another notes, probably would not satisfy the plaintiffs in this situation.



Was that the poster with a sleep disorder?  If so, I can't figure out how to reasonably accommodate someone who is not in the park at the time of the access window.


----------



## charmed59

Some folks miss their FP+ time because the standby line ballooned way past the time indicated when they entered the queue, due to many more folks in


----------



## charmed59

Sorry, iPhone got over eager to post.

Sometime people miss their FP+ time because they are stuck in the standby line on another attraction whose line hit a standstill because of an unusually large influx of folks in that FP line.


----------



## kaytieeldr

asc said:


> looks like some people are missing the issue raised that ones "disability" results in one missing the FP time.  sure, those same people can miss the FP time for various reasons - and i guess this lends to abuse - but one poster clearly indicated that they quite legitimately could miss as a result of their disability.
> 
> all i was trying to suggest was a way that did not deprive this person of their entitlement to use FP+
> 
> all i was trying to suggest that when a person with such need go and explain their needs to guest services, one accommodation, other than a DAS, would be to advise them that they may be deprived of their entitlement to use FP+ if their ability" results in one missing the FP time.
> 
> as another notes, probably would not satisfy the plaintiffs in this situation.


But they're not deprived of the ability (not entitlement) to use FP+. Just like any guest who misses a FP+ return window for any reason, a guest with a DAS can reschedule the missed FastPass. No, they may not get the same attraction, but neither would a guest without a DAS.


----------



## lizard1

wilkeliza said:


> Not missing the point that it is the disability that causes them to miss it but just saying that someone can miss their fp for a variety of reasons and if suddenly the accomidation is your FP never expires I bet you will see more people abusing it.



I agree.  If Disney went to a system where they let people with the DAS have FPs that didn't expire until the end of the day, it would end up being like the days when the regular FP didn't expire, where a lot of people saved them until the end of the day and used them then.  Also, just because your FP expires, doesn't mean that you lose a FP.  Most times you are able to reschedule that missed FP...it may not be for the ride you most prefer, but that doesn't change the fact that it can be rescheduled.  While I understand that some people want that particular FP, that is where the DAS can come in and help- they are in essence able to get that FP back through the use of the DAS card.  While the DAS doesn't help entirely with the looping issue, looping a ride isn't something that can be expected by any park guest, and therefore shouldn't be provided for when helping with EQUAL access.  However, from my vantage point, with the use of DAS, FP, and a good touring plan, that can be accomplished to a small degree (assuming a person wants to loop an E-ticket ride, not any other ride that would be counted towards a 'regular' guest's average number of rides per day).


----------



## thankudrivethru

lanejudy said:


> I believe ttintagel was explaining that the previous GAC program did not always provide him/her with "faster access" -- which it often did.  However, that depended on which GAC stamp.  ttintagel had a GAC for vision disabilities, which did not necessarily provide access through the FP line.



I took it as she was talking about the DAS. 



lanejudy said:


> From previous posts, I believe ttintagel's primary needs are vision-related.  Therefore a DAS would not be issued.  The guests must request vision-related accommodations at each attraction.  When the DAS first rolled out, I did read several posts complaining that vision accommodations were being ignored when requested, though I haven't heard as much about that since last winter so hopefully CMs were retrained to better accommodate the needs of those with vision-related issues.



Maybe she needs to voice her accommodation needs in a different way to a CM


----------



## Goofy14sure

ttintagel said:


> I said in my original post that faster access isn't the only concern of people with disabilities.



i think that is a problem with the DAS, it's answer to all non-mobility related disabilities is the use of the fast pass entrance, and for someone with vision problems, that may not really be the answer.

Which raises another question, how to write a policy that affects thousands of people a day when each individual has different and specialized needs


----------



## aaarcher86

Goofy14sure said:


> i think that is a problem with the DAS, it's answer to all non-mobility related disabilities is the use of the fast pass entrance, and for someone with vision problems, that may not really be the answer.  Which raises another question, how to write a policy that affects thousands of people a day when each individual has different and specialized needs



Well, the accommodation to vision issues is to let the CM at the attraction know and they should accommodate. The DAS isn't actually needed for something like that.


----------



## jenineh

wilkeliza said:


> I can see both sides of this but a family whose child does not have a disability may miss a FP due to need as well. Little ones need to nap and if pushed much longer will reach melt down mode. Family decides it is best to head back to resort even though they have a fp. They aren't sure when they will return because JR might be done for the day. Family chooses to change their FP to whatever is available later that day.  Family 2's child suddenly becomes violently ill and has to be rushed back to resort. Family 2 has no clue when they will make it back to the park. FP is missed.  The secnerios could go on but are similar a family misses their FP due to a need. Should they also get the ok to come back whenever and use that FP even though they aren't disabled? It was their need that prevented them from making it.




YES!!!! Exactly what you said. My last trip my son got sick. We missed a ton of our fast passes. Although it was disappointing it is what it is. We survived.


----------



## mistysue

Mrsjvb said:


> something that has bugged me since the rollout of DAS that  is petty I admit but still rubs me the wrong way esp when  people piss and moan about not being able to do as much as 'normal' people and think they should be allowed to cram twice as much in .
> 
> you already ARE.
> 
> Family A and Family B wants to do 7DMT. Family A used their FP+ selection on something else so they get in the SB line which is at 60 minutes.  for the next hour they will be standing around  trying to get "its a Small World' out of their head.
> 
> Family B with a DAS walks up at the same time and gets a Return time for 50 minutes away.   for the next 45 minutes THEY can :  ride another ride, go shopping, grab a bite to eat,  go pee, get a picture with Eeyore.  any one of those things.
> 
> in the same time frame, Family B has accomplished  more than Family A.
> 
> I also have serious issues with the notion of "NEEDING" accelerated access.  everyone WANTS it..no one NEEDS it.. not even   disabled( mentally or physical)  it is up tot each family/group/individual to  put a limit on what they will  deal with.. for instance I will not get into any SB line that has a listed wait time of more than 30 minutes( Except Soaring.. that one I go 45 cuz I am besotted with that ride)



This really gets to me too. (and my point does tie into the lawsuit) My kids don't have a disability that we would request a DAS for but we have complications that take time and make us miss scheduled items constantly. It's not just part of a disability, it's part of being human. People need rest, people get sick, people have a rough day. People can't walk and need a stroller, other people have to leave because they pinch a nerve carrying said person.

We have had counter service meals take 90 minutes waiting for an allergy order. Disney didn't give us something extra, even though we missed rides due to a disability. It was even directly the result of Disney's employee training issues. I've similarly spent hours standing outside a park entrance with DD as she had a meltdown and didn't get that the park she was promised was right there 20 yards away. It sucks, but isn't really Disney's fault and is not really their job to give us a privilege to fix it. Nothing they could do can make it right, it's just the way things happen.  I have to know that we are going to encounter these things and I have to plan for them the best I can. 

So then to consider the flip-side,  Even if we missed half a park day, we could get so much more done if we could take care of physical needs while "waiting in line." It's not just an issue of waiting 90 minutes for splash in line or out of line-  it's not ride at all vs. ride splash after spending 90 minutes getting a snack, riding 3 rides and taking 2 potty breaks.  Every person has a different stamina limit, there is no way to make the system equal without surveying every person in the park for the day and working it like a golf penalty. We might have the same time limit as a family with an individual with a DAS card for a cognitive disability, so why exactly should that person get access to free time while we have to stand in a queue staring at some lady's butt? 

This makes the underlying goal of the lawsuit little more than nonsense to me. Generally the reasons cited why people need accommodation are things that most groups have to deal with on some scale. I understand that all disabilities are difficult and I do get that there are people who need an adjustment to Disney's standard procedure that are not met by the form of the physical line. My response to the lawsuit is that short of some way they can provide proof that the "normal" 4 year old can wait in a 30 minute line without distress, or show that that "normal" child can spend 8 hours in the park without ever loosing place in line for a potty break, needing a nap or crying because it's all too much,  I don't think they are going to win the idea that they are _legally_ entitled to require Disney to give them an experience far above and beyond what the non-disabled guest could expect. If the non-disabled guest can't expect to ride anything they want at any time, then it is not equal for the disabled guest to be able to expect this. That is an advantage over other guests and has so many factors involved there is no fair or equal way to administer such a program. If you get an advantage for a potential bad day,  should you get a penalty if the day goes well? What about the family that didn't get the advantage and faced the difficulty you anticipated? There's no way to make it fair.


----------



## SueM in MN

Goofy14sure said:


> i think that is a problem with the DAS, it's answer to all non-mobility related disabilities is the use of the fast pass entrance, and for someone with vision problems, that may not really be the answer.
> 
> Which raises another question, how to write a policy that affects thousands of people a day when each individual has different and specialized needs


Kind of to illustrate how difficult it can be to meet needs, I'm just going to look at one situation.

Even just talking about vision-related disabilities, there have been people who posted they used a GAC, with stamps related to vision, but it didn't really meet their needs. Since their needs really depended on the attraction, they felt it worked better to just talk to the CM.

Common GAC stamps for people with vision related disabilities included:
- using the wheelchair entrance. That was usually the regular line, but avoided stairs and loaded in a place where moving walkways might be able to be slowed or stopped.

- using Alternate entry.  That was often the Fastpass line, but might be the wheelchair/handicapped waiting area for shows, which was less crowded. Those were sometimes _not_ the same as the wheelchair accessible entrances and sometimes not. So, I know people who expected to avoid stairs and moving walkways, but didn't necessarily.

- front row seating

Vision related disabilities could go all the way from someone who is totally blind, to severe difficulty adjusting from light to dark, to someone with vision in only one eye, to no peripheral vision, to only peripheral vision and no clear central vision, to having no clear vision  - only shadows or only colors or only shapes.

What one person feels is the best accommodation for them might not be appropriate at all for someone with a different type of vision disability. 
Some people with no clear vision have posted middle of front row worked great for them. 
But, other people with visual field defects found that didn't work for them - it was too close for them to get a wide field of view - they really needed to be in the middle up higher to get a wide enough field.
And, there were some with vision in only one eye who really needed to sit in a specific place depending on what their vision was.

It's easy to say that the problem is that the staff need more education, or don't have enough supervisory support, but that's not usually the issue.

I am involved in Quality & System Improvement in my life outside of the Disboards. 
If something is not working, the first question is why?
If you start at the assumption that the staff are not educated enough, the next question is why?
At each question, asking why is going to get to the next point and the usual point where there is no more why to ask comes down to a system being too complicated to have the same consistent outcome.
The system has to be built so it's not confusing and it's easier to do something correctly than incorrectly. The system leads to the correct outcome.

That was one of the biggest issues with GAC - there were too many stamps, too many variables, sometimes accommodations even at the same attraction could not be consistently used and sometimes people had stamps that contradicted  each other.

DAS is a much simpler system with a lot fewer variables; if the wait is less than 10 minutes, you go in.
If it's longer than that, you get a Return Time. 
I'm not saying, DAS is perfect, but it is a much more simple and less variable system for guests with issues waiting in a regular line. 

So, what about the issues that are not currently covered by DAS?
My personal opinion is that they should not be included in DAS - that should stay a more simple system for line issues.
I don't know what the system should be, but a blanket "seat in the front row" doesn't work for all vision related disabilities. I think one of the issues is that there is not a system to show CMs what is available at each attraction, so they may not know what to offer guests.
For those other needs, maybe a way for that guest to know what is available at each attraction so they can figure out what would best meet their needs would be the way to go. 
Things like more information - does this attraction have a moving walkway? How does it load? Where is the front of the theater compared to where you go in?

Anyway, just some thoughts.


----------



## SueM in MN

Mrsjvb said:


> .........
> something that has bugged me since the rollout of DAS that  is petty I admit but still rubs me the wrong way esp when  people piss and moan about not being able to do as much as 'normal' people and think they should be allowed to cram twice as much in .........


The people in the lawsuits seem to have a wildly exaggerated idea of what 'normal' people get done. 

On one of the articles about the lawsuit, I saw a comment where someone wrote that they had gone to WDW on Christmas Day and they were complaining because with DAS they only got to go on 5 attractions at MK and had several meltdowns because DAS didn't accommodate them during Christmas week. I don't know whether that was one of the parties to the lawsuit, but it's the same thought process.

I don't know how many things they think 'normal' people go on during that time, but most 'normal' people would consider 5 attractions at that time of year to be very good.


----------



## Jedana

SueM in MN said:


> The people in the lawsuits seem to have a wildly exaggerated idea of what 'normal' people get done.
> 
> On one of the articles about the lawsuit, I saw a comment where someone wrote that they had gone to WDW on Christmas Day and they were complaining because with DAS they only got to go on 5 attractions at MK and had several meltdowns because DAS didn't accommodate them during Christmas week. I don't know whether that was one of the parties to the lawsuit, but it's the same thought process.
> 
> I don't know how many things they think 'normal' people go on during that time, but most 'normal' people would consider 5 attractions at that time of year to be very good.



DD and her new DH went to MK on New Years.  They went on 3 rides, and spent most of the time standing in the crowd, unable to get anywhere.   (No DAS, just 'normal' people stuck in a sea of humanity)


----------



## SueM in MN

Jedana said:


> DD and her new DH went to MK on New Years.  They went on 3 rides, and spent most of the time standing in the crowd, unable to get anywhere.   (No DAS, just 'normal' people stuck in a sea of humanity)


I've been to WDW several times on New Years. 
One time it was my daughter who is not disabled and I - we went to MK and only set and saw fireworks and parade. No rides - we were pretty much stuck in the sea of humanity too.

I've also been several times with my husband - we pretty much just went where the crowd took us. After a couple of experiences like that, if we go once Znew a Years, we don't bother going to a park. It is too much stress for us when it is that busy  (without any special needs).


----------



## beaprn

StitchesGr8Fan said:


> I've asked this before, but I think it was missed. Why do people hold Disney to such higher standards than anywhere else?
> 
> There are lines and waits everywhere in life, but you don't see people suing the supermarket (checkout line), highway department (traffic), or local amusement parks or zoos because their kids can't wait. I recall one poster on an old thread that said her ASD child freaked out when they stopped for traffic lights, but she still wanted to take a trip to Disney and was upset that her child would have to wait sometimes.



Because Disney has deep pockets!


----------



## beaprn

asta said:


> DAS does nothing to address or help those who have a difficult time walking. Apparently if that is your concern WDW will just tell you that a wheelchair is the only help with your problem.



If that is a person's disability then they should not be attempting to go thru a theme park without a wheelchair. Any reasonable person with walking problems would know this and it is not Disney's job to provide anything other than the same access as everyone else.


----------



## Kellykins1218

beaprn said:


> Because Disney has deep pockets!



Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!


----------



## MattDisney

The biggest issue we encounter is most wheelchair seats are in the back.  My DD is in a wheelchair and has visual impairment.  We have sometimes been denied to allow her to sit close.  (We would transfer her to a seat and store wheelchair in a safe place)
Other times, we are allowed to let her sit where she can see and store the wheelchair.  
I wish all CM would understand a mobility issue might not be the only issue.


----------



## SueM in MN

MattDisney said:


> The biggest issue we encounter is most wheelchair seats are in the back.  My DD is in a wheelchair and has visual impairment.  We have sometimes been denied to allow her to sit close.  (We would transfer her to a seat and store wheelchair in a safe place)
> Other times, we are allowed to let her sit where she can see and store the wheelchair.
> *I wish all CM would understand a mobility issue might not be the only issue.*


It's much more a function of what is available in the theater than CMs thinking mobility is the only issue. That is where a Disney providing a list of what is available souls be helpful.


My youngest DD has a wheelchair because she can't walk, but she also has some visual field issues and problems either distraction (plus bring short) that make being seated near the shows important for us. We know which theaters have seating only in the back and which have some seating in other places.
I made a list of those; they are in post 34 of the disABILITIES FAQs thread on page 3:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=595713&page=3
For those with seating in the front or middle, we ask if it's possible to sit there and have never been turned down unless that seating is already full.

Something that looks like a safe place to park a wheelchair may not actually be allowed for fire/evacuation reasons, so it's probably not that CMs don't understand, but that they are not allowed.  
Some of the older theaters are very steeply ramped and are not considered a safe slope for a wheelchair. When we first went to Epcot, we used to take DD's wheelchair to the front in American Adventure. Then, all of a sudden, that was not allowed.mi was told it was because a guest with a wheelchair fell and because the slope is higher then specified in the ADA, the a Disney Risk Management people said they could no longer let guest with wheelchairs down to the front of the theater.


----------



## nobodies36

Coonhound said:


> I get what you're saying but disney doesn't need to try to make sure one gets to ride the same number of rides per day that the average person rides.
> First, how do you decide who is an average guest, and how many rides they should have been able to do based on whose opinion?
> Second, people don't always so full days in the parks for various reasons. Some of which have to do with disabilities and some don't. Elderly, pregnant, families with small children who need breaks, people who don't like to be out during the hottest part of the day, people who aren't disabled but tire easily so went back to the hotel early, people who don't go on too many rides because they tend to get motion sickness, people who have to leave because their flight home leaves early, people who didn't get to do anything at all in the park that day because a member of their party suddenly got sick so they had to leave for the day this wasting their ticket?
> Do we need to make sure everyone experiences a certain ideal number of rides during the time they have available in the parks?
> People tour the parks in various ways, for various reasons, and what they choose to do with the time they have available to them is their own decision.



 I never said they did need to. They don't and I do one or two rides a day. I just said it would be nice. They don't base the 3.9 on average guest, they base it on all guests- even FL residents who might pop by for shopping on their way home and ride nothing. So the average of 4 rides per day per guest is what Disney base things on- including all the scenarios you mention and people like me.


----------



## nobodies36

goofieslonglostsis said:


> Not meant as a judgement or to discredit your experience, just to anecdote the other side of the coin. My most recent trip was during the change, had a little under a week of gac policy and 3.5 weeks of new policy. Obviously with its infancy, newness and learning-as-we-go that can come with it. And was worked with amazingly and indeed personalised.
> 
> Knew base info going into the change and am used to needing to be flexible where possible and a good dose of realism always working wonders. Did not go in expecting else, let alone ask, fish or hint. Just wanted some details I hadnt gotten clear otherwise and needed to switch systems. CM very quickly got a very good picture of my situation esp. given how difficult it can be to understand even for medical professionals. Almost fell out of my chair when cm voiced her conclusions regarding my needs and what could or couldnt be helpfull. Within no time put in order.
> 
> Magical fotl? Heck no obviously!!! Even just my, back than, max 30 minutes of window is too limiting for that and imho nothing ever warrents direct access (great part of wish trips which I hope stays, but dont view it as option aside that) and that is the easiest and least important factors we looked at and into. Days without experiencing anything? Heck yes. But I had much better experience ratio from both medical and enjoyment standview than ever with the gac. Also perhaps with more... making sure, who's to say? My entering park, visit GR and directly exiting again was noticed and remarked upon. Also gets some weird looks from security during first days of a visit by entering and exiting like lightning but they soon nough get used to it, even remembering name, some needs that stood. After that always the nicest folks and even trying to help out.
> 
> At the moment working on a first trio fully bedridden. Difficulty getting it done trying to avoid flying and living on the other side of the Atlantic but beyond that little practicality Im again positively impressed how they can offer me options, access and true enjoyment. At the same time I know not all view it the way I have done last year or do now, when looking at some same or alike challenges and accomodations offered/not offered. I know some even find they are being "banished" through the system in place. So many people so many opinions apparently.
> 
> Very long story but core comes down to message that I know from first hand experience there is some room for some individualisation other than "das fits all". Its not for me to know or say another can or cannot expect nor what that can look (very sad, but indeed there is a subgroup that does fish for i-want-x-what-do-ineed-to-get-it that is so blatently its obviously not someone just having issues properly expressing themselves) like but did want to get my experience out.



It is good to know that at least some people are receiving the help they need. I went in and explained my needs and was told just to make reservations and hope for the best and to go to each park and explain as each park will deal with needs individually and differently and that I may have to do this for every day of the trip as again different CMs may wish to do different things to help. I went through 4 days of this wasting an hour each time (even being told to go ride Figment when it had closed before I even for to the park at 7.30pm and then dealt with Guest Relations). On the forth day after being told that I just had to make Fastpass plus work and being told that they felt I could use it (and I tried for the 3 days previous and could even prove it hadn't worked) I asked to speak to a lead. It was in a private room in the back that I pulled out the papers I had printed and said I have tried for 4 days to get assistance and being told there was only DAS and asked why Disney said there were options for people like me with limited park time and why had I not been offered it. The lead was rude (my mum took in more of the nuances than I did) and I left and later came back that day and got the DAS that the lead said was all he could offer-take it or leave it. When I visit guest relations the CM listens to my description of my limitations and claims understanding yet don't and make judgements due to the nature of my disability. I do tend to get that a lot from people (even on here so is why I do not post much anymore) that because they hear my symptoms and assume that it is just to get something for nothing. So I end up losing out because of their bad judgement. I can and do deal with that because I do enough in daily life. I also have days I don't get to ride anything because I cannot use the fastpass plus system and with the limitation of the rides I can do can mean even with DAS I have to leave before I can ride.  What I think it wrong is telling me to waste more than 100 fastpass slots rather than come up with one suggestion of anything they could do to help- as another person suggested perhaps allowing me more grace for fastpass time slots. I posted not about the impact the system has on me, but the fact that Disney are telling me just to keep making fastpass plus reservations I cannot keep as an answer to my limited and unusually times park hours.


----------



## Coonhound

nobodies36 said:


> It is good to know that at least some people are receiving the help they need. I went in and explained my needs and was told just to make reservations and hope for the best and to go to each park and explain as each park will deal with needs individually and differently and that I may have to do this for every day of the trip as again different CMs may wish to do different things to help. I went through 4 days of this wasting an hour each time (even being told to go ride Figment when it had closed before I even for to the park at 7.30pm and then dealt with Guest Relations). On the forth day after being told that I just had to make Fastpass plus work and being told that they felt I could use it (and I tried for the 3 days previous and could even prove it hadn't worked) I asked to speak to a lead. It was in a private room in the back that I pulled out the papers I had printed and said I have tried for 4 days to get assistance and being told there was only DAS and asked why Disney said there were options for people like me with limited park time and why had I not been offered it. The lead was rude (my mum took in more of the nuances than I did) and I left and later came back that day and got the DAS that the lead said was all he could offer-take it or leave it. When I visit guest relations the CM listens to my description of my limitations and claims understanding yet don't and make judgements due to the nature of my disability. I do tend to get that a lot from people (even on here so is why I do not post much anymore) that because they hear my symptoms and assume that it is just to get something for nothing. So I end up losing out because of their bad judgement. I can and do deal with that because I do enough in daily life. I also have days I don't get to ride anything because I cannot use the fastpass plus system and with the limitation of the rides I can do can mean even with DAS I have to leave before I can ride.  What I think it wrong is telling me to waste more than 100 fastpass slots rather than come up with one suggestion of anything they could do to help- as another person suggested perhaps allowing me more grace for fastpass time slots. I posted not about the impact the system has on me, but the fact that Disney are telling me just to keep making fastpass plus reservations I cannot keep as an answer to my limited and unusually times park hours.



What did you want them to give you?


----------



## nobodies36

aaarcher86 said:


> So essentially 3 anytime FP for DAS users?   I wouldn't be opposed to a bit of wiggle room, but I imagine people would push it and it would just never be enough.
> 
> FP times can be changed and DAS times have no expiration. There's such a high number of reasons anyone could miss their FP time, I just personally an not a fan of the idea. And with so many current issues regarding FP+ I think it'd be disastrous in its current state.





asc said:


> I know that.  I am suggesting that there are times when those with additional needs might miss the windows for the same and the FP does not expire.
> 
> I agree with aaarcher86, don't think that would be enough for those here but might help with those of us who find that from time to time we miss windows that are entirely related to our child's needs.



Agree! With a little wiggle room on FP, I wouldn't even need additional help/require DAS.


----------



## nobodies36

Coonhound said:


> What did you want them to give you?



Anything. Even a suggestion. I went in seeking help; not anything in particular. After 4 days I was getting pretty annoyed with being told they could not help which was the point I asked to speak to a lead and after going thorough everything with him I asked why Disney say that people who have limited park time can discuss an alternative assistance to DAS and why was I being told there was nothing but DAS. If they told me we do 'x' for people who cannot spend a lot of time in the parks and it didn't work, I would not have expected then to go above the ADA or what they wrote was available.  I never got a straight answer and it was causing me too much stress to continue. Believing the idea that any CM was going to offer a suggestion to help was causing me to miss the first 4 days of my vacation and I just went to enjoy the rest of my holiday as best I could on my terms.

I was told on changeover day not to cancel my May holiday as although they had no alternative to DAS then they would in the future. I was handed a few fastpasses and blanks were also placed on my magic band (none of which got used in the two days before I left). I foolishly believed that this was the case and when I arrived in May and I asked them to open the file that had been made on changeover day to read notes. There was no file and when I explained the issues just as I have done in the past with Disney and other parks and was told there was nothing available at this park, but go to every park as they may have different accommodations in place that may help. I did and after the fourth time the only things I still ever asked for was to speak to a lead and an explanation for my experience in regards to the printed material I then pulled out (which is posted in a previous post).

That is the thing, I get tarred with the same brush as the plaintiffs just because the DAS doesn't work for me. DAS not working does not automatically equal scammer.


----------



## SMD

nobodies36 said:


> Anything. Even a suggestion. I went in seeking help; not anything in particular. After 4 days I was getting pretty annoyed with being told they could not help which was the point I asked to speak to a lead and after going thorough everything with him I asked why Disney say that people who have limited park time can discuss an alternative assistance to DAS and why was I being told there was nothing but DAS. If they told me we do 'x' for people who cannot spend a lot of time in the parks and it didn't work, I would not have expected then to go above the ADA or what they wrote was available.  I never got a straight answer and it was causing me too much stress to continue. Believing the idea that any CM was going to offer a suggestion to help was causing me to miss the first 4 days of my vacation and I just went to enjoy the rest of my holiday as best I could on my terms.
> 
> I was told on changeover day not to cancel my May holiday as although they had no alternative to DAS then they would in the future. I was handed a few fastpasses and blanks were also placed on my magic band (none of which got used in the two days before I left). I foolishly believed that this was the case and when I arrived in May and I asked them to open the file that had been made on changeover day to read notes. There was no file and when I explained the issues just as I have done in the past with Disney and other parks and was told there was nothing available at this park, but go to every park as they may have different accommodations in place that may help. I did and after the fourth time the only things I still ever asked for was to speak to a lead and an explanation for my experience in regards to the printed material I then pulled out (which is posted in a previous post).
> 
> That is the thing, I get tarred with the same brush as the plaintiffs just because the DAS doesn't work for me. DAS not working does not automatically equal scammer.



If that's how you advocate for yourself, then that's why you got the suggestion to use FP+

It sounds like you're going in there, throwing up your hands and saying "FP+ won't work, so help me." (Which is what some of the plaintiffs describe doing, so it's actually a fair comparison.) From your long, rambling, walls of texts it sounds like you're not taking any responsibility for the park time that you do have. Why are you spending an hour every day just to go to GS to ask for a suggestion or to talk about riding Figment when you know it's already closed?

Take that hour, get a DAS return time, make an FP+ reservation if it's available, wait in a line, then go back to GS and clearly communicate why that didn't work and what you need to make it work.

Don't say that's what you're doing, I've read your posts and you are clearly not that concise.


----------



## nobodies36

asc said:


> looks like some people are missing the issue raised that ones "disability" results in one missing the FP time.  sure, those same people can miss the FP time for various reasons - and i guess this lends to abuse - but one poster clearly indicated that they quite legitimately could miss as a result of their disability.
> 
> all i was trying to suggest was a way that did not deprive this person of their entitlement to use FP+
> 
> all i was trying to suggest that when a person with such need go and explain their needs to guest services, one accommodation, other than a DAS, would be to advise them that they may be deprived of their entitlement to use FP+ if their ability" results in one missing the FP time.
> 
> as another notes, probably would not satisfy the plaintiffs in this situation.



 I know what you are saying and I have had a hard time with people seeing the original point was to 'help' with my disability I was to make fastpasses I knew I could not keep. If I had wiggle room I wouldn't need a DAS or need to make multiple Mine Train reservations that I could not keep (but had no alternative from Disney if I wanted to ride just once). The point was not to give disabled people more, but to stop a repeat of taking from one guest to give to another guest that caused animosity against GAC users even before the abuse of the GACs became big news.


----------



## North of Mouse

Coonhound said:


> What did you want them to give you?



What are your 'needs' 'nobodies36' ?? You did not answer Coonhound's post?

What can Disney give you besides offering the DAS that would help you?


----------



## SMD

nobodies36 said:


> I know what you are saying and I have had a hard time with people seeing the original point was to 'help' with my disability I was to make fastpasses I knew I could not keep. If I had wiggle room I wouldn't need a DAS or need to make multiple Mine Train reservations that I could not keep (but had no alternative from Disney if I wanted to ride just once). The point was not to give disabled people more, but to stop a repeat of taking from one guest to give to another guest that caused animosity against GAC users even before the abuse of the GACs became big news.



We all understand your original point, what we don't see is how it is relevant to everything else your're saying.

And when people tell you that you need to tell Disney what accommodations you need, you respond that you're taking an FP spot from other people. Again, that is irrelevant.

Why aren't you used the FP+ times that you can keep? Instead you're lamenting over the ones you miss. The DAS is an open ended FP+, so if a ride is the most important, why not use DAS for that?

Most of your issues seem to focus on how you can be accommodated when you're not in the park. You can't, so leave that issue out of the discussion, it just clouds things.


----------



## nobodies36

SMD said:


> If that's how you advocate for yourself, then that's why you got the suggestion to use FP+
> 
> It sounds like you're going in there, throwing up your hands and saying "FP+ won't work, so help me." (Which is what some of the plaintiffs describe doing, so it's actually a fair comparison.) From your long, rambling, walls of texts it sounds like you're not taking any responsibility for the park time that you do have. Why are you spending an hour every day just to go to GS to ask for a suggestion or to talk about riding Figment when you know it's already closed?
> 
> Take that hour, get a DAS return time, make an FP+ reservation if it's available, wait in a line, then go back to GS and clearly communicate why that didn't work and what you need to make it work.
> 
> Don't say that's what you're doing, I've read your posts and you are clearly not that concise.



Perhaps you missed the part where I said I explained my issues just as I had done previously at Disney and at other parks (and said other parks do not seem to have a problem understanding my limitations and needs). Plus I think you have also missed the fact that I mentioned I had my carer during these interactions (who is not here to communicate the point that you clearly feel is getting missed here).

Again, I have already said that I went to Guest Relations everyday as I was told every park has different accommodations for those who DAS is unsuitable for and I must discuss my needs at each park individually. That is how long it took for each CM to understand what I can and cannot do, as I walked in and explained everything that they needed to know so that they could tell me how they would accommodate me as per the earlier post where Disney says that a guest who have alternate needs than the DAS accommodates they must discuss it in person at Guest Relations. So you can see that I couldn't possibly have both been in their for an hour and just walked in and said DAS won't work as you suggest. It had already been discussed as the GAC became DAS and it was agreed that DAS would not work but to come back and something would be available by then.

I didn't know Figment closed early, but they did and sent me there anyway. And I didn't have until day 4 of the May trip (day 6 of the DAS system) and only because I had to as I was told I could have the DAS or nothing.

Do not tell me what I did and did not do as you were not there and can only suppose after the fact. I will not justify myself not putting a verbatim conversation on a public forum that could in the future lead to abuse. You were not there and I verbalize much better in person than I do in here. You complain I write too much, but I would not have that issue if people cannot grasp that my original post, where I stated I would rather not mention the details of my illness, concerns the fact that Disney has told be to book Fastpass plus reservations I know I will not make. Whilst I continue to work with Disney in regards to my disability (which is between Disney and myself) I said I hope the lawsuit draws enough attention to the effect the GAC to DAS change actually has on the non-disabled population.

There is no need to be so rude concerning my written communication as most people who post on this thread would like it to stay open.


----------



## Kellykins1218

nobodies36 said:


> Disney has told be to book Fastpass plus reservations I know I will not make.




You can make FP+ & DAS return times the whole time the park is open. How can you say you couldn't use them? That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## SLP958

nobodies36 said:


> Perhaps you missed the part where I said I explained my issues just as I had done previously at Disney and at other parks (and said other parks do not seem to have a problem understanding my limitations and needs). Plus I think you have also missed the fact that I mentioned I had my carer during these interactions (who is not here to communicate the point that you clearly feel is getting missed here).
> 
> Again, I have already said that I went to Guest Relations everyday as I was told every park has different accommodations for those who DAS is unsuitable for and I must discuss my needs at each park individually. That is how long it took for each CM to understand what I can and cannot do, as I walked in and explained everything that they needed to know so that they could tell me how they would accommodate me as per the earlier post where Disney says that a guest who have alternate needs than the DAS accommodates they must discuss it in person at Guest Relations. So you can see that I couldn't possibly have both been in their for an hour and just walked in and said DAS won't work as you suggest. It had already been discussed as the GAC became DAS and it was agreed that DAS would not work but to come back and something would be available by then.
> 
> I didn't know Figment closed early, but they did and sent me there anyway. And I didn't have until day 4 of the May trip (day 6 of the DAS system) and only because I had to as I was told I could have the DAS or nothing.
> 
> Do not tell me what I did and did not do as you were not there and can only suppose after the fact. I will not justify myself not putting a verbatim conversation on a public forum that could in the future lead to abuse. You were not there and I verbalize much better in person than I do in here. You complain I write too much, but I would not have that issue if people cannot grasp that my original post, where I stated I would rather not mention the details of my illness, concerns the fact that Disney has told be to book Fastpass plus reservations I know I will not make. Whilst I continue to work with Disney in regards to my disability (which is between Disney and myself) I said I hope the lawsuit draws enough attention to the effect the GAC to DAS change actually has on the non-disabled population.
> 
> There is no need to be so rude concerning my written communication as most people who post on this thread would like it to stay open.




You still have not said what you wanted them to do to accommodate you. Maybe if you could be
More specific they could have come up with a solution.  
Now, knowing the rules and limitations, maybe your next trip can be more enjoyable as you can plan better.


----------



## Jedana

Kellykins1218 said:


> You can make FP+ & DAS return times the whole time the park is open. How can you say you couldn't use them? That doesn't make any sense.



If someone has to leave the park, they can still return later and use the DAS for the ride they were going on at the beginning--there is no cut off time.  I've even read stories on the FB page where people came back the next day and were able to use the DAS for accessing the ride that was last on the form.  

I agree with Kellykins---how can you not make that work, nobodies36?  

And as far as losing FP+--well, I can't count the number of times we got FPs, back in the paper days, and didn't use them.  Losing your FP+ time is the same for EVERYONE, as it should be.  

Disney has provided ACCESS to the parks and rides.   It doesn't guarantee that one can do EVERYTHING in the park.   They are required to offer ACCESS, no more, no less.  It's upon the person to either make the access work for them or to not.


----------



## North of Mouse

nobodies36 said:


> There is no need to be so rude concerning my written communication as most people who post on this thread would like it to stay open.



I don't think anyone has been rude to you. It's just that no one seems to understand what you really 'need' from Disney, and you have been going around in very lengthy circles without stating that need.  

Sorry for the misunderstandings, but everyone is confused by your answers.


----------



## lanejudy

nobodies36 said:


> ... I cannot use the fastpass plus system and with the limitation of the rides I can do can mean even with DAS I have to leave before I can ride.  ...



I think people DO understand that you claim FP+ and DAS won't work, but it hasn't been particularly clear WHY those programs are unacceptable for you, or even if you gave them a sincere effort.  Bear with me as I try to consolidate the situation; this is my understanding from your various posts:

1) _I understand you had a WDW trip in fall 2013 just as GAC changed to DAS; at that time you were informed there would be more accommodations in place for your trip in May 2014._  I don't know why a CM would indicate that; there was expectation that the DAS may be "tweaked" a bit as it rolls out, but I never heard anyone else promise more or different accommodations would be forthcoming.  While anything is possible, I wouldn't expect it unless or until such change has been implemented.  Unfortunately, I think you were given bad advice and as such had an expectation that was maybe unrealistic.  For that I'm sorry you may have been mislead and I can understand your frustration.

2) _I understand "other parks" accommodate you._  What hasn't been clear is which parks and how you were accommodated.  I see you are from Glasgow, Scotland, so I don't know if these other parks are in Europe or the U.S.  Rules and laws regarding accommodations are very different in the U.S.  Most major theme parks in the U.S. have a similar program to DAS.  In any case, claiming that WDW should help you because another park does is not likely to work.

3) _I hear you cannot make it to specific times such as FP+._  I'm very confused how you manage to function in daily life.  You obviously made it to the airport and onto a specific flight.  I'm going to guess your medical professionals don't offer you completely opened ended appointments such as "show up any time next week when you are awake."  Unlike transatlantic flights and medical appointments, FP+ is relatively simple to change if or when the situation calls for a change.  Others are able to make that change for you if you are unavailable.

4) _I hear you say you fall asleep at inopportune times, and must lie down even if it puts you at risk._  Such a statement is not likely to get you much traction.  You need to be responsible for your own well-being, or with assistance from your party.  The DAS is offered to keep you out of the lines as much as possible so you can be in a safer environment of your choosing rather than stuck in a line.

5)  _I understand you may sleep for 2 hours or 36 hours, and you never know for how long or when you'll awaken._  WDW is not going to accommodate you for not coming into the parks.  Another member of your party is welcome to bring your DAS to the park early and get a return time for you.  It will be valid when you arrive any time that day or night.  Likewise, others can modify your FP+ selections and push them to later in the day, assuming you are linked as friends and family on MDE.  If you are asleep in the morning when they head to the parks, and you haven't joined them in time for the first FP+ ride, they can push that out for you to another time or choose another ride.  

6)  _I understand you feel you are wasting FP+._  In fact, numerous posts indicate wasting "hundreds" of them.  Not knowing how long each of your trips has been, with 3 pre-scheduled FP+ options per day, that's more than 33 park days to get even 100 FP+.  Even if you end up not using 1 or more FP+ on a given day, many people do that; it's not going to dictate that another accommodation is necessary.  It's admirable that you would like others to have the chance to use a FP+ time that you are unable to use, but consider it yours like a restaurant meal -- you've ordered it and it's yours to eat (ride) or not, save it to eat later (reschedule the ride) or throw it away.

I'm honestly not picking on you, but trying to figure out how best to help you explain your situation to CMs.  You seem to be staunchly insisting that FP+ and DAS cannot work for you, but have given no concrete examples of when you gave either/both an honest effort.  Unfortunately, there are times in life we have to try something in order to prove it doesn't work.  You will have to explain those specifics to Guest Relations, the specifics of how/when either program failed, but leave out the rest of the "clutter" that seems to cloud your explanation.   Keep it short, clear and concise with specific examples -- maybe write a list ahead of time.  I do sincerely hope that you can either find a way to make FP+ and DAS work for you, or that you find a concise way to explain specific instances where it did not work so CMs may better understand why the current program is not adequate for your needs.  

I wish you luck in your next vacation and that it work out better for you!


----------



## kaytieeldr

nobodies36 said:


> I know what you are saying and I have had a hard time with people seeing the original point was to 'help' with my disability I was to make fastpasses I knew I could not keep. If I had wiggle room I wouldn't need a DAS or need to make multiple Mine Train reservations that I could not keep (but had no alternative from Disney if I wanted to ride just once). The point was not to give disabled people more, but to stop a repeat of taking from one guest to give to another guest that caused animosity against GAC users even before the abuse of the GACs became big news.


The DAS *is* the wiggle room. And if you make and cancel a hundred FP+ reservations over six days, so what? Somebody else who couldn't originally get that spot now may be able to when making their own changes _especially if your carer cancels them while you sleep_ since you can't. You can still use the DAS when you get back to that park.

It's apparent Disney doesn't offer any other solution for someone with your needs, although you repeatedly post your condition and not you neds or what the DAS/Disney could do for you. Probably the only solution *is* the DAS and try to use FP+ as it was designed, because there likely won't be any further adaptation beyond the 15 minute grace period


----------



## goofieslonglostsis

kaytieeldr said:
			
		

> The DAS is the wiggle room. And if you make and cancel a hundred FP+ reservations over six days, so what? Somebody else who couldn't originally get that spot now may be able to when making their own changes especially if your carer cancels them while you sleep since you can't. You can still use the DAS when you get back to that park.


Agree. Also the system is designed with "gone to waste" FP in mind. Just like airlines oversell seats. So many things can and do happen. They do with so called "healthy" groups and are run of the mill normal for the largest part of those with medical issues or disability. Very business as usual for so many something can pop uo any minute that can alter plans there and then. 

DAS provides the opportunity to use later on the day. Plenty imho. One either has the option to come back later and ride or that day is gone for the popup-reason and nothing anyone could do means riding that day. Might be me but I do view that as providing access and being enough. 

Such is life sometimes.  Its not disney but Mother Nature acting up. Doesnt always feel fine or even fair perhaps but thats a different issue all together that in no way means disney should "make up". Before questions: been there, done that.  Havent done disney any other way. At any second something can pop up that requires acute alteration of plans for hours, day or longer.  It is what is it. We plan with the knowledge it will happen just not knowing when. Value each day or 15 minutes as it is. Expectations for each day were based on no park and more goes in the good day box. Makes it a lot more enjoyable. Including not wanting or planning to do something if I couldnt or wouldnt be able to deal with the consequences of it ending up not happening due to a predictable timing-unpredictable incident. 


Sure it sucks at time when all happens at the same time. Many here will know that sentiment. But those are things disney really cant magically do anything about. They're graciously enough allow using das later on in the day. More than Ild personally expect but also the only thing I think they could do.

As far as needing to visit GR at each park? It in and of itself I could see and it not per definition being a bad thing, same with options not always being the same or predictable each time for the same ride. As said I stay away from details but I was asked for a more intensive investing from my part for them to accomodate.  Which I can understand from both a is-it-needed aspect as much as realising how much difference there can be per park, ride or even time of day to try to work in the way they did. Ive spend relatively a lot of time in GR/talking to them,  whether compared to my total up time, ride time or general time spent in GR. But it was understandable, reasonable and big part of why I did ride and see what I did that trip.


----------



## nobodies36

North of Mouse said:


> What are your 'needs' 'nobodies36' ?? You did not answer Coonhound's post?
> 
> What can Disney give you besides offering the DAS that would help you?



*Anything I say is off the original topic I brought up and answering now will only perpetuate an off topic discussion. My inbox is open is you are genuinely interested*



SMD said:


> We all understand your original point, what we don't see is how it is relevant to everything else your're saying.
> 
> And when people tell you that you need to tell Disney what accommodations you need, you respond that you're taking an FP spot from other people. Again, that is irrelevant.
> 
> Why aren't you used the FP+ times that you can keep? Instead you're lamenting over the ones you miss. The DAS is an open ended FP+, so if a ride is the most important, why not use DAS for that?
> 
> Most of your issues seem to focus on how you can be accommodated when you're not in the park. You can't, so leave that issue out of the discussion, it just clouds things.



*I wrote an answer but have deleted it before posting as answering will probably only perpetuate more questions and lead to more off topic discussions that were never relevant in the first place and only started because someone wanted to know why I have problems with FP+. My inbox is open if you are genuinely interested though no need for it here*

If anyone (else) has any advice, anything they wish to say, any comments or anything that is about me or my disability and not about the thread then please just send a personal message instead. 

I just do not want to see this thread closed down by going off topic and getting too personal.

 So can we please just stick to the point I made that was relevant to the thread without personal attacks (since I should and will only justify my needs to Disney/other parks):

Whilst the lawsuit seems to be about bringing the GAC back, which I don't think would be feasible as I am in the camp who believe it was coming a long time ago and the DAS was the closest alternative that would minimize abuse as much as possible. With all the bad stick the GAC got (before the abuse was made public with 'rented invalids' and such) I am hoping that my experience (being told to make FP+ reservations I knew I could not keep before even being offered the DAS) would be an extreme minority. Even if it is a minority, other posters have brought up good examples of the rigidity of FP+ for the general populous. People with disabilities will have more difficulty with FP+ than most and I hope that any future exceptionally difficult to get experiences like Anna and Elsa doesn't become synonymous with disabilities (being in the standby queue and seeing a child come in the fastpass queue meltdown and leave only do come back in later because DAS and FP+) quite like some comments I am sure most of us have heard when people saw the red GAC being shown. You are penalized financially now for not showing up to an ADR  and I for one hope the FP+ never go down the way of penalized for not cancelling in enough time.

So with this in mind and thinking about the lawsuit, do you think there would still have been a lawsuit if the plaintiffs were not faced with the rigidity of FP+ and the change to DAS at the same time? Since many of the plaintiffs have not been to Disney since the DAS was introduced I would think there has to be some correlation for the fear of the new method. I cannot really comment on how different FP and FP+ is in general but can only see it being better overall and whilst the DAS certainly isn't the GAC, my experience of using a DAS while FP+ was in operation was positive. I noticed that the FP+ seemed to force people into specific queues at specific times and I felt that the FP queues were no longer to wait in (except Soarin') but the standby times were shorter than I would have expected.

I'd love to hear what specifically people with a loved one with autism feel about the rigidity vs certainty (the child knows in advance what the exact plan is and what to expect etc). Does FP+ help or hinder your situation specifically? 

Was it too much change in too short of time that is worrying the plaintiffs who have not experienced the DAS yet? I know I worry with my relationship to FP+ but I don't really lose too much by changing from GAC to DAS but I do imagine that it could at least be perceived by some plaintiffs that if they did rely heavily on GAC and not got in line when it was less than 20 minute wait for example then the would be experiencing a significant loss under the new system.

I just wonder if some parents feel too overwhelmed with the two changes and that it may be more about their perception of what could happen rather than the difficulties the child would face when under the new systems. With some of the plaintiffs it sounds more about the parent than the child.

 I do notice one thing- with the old FP system anyone could use them and now FP+ is linked to specific people. With no picture on GAC and one on DAS where pictured person must be present to ride then again it cannot be used by another member of the party. That is a change that both make at the same time and I wonder if this is something that both changes happening at the same time has eradicated. Some things don't seem to bother Disney (telling me to just make FP+ anyway) and yet both changes implemented at the same time seem to have been important enough to Disney. I wonder if this could have some reasoning as to why people are trying to sue. 

I see no merit in the lawsuit but hope it encourages a little tweaking. At the end the GAC was a catch all for any need rather than different stamps when it first started out and that was when people wanted to abuse it. Multiple smaller accommodations (no where near what the GAC was at the end) with less abuse appeal would be perfect.


----------



## Jenheartsdisney

I'm also from Glasgow, Scotland and the local theme park (M&Ds) is fair ground sized with ageing attractions. You need to show proof that you're disabled (benefits letter or blind registration certificate) and their concession is that you and your family get to queue jump - I understand in America that won't fly because the parks there are literally a few thousand times bigger and your laws are written in a way that you can't ask for proof of disability?

The English theme parks (Alton towers, Thorpe park etc) operate either a return time like DAS or you enter the ride immediately through the exit and ride straight away - again these parks are nothing like the size of Disney (but they are bigger than our wee park) and you need to show proof of disability.

The other thing the British parks do is give your carer a free ticket, this is basically for people on middle or high disability and it's the theme parks way of washing their hands of any liability if something goes wrong - kind of "we let your carer in for free so you can't complain that we didn't help you unload from a ride".


----------



## aaarcher86

nobodies36 said:


> *Anything I say is off the original topic I brought up and answering now will only perpetuate an off topic discussion. My inbox is open is you are genuinely interested*  *I wrote an answer but have deleted it before posting as answering will probably only perpetuate more questions and lead to more off topic discussions that were never relevant in the first place and only started because someone wanted to know why I have problems with FP+. My inbox is open if you are genuinely interested though no need for it here*  If anyone (else) has any advice, anything they wish to say, any comments or anything that is about me or my disability and not about the thread then please just send a personal message instead.  I just do not want to see this thread closed down by going off topic and getting too personal.  So can we please just stick to the point I made that was relevant to the thread without personal attacks (since I should and will only justify my needs to Disney/other parks):  Whilst the lawsuit seems to be about bringing the GAC back, which I don't think would be feasible as I am in the camp who believe it was coming a long time ago and the DAS was the closest alternative that would minimize abuse as much as possible. With all the bad stick the GAC got (before the abuse was made public with 'rented invalids' and such) I am hoping that my experience (being told to make FP+ reservations I knew I could not keep before even being offered the DAS) would be an extreme minority. Even if it is a minority, other posters have brought up good examples of the rigidity of FP+ for the general populous. People with disabilities will have more difficulty with FP+ than most and I hope that any future exceptionally difficult to get experiences like Anna and Elsa doesn't become synonymous with disabilities (being in the standby queue and seeing a child come in the fastpass queue meltdown and leave only do come back in later because DAS and FP+) quite like some comments I am sure most of us have heard when people saw the red GAC being shown. You are penalized financially now for not showing up to an ADR  and I for one hope the FP+ never go down the way of penalized for not cancelling in enough time.  So with this in mind and thinking about the lawsuit, do you think there would still have been a lawsuit if the plaintiffs were not faced with the rigidity of FP+ and the change to DAS at the same time? Since many of the plaintiffs have not been to Disney since the DAS was introduced I would think there has to be some correlation for the fear of the new method. I cannot really comment on how different FP and FP+ is in general but can only see it being better overall and whilst the DAS certainly isn't the GAC, my experience of using a DAS while FP+ was in operation was positive. I noticed that the FP+ seemed to force people into specific queues at specific times and I felt that the FP queues were no longer to wait in (except Soarin') but the standby times were shorter than I would have expected.  I'd love to hear what specifically people with a loved one with autism feel about the rigidity vs certainty (the child knows in advance what the exact plan is and what to expect etc). Does FP+ help or hinder your situation specifically?  Was it too much change in too short of time that is worrying the plaintiffs who have not experienced the DAS yet? I know I worry with my relationship to FP+ but I don't really lose too much by changing from GAC to DAS but I do imagine that it could at least be perceived by some plaintiffs that if they did rely heavily on GAC and not got in line when it was less than 20 minute wait for example then the would be experiencing a significant loss under the new system.  I just wonder if some parents feel too overwhelmed with the two changes and that it may be more about their perception of what could happen rather than the difficulties the child would face when under the new systems. With some of the plaintiffs it sounds more about the parent than the child.  I do notice one thing- with the old FP system anyone could use them and now FP+ is linked to specific people. With no picture on GAC and one on DAS where pictured person must be present to ride then again it cannot be used by another member of the party. That is a change that both make at the same time and I wonder if this is something that both changes happening at the same time has eradicated. Some things don't seem to bother Disney (telling me to just make FP+ anyway) and yet both changes implemented at the same time seem to have been important enough to Disney. I wonder if this could have some reasoning as to why people are trying to sue.  I see no merit in the lawsuit but hope it encourages a little tweaking. At the end the GAC was a catch all for any need rather than different stamps when it first started out and that was when people wanted to abuse it. Multiple smaller accommodations (no where near what the GAC was at the end) with less abuse appeal would be perfect.



I don't know the ratio in the lawsuit, but many of the complaints I've read about the new system comes from DL goers, where FP+ hasn't been implemented. Personally, I've seen people completely overwhelmed and baffled at paper FP and FP+ when using the DAS since they've never had to worry about using either before, so I don't think it matters. And frankly, being overwhelmed with changes doesn't warrant a lawsuit so I really don't have much sympathy for that. 

For my family, we enjoy FP+. Being able to schedule rides and times for things that I know my kids will want to ride during the day takes the guesswork out of it. I detested having to run to a ride, pull a FP, and be hostage to whatever time slot was available. If nothing else, we will get 3 rides or shows in. It's not terribly difficult to plan the DAS times in conjunction with FP+ times, for us.  This trip will be a bit more relaxing since I don't have to get into the park at the crack of dawn to get FP for TSM or other popular rides. 

It just really depends on the kids. For the kids that have a set schedule in their heads of rides and orders I think FP+ will be helpful. For people that don't know what they're kids will want to do when it'll be more difficult.


----------



## SueM in MN

I have been trying to figure out a reply - lanejudy wrote some of the things I was trying to say.

*Fastpass Plus*

When booking Fastpass Plus, people make their _best guess of times _that will work for them. Sometimes they guess wrong or things don't work out. 
People miss their Fastpass Plus all the time for various reasons and is not a problem.
Not using the Fastpass Plus that was booked doesn't 'deprive' anyone of getting into that attraction.
If a guest knows ahead of time that they will 'waste' their Fastpass Plus, they can cancel it and may be able to schedule another one instead.
If a Fastpass Plus is cancelled far enough in advance, another person might be able to get a Fastpass they would not get otherwise.
Even if it's not cancelled, that's not a bad thing. Less people in the Fastpass line for a time period means those in the Standby (regular) line will get in faster.
CMs at attraction _might_ be able to give a little wiggle room _at times if a guest is a few minutes late_. There is no guarantee and there are so many variables that they are not going to promise it. They are more likely to allow a little wiggle room for things like shows that won't be filled or attractions that have a short wait in the regular line. The reason is that the guest would be getting in anyway, even if they didn't have a Fastpass.

*DAS*

The person whose name is on the DAS doesn't need to be present to get a DAS Return Time. Someone else in their party can go to get the Return Time.
The DAS Return Time is based on the current wait time, so knowing the current wait gives a good idea of when the DAS Return Time will be before you get it.
The DAS Return Time doesn't have an end time - it can be used any time that day after the Return Time has arrived.

My family has been to WDW twice on long trips (more than 12 days) since the changeover to DAS. The first time was the end of October and early November 2013. Our last trip was late March, early April 2014 when it was very busy during Spring break. During the Spring vid it, our daughter was 6 weeks post a major surgery, so not fully recovered yet.

Our youngest daughter has multiple disabilities. Without going into a lot of detail, it is difficult (and some days impossible) for us to keep to any kind of schedule because things can happen without warning that mean our day needs to start later or we may be done because she is non-functional a few hours after our day started.

We also have to schedule in stretching time, medications 3 times a day which could take as little as 5 minutes or as long as 30 and feed her meals to her since she can't feed herself for a full meal.
And, we had to do a urinary catheter treatment every 3.5 to 4 hours round the clock (we are now 'spread out' to 6 hours during the night, but are still 3.5 to 4 hours during the day).
I got very good at the catheter 'thing' by the end of the trip and was able to do it in less than 15 minutes (but, we needed a bathroom with a sink; sometimes our wait for the Companion Restroom or handicapped stall was as much as 20 minutes).

_It would have been very easy to say DAS and Fastpass Plus would not work for us, but we made it work and actually found it worked better for our family than the now-discontinued GAC (Guest Assistance Card). So, what did we do?_

*Planning which Day to do which park*
We used www.touringplans.com and www.easywdw.com to figure out which was the green or red park for each day (green = best; red = busiest park).

Because our daughter has some needs that are impacted by weather, we soldo checked the long range and short range weather. AK is the hottest park and we wanted to avoid that on the hottest day (overcast was nice).

*Fastpass Plus*
We had used Fastpass from the time it first came out and used it as much as possible with GAC. The biggest issue we had was we never knew when we got to the park which attractions would have Fastpass available and what time they would be for and whether we would even be in the park at that point.
With Fastpass Plus, we were able to choose the times we thought would work - our best guess. We changed some the day of our visit because they just would not work that day.
Sometimes, our daughter was having a bad time, so other members of our group split up and went without her, then the people who had stayed with her went.

We used our Fastpass Plus times as kind of a 'framework schedule' and then worked in DAS Return Times and shorter attractions in between. 
Since Fastpass Plus has a required time window for use and DAS just has a start time, we used the Fastpass Plus and then the DAS if we were close on time. 

*My Disney Experience*
This was very helpful because we could see what around us had short waits (yes, some did, even during Spring break) and do those things instead of running all over the park. 
We also used it to see the current wait times to help us decide which attraction to use her DAS for.

Now, with all that, we used Fastpass Plus more times each day than we used DAS. It worked well for us and helped us to at least have a schedule that we could try to work our sometimes unpredictable day into.


----------



## kaytieeldr

> So with this in mind and thinking about the lawsuit, do you think there would still have been a lawsuit if the plaintiffs were not faced with the rigidity of FP+ and the change to DAS at the same time? Since many of the plaintiffs have not been to Disney since the DAS was introduced I would think there has to be some correlation for the fear of the new method.



Absolutely. People hate change.


----------



## SMD

kaytieeldr said:


> Absolutely. People hate change.



The plaintiffs also appear to be a group of people who never used FP. So whether it was paper or FP+ I think they'd be equally miserable having to plan. Plus one of their claims is that their kids don't understand going to a ride and having to leave and come back. Collecting a paper FP isn't really different than getting a DAS return time. If they can't or won't send a runner for DAS, they wouldn't have done it for a paper FP either.

And at DLR, where you get return times at a kiosk, not the ride, most rides don't have FP anyway. Zero FL rides have it, so there is no FP queue, GACs were being let right onto the ride everywhere but Peter Pan (unless they had to wait for the IASW accessible vehicle).

And then there's the difference in how local APs tour. Before FP enforcement started, I pretty much knew that if I decided to go to the park after work, even if I got there around 3pm-4pm I wasn't going to get any FPs, because people would collect them all day to use all at once later at night. Even now, if I get there at 4pm, my FP return might not be until 8pm, and maybe I'm not looking to be in the park quite that late.

Translate that to a local AP who takes their kid to the park as a reward after school. Or maybe the kid is fixated on going to DL, and will have a meltdown at home unless he goes. With the GAC, the family can walk in the park at 4pm and go right on Indy. If they had to use FP, they might not get a return time until 7pm, risking a meltdown (so they claim).

Now personally, I'd probably just go through standby, because even if it's 30 minutes, it's still faster than waiting for the FP return. Likewise I'd probably choose to let my kid meltdown at home (because he wants to go to DL) , rather than in the park (because he doesn't want to wait). And I certainly wouldn't use the threat of a meltdown to blackmail Disney into letting my family get right to the front of the line.

But I do understand that the nature of waiting for a DAS return times, collecting FPs, and planning around time factors are a completely different way than how these families are used to touring the parks. Does that mean that they've been injured to the point of needing monetary compensation? We shall see.


----------



## nobodies36

SueM in MN said:


> I have been trying to figure out a reply - lanejudy wrote some of the things I was trying to say.
> 
> *Fastpass Plus*
> 
> When booking Fastpass Plus, people make their _best guess of times _that will work for them. Sometimes they guess wrong or things don't work out.
> People miss their Fastpass Plus all the time for various reasons and is not a problem.
> Not using the Fastpass Plus that was booked doesn't 'deprive' anyone of getting into that attraction.
> If a guest knows ahead of time that they will 'waste' their Fastpass Plus, they can cancel it and may be able to schedule another one instead.
> If a Fastpass Plus is cancelled far enough in advance, another person might be able to get a Fastpass they would not get otherwise.
> Even if it's not cancelled, that's not a bad thing. Less people in the Fastpass line for a time period means those in the Standby (regular) line will get in faster.
> CMs at attraction _might_ be able to give a little wiggle room _at times if a guest is a few minutes late_. There is no guarantee and there are so many variables that they are not going to promise it. They are more likely to allow a little wiggle room for things like shows that won't be filled or attractions that have a short wait in the regular line. The reason is that the guest would be getting in anyway, even if they didn't have a Fastpass.
> 
> *DAS*
> 
> The person whose name is on the DAS doesn't need to be present to get a DAS Return Time. Someone else in their party can go to get the Return Time.
> The DAS Return Time is based on the current wait time, so knowing the current wait gives a good idea of when the DAS Return Time will be before you get it.
> The DAS Return Time doesn't have an end time - it can be used any time that day after the Return Time has arrived.
> 
> My family has been to WDW twice on long trips (more than 12 days) since the changeover to DAS. The first time was the end of October and early November 2013. Our last trip was late March, early April 2014 when it was very busy during Spring break. During the Spring vid it, our daughter was 6 weeks post a major surgery, so not fully recovered yet.
> 
> Our youngest daughter has multiple disabilities. Without going into a lot of detail, it is difficult (and some days impossible) for us to keep to any kind of schedule because things can happen without warning that mean our day needs to start later or we may be done because she is non-functional a few hours after our day started.
> 
> We also have to schedule in stretching time, medications 3 times a day which could take as little as 5 minutes or as long as 30 and feed her meals to her since she can't feed herself for a full meal.
> And, we had to do a urinary catheter treatment every 3.5 to 4 hours round the clock (we are now 'spread out' to 6 hours during the night, but are still 3.5 to 4 hours during the day).
> I got very good at the catheter 'thing' by the end of the trip and was able to do it in less than 15 minutes (but, we needed a bathroom with a sink; sometimes our wait for the Companion Restroom or handicapped stall was as much as 20 minutes).
> 
> _It would have been very easy to say DAS and Fastpass Plus would not work for us, but we made it work and actually found it worked better for our family than the now-discontinued GAC (Guest Assistance Card). So, what did we do?_
> 
> *Planning which Day to do which park*
> We used www.touringplans.com and www.easywdw.com to figure out which was the green or red park for each day (green = best; red = busiest park).
> 
> Because our daughter has some needs that are impacted by weather, we soldo checked the long range and short range weather. AK is the hottest park and we wanted to avoid that on the hottest day (overcast was nice).
> 
> *Fastpass Plus*
> We had used Fastpass from the time it first came out and used it as much as possible with GAC. The biggest issue we had was we never knew when we got to the park which attractions would have Fastpass available and what time they would be for and whether we would even be in the park at that point.
> With Fastpass Plus, we were able to choose the times we thought would work - our best guess. We changed some the day of our visit because they just would not work that day.
> Sometimes, our daughter was having a bad time, so other members of our group split up and went without her, then the people who had stayed with her went.
> 
> We used our Fastpass Plus times as kind of a 'framework schedule' and then worked in DAS Return Times and shorter attractions in between.
> Since Fastpass Plus has a required time window for use and DAS just has a start time, we used the Fastpass Plus and then the DAS if we were close on time.
> 
> *My Disney Experience*
> This was very helpful because we could see what around us had short waits (yes, some did, even during Spring break) and do those things instead of running all over the park.
> We also used it to see the current wait times to help us decide which attraction to use her DAS for.
> 
> Now, with all that, we used Fastpass Plus more times each day than we used DAS. It worked well for us and helped us to at least have a schedule that we could try to work our sometimes unpredictable day into.


 
I appreciate what you and lanejudy are trying to say and I have already said I'm not going into personal details that are not relevant. I mentioned one symptom of my disability and stated it as such. I know how to best use FP+ and DAS and I have to work with the limitations I have and have been doing on a daily basis for years. I've spent a lot of time at Disney and because of multiple (linked) disabilities like your family scheduling is, and had always been, very difficult and sometimes impossible, and even in the GAC years I have spent multiple days bedridden in Disney even though I am awake as with multiple disabilities different issues can hold you back at different times. I cannot regulate me body temperature and AK can be difficult for me, inner ear issues (usually liked to low immunity problems) mean HS is out on some days as my rides are so limited we have to change plans. I didn't know this was going to turn into question time and I had to go through all my needs- even the ones that wasn't relevant to the point I tried to make in the first instance about possible future animosity if this was a standard line for anyone who isn't aided by the DAS.

On changeover day Disney told me they didn't think the DAS was suitable and they would issue one anyway until they had ironed out the kinks and had accommodations for guests spending limited park hours- I spent the money, did everything they asked, tried to make the DAS/FP+ work as best I could.

It is very easy to mistake what I was describing- easier to describe as a sudden onset sleep deprivation (hours rather than days/weeks) which can start an hour after waking or 5 hours but there is no way to tell. Add to the the basic fact that I cannot regulate my circadian sleep cycle (at all for the last 18 years) and it seems to have been taken as falls asleep in places and perhaps that it my fault because my priority of posting is never to give away too much information that could be abused now or in the future- hence my not naming the central FL theme park who has DAS like accommodations but has listened to the needs and limitations of all my disabilities and symptoms thereof and given me something else that works for me and it not a GAC equivalent. I know you are very medically aware and might be more familiar with those terms rather than my poor explanation, but if I knew there was going to be a test I might have tried harder. 

I already do all I can like stay onsite and stay for 2-4 weeks at a time (I take as much medication as I can but I can only go over the max dose for the flight itself), EMH will be available if I am, go at slow times (mostly September) and only go at other times when I am going with someone else who can only go at a specific time (like last trip and the trip after this September). As well as the best one- go as often as I can.  

This was never meant to be about what is and is not suitable for me because I'm limited in rides, limited in hours and limited by a dozen other factors. I didn't do Soarin' 17 times in a row so I haven't really lost that much. The only things I have said I am actually unhappy with are blatant lies CMs have told me, having an official statement that there are accommodations for people with needs that the DAS doesn't help (this is the irony, by the time I qualify for the DAS in its true sense, I had better be leaving the park or there will be bigger issues than rides and shows). Worst is the automatic judgement and jumping to conclusions when you use terms too simple and is a bit like trying to explain additional needs over and above a wheelchair.

Anyway, I understand you are trying to help but I am unwilling and unable to put the details on an open forum that people are asking because I am still dealing with this matter with Disney after it became clear that for some reason I am not getting the assistance that is offered help "for persons who are concerned the DAS Card does not meet their needs (e.g., for those whose disability limits the duration of their visit to the park or limits their choice of attractions)." It will not solve all my needs and am very much aware that they would not be able to do that anyway but I will be seeing if I can send medical evidence or speak to someone who perhaps has enough medical knowledge to conceive some of the things that are fact (and my life) outside of their experiential limitations. As soon as I say sleep- I'm judged and get 'you sleep a lot?', 'you fall asleep when you don't want to?', so you have Narcolepsy?'. When people cannot conceive that I have functioned like this for decades, then the natural response is that I must be lying or they keep claiming to understand and them making an incorrect statement. I purchased and have worn my own actigraph for the last 3 years as I got so sick of being called a liar or even a visual can really help people understand just this one disability which is a single symptom of my main disability.

That aside, it only got into that because one question seemed to lead to another- I'd thought circadian sleep/wake cycle disturbances would have been more widely known in the US as the FDA approved the first drug for it this year. I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your help and felt that I should let you know that I tried not to post to much as some of the information and too much detail vis a vie the fact that no-one went into too much detail about the GAC or verbatim conversations with Disney.

I didn't want the thread closed so felt it best to not post any personal information that isn't related to why I first posted. I appreciate the information but it isn't anything I haven't tried or already do to try to enjoy my vacations as much as possible. Although I don't post over her much I do appreciate all the work you put into this forum. I'm used to dealing with my own issues everyday and appreciate the work you put into helping people translate their needs to a Disney vacation.


----------



## nobodies36

SMD said:


> The plaintiffs also appear to be a group of people who never used FP. So whether it was paper or FP+ I think they'd be equally miserable having to plan. Plus one of their claims is that their kids don't understand going to a ride and having to leave and come back. Collecting a paper FP isn't really different than getting a DAS return time. If they can't or won't send a runner for DAS, they wouldn't have done it for a paper FP either.
> 
> And at DLR, where you get return times at a kiosk, not the ride, most rides don't have FP anyway. Zero FL rides have it, so there is no FP queue, GACs were being let right onto the ride everywhere but Peter Pan (unless they had to wait for the IASW accessible vehicle).
> 
> And then there's the difference in how local APs tour. Before FP enforcement started, I pretty much knew that if I decided to go to the park after work, even if I got there around 3pm-4pm I wasn't going to get any FPs, because people would collect them all day to use all at once later at night. Even now, if I get there at 4pm, my FP return might not be until 8pm, and maybe I'm not looking to be in the park quite that late.
> 
> Translate that to a local AP who takes their kid to the park as a reward after school. Or maybe the kid is fixated on going to DL, and will have a meltdown at home unless he goes. With the GAC, the family can walk in the park at 4pm and go right on Indy. If they had to use FP, they might not get a return time until 7pm, risking a meltdown (so they claim).
> 
> Now personally, I'd probably just go through standby, because even if it's 30 minutes, it's still faster than waiting for the FP return. Likewise I'd probably choose to let my kid meltdown at home (because he wants to go to DL) , rather than in the park (because he doesn't want to wait). And I certainly wouldn't use the threat of a meltdown to blackmail Disney into letting my family get right to the front of the line.
> 
> But I do understand that the nature of waiting for a DAS return times, collecting FPs, and planning around time factors are a completely different way than how these families are used to touring the parks. *Does that mean that they've been injured to the point of needing monetary compensation? *We shall see.



I'm not great with US law and the ADA confuses me enough, but I was under the impression that it was more of a 'publicity stunt', even to the point of trying to get the GAC back, but I had no idea that these people would actually be seeking a monetary value as well! How do they expect that would be quantifiable? Forgive my ignorance, are the seeking the GAC back _and_ money or just the money? 

I'm actually shocked that they want money! The money wont solve anything so it just sounds so childish: 'Meh, you upset me and since you have loads of money I want some'. I thought it was about parents advocating for their children even in the misguided way of wanting something better for their child i.e. GAC when Disney changed to DAS, but it sounds more like a bunch of greedy people using their wonderful gifts of children for money!

I take it the courts are just going through the motions before throwing it out?


----------



## SMD

nobodies36 said:


> I'm not great with US law and the ADA confuses me enough, but I was under the impression that it was more of a 'publicity stunt', even to the point of trying to get the GAC back, but I had no idea that these people would actually be seeking a monetary value as well! How do they expect that would be quantifiable? Forgive my ignorance, are the seeking the GAC back _and_ money or just the money?
> 
> I'm actually shocked that they want money! The money wont solve anything so it just sounds so childish: 'Meh, you upset me and since you have loads of money I want some'. I thought it was about parents advocating for their children even in the misguided way of wanting something better for their child i.e. GAC when Disney changed to DAS, but it sounds more like a bunch of greedy people using their wonderful gifts of children for money!
> 
> I take it the courts are just going through the motions before throwing it out?



You can't really sue to make someone do something. In a civil suit you're saying that they owe you something because of what they did, or in this case didn't do for you.

If the court or jury agrees that Disney is wrong, then the court or jury would decide how much, if anything the plaintiffs are owed. Obvious Disney would most likely change their policies, to avoid paying more damages to more people going forward.

I've highlighted the parts where they're asking for money.



> WHEREFORE, Plaintiff D.H., by and through J.H. as his next friend, parent and court-appointed guardian, prays that this Court adjudicate this dispute and enter an Order:
> 
> 	Enjoining Defendant to cease the practices which are causing discrimination against Plaintiff on account of D.H.s disability; and
> 	Enjoining Defendant to reasonably modify its policies, practices, and procedures to afford Plaintiff with an opportunity to experience Disneys goods, services, facilities,	privileges, advantages, and accommodations; and
> 	Establishing Court-approved remedial measures that Disney must implement, to prevent Disney from further discriminating against Plaintiff when they visit the Disney Parks; and
> 	Establishing Court-approved requirements for information dissemination about Disneys remedial measures and modified policies, to prevent Disney from further deterring Plaintiff from visiting Disney Parks as a result of anticipated discrimination; and
> and
> 	Establishing a monitoring program to ensure Disneys compliance with the Courts Orders; and
> 	*Awarding reasonable attorneys fees as may be determined by the Court in favor of Plaintiff and against Disney*; and
> 	*Awarding reasonable litigation costs as may be determined by the Court in favor of Plaintiff and against Disney*; and
> 	*Such other relief as this Court may find just and equitable*.



That last line is where they ask for the big bucks.


----------



## jcb

SMD said:


> You can't really sue to make someone do something.



Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying but of course you can sue to make someone do something.  It is called an injunction.  It discrimination law, the employer can be ordered to reinstate a fired employee.  Disney could be ordered to make some kind of modification over and above DAS. 

As to money damages, I've address the potential statutory damages they could recovery here: http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=51879641&postcount=249


----------



## CPT Tripss

If they prevail in the lawsuit, Disney will likely have to pay their attorney.  IIRC the other case brought against Disney was settled for $10,000 to $20,000 per named plaintiff and the attorney got $1.5 million.


----------



## SMD

jcb said:


> Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying but of course you can sue to make someone do something.  It is called an injunction.  It discrimination law, the employer can be ordered to reinstate a fired employee.  Disney could be ordered to make some kind of modification over and above DAS.
> 
> As to money damages, I've address the potential statutory damages they could recovery here: http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=51879641&postcount=249



You're usually not suing to get your job back, you're suing for the money you would have earned if you weren't terminated.


----------



## SMD

Here's another count and the damages they're seeking. I'm not saying this isn't standard lawsuit stuff, just pointing out what some of the text means.



> WHEREFORE, Plaintiff A.B., by and through M.B. as A.B.s next friend, parent and natural guardian, prays that this Court adjudicate this dispute and enter an Order:
> 
> 	Finding that Disney negligently inflicted emotional distress upon A.B.; and
> 	Finding such infliction to have caused damages to A.B.; and
> 	*Entering judgment for Plaintiff A.B. in the amount of such
> damages*; and
> 	*Awarding reasonable litigation costs as may be determined by the
> Court in favor of Plaintiff and against Disney*; and
> 	*Awarding prejudgment interest*; and
> 	*Such other relief as this Court may find just and equitable.*


----------



## jcb

SMD said:


> You're usually not suing to get your job back, you're suing for the money you would have earned if you weren't terminated.



Whether or not I agree I agree with this, and I don't, title III of the ADA doesn't provide for money damages, only injunctive relief.  Cal imposes a statutory damage claim of $4k.

Several parents have asserted tort claims, one or two assert they were duped into buying DVC by how good Disney treated them before DAS.  I can't imagine these claims succeeding and have forgotten about them but if by some wild chance they succeeded, the court could order damages.


----------



## SueM in MN

nobodies36, I appreciate that you don't want to discuss your personal situation any more than you have and I agree we don't need to know any more.

People are honestly trying to come up with some suggestions that might be helpful to allow you to get the help you need. But, despite what you have written, I feel stymied in coming to any conclusions about what may help you.
I have a feeling that the CMs you have talked to are in a similar situation. Perhaps, if you make a next trip, instead of asking them what they can offer, you could suggest some things you think would be helpful and see if they can think of ways to provide them within the DAS and Fastpass Plus programs.


----------



## kaytieeldr

SueM in MN said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that the CMs you have talked to are in a similar situation. Perhaps, if you make a next trip, instead of asking them what they can offer, you could suggest some things you think would be helpful and see if they can think of ways to provide them within the DAS and Fastpass Plus programs.
> __________________



Sue's right. Maybe tell the GS Cast Members how the other unnamed Central Florida park accommodates you. They still may not be able to customize your assistance, but you'll get much better results than just asking them for suggestions.

Don't worry about this not being the primary topic of this thread. It's a long thread. It happens. It'll get back on track.


----------



## SueM in MN

SMD said:


> *The plaintiffs also appear to be a group of people who never used FP. So whether it was paper or FP+ I think they'd be equally miserable having to plan.* Plus one of their claims is that their kids don't understand going to a ride and having to leave and come back. Collecting a paper FP isn't really different than getting a DAS return time. If they can't or won't send a runner for DAS, they wouldn't have done it for a paper FP either.
> 
> And at DLR, where you get return times at a kiosk, not the ride, most rides don't have FP anyway. Zero FL rides have it, so there is no FP queue, GACs were being let right onto the ride everywhere but Peter Pan (unless they had to wait for the IASW accessible vehicle).
> 
> And then there's the difference in how local APs tour. Before FP enforcement started, I pretty much knew that if I decided to go to the park after work, even if I got there around 3pm-4pm I wasn't going to get any FPs, because people would collect them all day to use all at once later at night. Even now, if I get there at 4pm, my FP return might not be until 8pm, and maybe I'm not looking to be in the park quite that late.
> 
> *Translate that to a local AP who takes their kid to the park as a reward after school. Or maybe the kid is fixated on going to DL, and will have a meltdown at home unless he goes. With the GAC, the family can walk in the park at 4pm and go right on Indy. If they had to use FP, they might not get a return time until 7pm, risking a meltdown (so they claim).*
> 
> *Now personally, I'd probably just go through standby, because even if it's 30 minutes, it's still faster than waiting for the FP return*. Likewise I'd probably choose to let my kid meltdown at home (because he wants to go to DL) , rather than in the park (because he doesn't want to wait). And I certainly wouldn't use the threat of a meltdown to blackmail Disney into letting my family get right to the front of the line.
> 
> But I do understand that the nature of waiting for a DAS return times, collecting FPs, and planning around time factors are a completely different way than how these families are used to touring the parks. Does that mean that they've been injured to the point of needing monetary compensation? We shall see.


I think you have hit on the major reasons for the lawsuit:

1) A group of people who had not used Fastpass. This is true for some of the WDW visitors also. I know of people who said they didn't ever use Fastpass because they didn't need to with GACs.

2) Local AP holders who made short trips into the parks. This seems to gave been a bit problem in California, but some of the people in Florida who were complaining on social media about DAS did pretty much the same thing - go yo the park for a few hours, hit a couple of rides a couple of times, then leave.

3) Ahh! the standby line. Even with GAC for my daughter, we used the a Standby line as much as possible, so we always knew how long the Standby line wait was.
I know some people using GACs who NEVER used the Standby line and never, ever looked at what the wait was. They just flashed their GAC and entered the Fastpass line. 
One time, as we entered the Standby line for Aladdin, which was posted as 15 minutes wait, someone behind us wanted to use their GAC and was told GACs were not used there for waits of 15 minutes or less. We listened to the family argue for our entire wait about how they could not wait in the regular line and they needed to enter immediately because they had a GAC. They ended up not riding because the CM would not let them in the exit.
But, they argued so long that by the time they left, we were the next group to ride. So they spent as much time arguing as they would have waiting.


----------



## SueM in MN

jcb said:


> Whether or not I agree I agree with this, and I don't, title III of the ADA doesn't provide for money damages, only injunctive relief.  Cal imposes a statutory damage claim of $4k.
> 
> Several parents have asserted tort claims, one or two assert they were duped into buying DVC by how good Disney treated them before DAS.  I can't imagine these claims succeeding and have forgotten about them but if by some wild chance they succeeded, the court could order damages.


Thank you, Jack, for continuing to offer a legal perspective on this thread.

I'm not an attorney, and don't play one on TV (lol) , so it is helpful to have a real lawyer's viewpoint.


----------



## Chickenlady

nobodies36, I think if you are waiting for Disney to come up with something that will help those with limited park time, no matter what a CM says, you will be waiting forever.  With all the different situations already mentioned...young children, elderly, just plain tired people, there is no way to accommodate a request like this. Nearly everyone at some time has a limited park experience, not just the disabled.  Just because it sounds like it might help some people, an accommodation like that would become overwhelming very, very quickly. I see Disney opening up something like that about the same time they start lowering gate prices.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

I think that Disney has made it clear what they are going to offer to those who have disabilities.  I am sure all within the law of what they are required to do.   

Disney has done away with the FOTL, anytime, anywhere, GAC type pass.  

As a consumer, I get to decide if I can make the DAS and the FastPass system work for me or not.  If I can't make it work, then I don't spend the money.  Because Disney isn't going to change it back.  Disney has drawn the line in the sand. 

I think that Disney will work with you, just like people here on the boards try to help, when the DAS and the FastPass system doesn't work.  I believe if you took in actual data and approached the situation asking for help in making their system work for you, they will come up with a solution.  On the flip side, if you go in complaining that it doesn't work, like those associated with the lawsuit, and you sensationalize your situation and bring up everything but the kitchen sink, just trying to get the FOTL anytime, anywhere GAC type pass(es) that you will be very disappointed.


----------



## nobodies36

SueM in MN said:


> nobodies36, I appreciate that you don't want to discuss your personal situation any more than you have and I agree we don't need to know any more.
> 
> People are honestly trying to come up with some suggestions that might be helpful to allow you to get the help you need. But, despite what you have written, I feel stymied in coming to any conclusions about what may help you.
> I have a feeling that the CMs you have talked to are in a similar situation. Perhaps, if you make a next trip, instead of asking them what they can offer, you could suggest some things you think would be helpful and see if they can think of ways to provide them within the DAS and Fastpass Plus programs.



I know people are trying to help, but I try to keep the information about conversations to a minimum. I do try- I know my needs and limitations but not what it is and is not possible for Disney to do as per the ADA. So asking for extended grace period for my FP+ in order to make them may not be possible to implement because of it is run by computer system and not by hand. I did ask for what would help me where I thought it would be possible to do and even gave a different suggestion. They said no they only offer the DAS. After so much contradicting info I asked to speak to a lead and he just repeated the same lines. No details except when he would make a statement I knew to be untrue and proved he was lying he brushed over it and gave no explanation- like other theme parks and alternate to DAS for those DAS may not assist. He just repeated his lines over and over again contradicting even the written information.



kaytieeldr said:


> Sue's right. Maybe tell the GS Cast Members how the other unnamed Central Florida park accommodates you. They still may not be able to customize your assistance, but you'll get much better results than just asking them for suggestions.
> 
> Don't worry about this not being the primary topic of this thread. It's a long thread. It happens. It'll get back on track.



I did. I told every GR CM at the end of the conversation when they used that as the line that the use to reason why they claim that it is only DAS. I think I only ever showed the lead I spoke to and since he had spent the last 5 minutes telling me that every central FL park does the same and I just let him do his speech and placed then handed him the card. His response; We have DAS or nothing. Take it or leave it. Would you like to leave now?. That is the shortened version.

I go in explain my needs and limitations, then asked what assistance they could offer for my needs. The answer was always there is only DAS and it doesn't sound like it would meet much of your needs. I would ask- can you do 'X'? No. Can you do 'Y'? No. These were very reasonable accommodations that would be possible and nothing more than I got pixie dusted from other CMs (at a FP+ kiosk I was questioned why I was making FP+ and not attending any and then following a totally different plan when they saw I was a DVC member who should know what they are doing). What I asked for is possible and would allow me access to the 3 rides that I booked just like everyone else. What else can I say when they still say we only offer the DAS?
Then the same the next day and next park. It wasn't something that was going to be sorted that trip so I just tried to make the best of a bad situation and planned to discuss it further with Disney when I got home.

I don't mind a little off track, but so off track I was justifying my disability in relation to nothing was too far. I don't mind people trying to help, but since it is inappropriate to post everything then it can be very easy to go too off topic.





Chickenlady said:


> nobodies36, I think if you are waiting for Disney to come up with something that will help those with limited park time, no matter what a CM says, you will be waiting forever.  With all the different situations already mentioned...young children, elderly, just plain tired people, there is no way to accommodate a request like this. Nearly everyone at some time has a limited park experience, not just the disabled.  Just because it sounds like it might help some people, an accommodation like that would become overwhelming very, very quickly. I see Disney opening up something like that about the same time they start lowering gate prices.



It isn't what a CM says, it is in official documentation from Disney in the link I posted a few pages back with Disney's official information on the DAS and the minority of people whose needs are not met by the DAS. Those whose disability limits park time and choice of rides, etc. As sue said dealing with medical needs that are not specific to Disney can take large chunks out of your day and that is before you start thinking about accessing a ride. 

Respectfully, just as no-one likes to queue and some children cannot grasp the concept necessary comparatively, limited park time and ride limitations due to disability are not the same as people getting tired (perfectly normal and expected) or children/elderly (stages of life that do not discriminate).


----------



## nobodies36

SMD said:


> You can't really sue to make someone do something. In a civil suit you're saying that they owe you something because of what they did, or in this case didn't do for you.
> 
> If the court or jury agrees that Disney is wrong, then the court or jury would decide how much, if anything the plaintiffs are owed. Obvious Disney would most likely change their policies, to avoid paying more damages to more people going forward.
> 
> I've highlighted the parts where they're asking for money.
> 
> 
> 
> That last line is where they ask for the big bucks.



Thanks for explaining that. If that was to happen here I don't think it would be a jury trial as it would either be against the law or not and not up for subjective input and would be ruled on by a single judge or similar depending on how high up it went. 

So can this case involve a jury? Or is that just in general?


----------



## SMD

nobodies36 said:


> Thanks for explaining that. If that was to happen here I don't think it would be a jury trial as it would either be against the law or not and not up for subjective input and would be ruled on by a single judge or similar depending on how high up it went.
> 
> So can this case involve a jury? Or is that just in general?



If it actually goes to a trial, many years from now, the plaintiffs will want a jury. Honestly, when your claims rely heavily on emotion and hyperbole, it's a lot easier to convince 9 of 12 jurors than a single judge.


----------



## nobodies36

2tinkerbell said:


> I think that Disney has made it clear what they are going to offer to those who have disabilities.  I am sure all within the law of what they are required to do.
> 
> Disney has done away with the FOTL, anytime, anywhere, GAC type pass.
> 
> As a consumer, I get to decide if I can make the DAS and the FastPass system work for me or not.  If I can't make it work, then I don't spend the money.  Because Disney isn't going to change it back.  Disney has drawn the line in the sand.
> 
> I think that Disney will work with you, just like people here on the boards try to help, when the DAS and the FastPass system doesn't work.  I believe if you took in actual data and approached the situation asking for help in making their system work for you, they will come up with a solution.  On the flip side, if you go in complaining that it doesn't work, like those associated with the lawsuit, and you sensationalize your situation and bring up everything but the kitchen sink, just trying to get the FOTL anytime, anywhere GAC type pass(es) that you will be very disappointed.



Sadly, just because you can think of what Disney will do, does not mean that will translate into fact. I did go in with the same information I have given a dozen times before and they did not come up with a solution. I gave them the opportunity to make a suggestion before I made any suggestions that would be reasonable accommodation as to the best of my knowledge. 

Well (un)luckily for me I have no need to sensationalize anything. I cannot change my disability- if people don't like the truth of my illness then that is not my problem. I cannot and will not be apologetic for trying the accommodations offered to me and not being able to translate the workings to my disability. I did everything that was asked and managed one ride in the first 4 days of my trip. So the solution of just try and keep the FP reservations did not work. I had hoped that once they could physically see what did and did not get used, what time I entered and left the park, what effort I went to in order to try to make the system work for me they would be a little more understanding of my needs. They were not.

And since I was the only person present that is also posting here then you can make any false assumptions you like about the conversations that took place. I could tell you until I am blue in the face that I have never requested FOTL access and only sought help to rides the three rides a day I planned (assuming that another part of my disability does not get in the way that could not be reasonably accommodated and I had to change plans) and nothing more. I could but since everyone is entitled to their opinion and I know the facts since I was there I would be wasting my time flogging a dead horse.


----------



## charmed59

SMD said:


> If it actually goes to a trial, many years from now, the plaintiffs will want a jury. Honestly, when your claims rely heavily on emotion and hyperbole, it's a lot easier to convince 9 of 12 jurors than a single judge.



"many years from now"  That's the sad part.  I think until this gets resolved, Disney can't consider changing the DAC in anyway that would be closer to what the plaintiffs want, as that might be considered admitting guilt.  So until this suit goes away, it's probably not going to get better.


----------



## nobodies36

SMD said:


> If it actually goes to a trial, many years from now, the plaintiffs will want a jury. Honestly, when your claims rely heavily on emotion and hyperbole, it's a lot easier to convince 9 of 12 jurors than a single judge.



Years!? I suppose the money aspect is where the emotion plays its part. Legally, it is either just or unjust- how could 12 people be allowed to make that decision rather than someone much more experienced in law? It has nothing to do with emotion and there is no grey area. 

If it was unjust then I could see why people could perhaps quantify a monetary figure more accurately than one person. 

Can someone step in and say there are no legal grounds for this to get to trial and end it there?


----------



## aaarcher86

nobodies36 said:


> I know people are trying to help, but I try to keep the information about conversations to a minimum. I do try- I know my needs and limitations but not what it is and is not possible for Disney to do as per the ADA. So asking for extended grace period for my FP+ in order to make them may not be possible to implement because of it is run by computer system and not by hand. I did ask for what would help me where I thought it would be possible to do and even gave a different suggestion. They said no they only offer the DAS. After so much contradicting info I asked to speak to a lead and he just repeated the same lines. No details except when he would make a statement I knew to be untrue and proved he was lying he brushed over it and gave no explanation- like other theme parks and alternate to DAS for those DAS may not assist. He just repeated his lines over and over again contradicting even the written information.  I did. I told every GR CM at the end of the conversation when they used that as the line that the use to reason why they claim that it is only DAS. I think I only ever showed the lead I spoke to and since he had spent the last 5 minutes telling me that every central FL park does the same and I just let him do his speech and placed then handed him the card. His response; We have DAS or nothing. Take it or leave it. Would you like to leave now?. That is the shortened version.  I go in explain my needs and limitations, then asked what assistance they could offer for my needs. The answer was always there is only DAS and it doesn't sound like it would meet much of your needs. I would ask- can you do 'X'? No. Can you do 'Y'? No. These were very reasonable accommodations that would be possible and nothing more than I got pixie dusted from other CMs (at a FP+ kiosk I was questioned why I was making FP+ and not attending any and then following a totally different plan when they saw I was a DVC member who should know what they are doing). What I asked for is possible and would allow me access to the 3 rides that I booked just like everyone else. What else can I say when they still say we only offer the DAS? Then the same the next day and next park. It wasn't something that was going to be sorted that trip so I just tried to make the best of a bad situation and planned to discuss it further with Disney when I got home.  I don't mind a little off track, but so off track I was justifying my disability in relation to nothing was too far. I don't mind people trying to help, but since it is inappropriate to post everything then it can be very easy to go too off topic.  It isn't what a CM says, it is in official documentation from Disney in the link I posted a few pages back with Disney's official information on the DAS and the minority of people whose needs are not met by the DAS. Those whose disability limits park time and choice of rides, etc. As sue said dealing with medical needs that are not specific to Disney can take large chunks out of your day and that is before you start thinking about accessing a ride.  Respectfully, just as no-one likes to queue and some children cannot grasp the concept necessary comparatively, limited park time and ride limitations due to disability are not the same as people getting tired (perfectly normal and expected) or children/elderly (stages of life that do not discriminate).



Do you mind pointing out specifically where Disney addresses 'people with limited park time?'  I haven't seen that at all, and it's not address in the official documents, or the letter from Meg Crofton you posted. 

There is nothing legally required by the ADA to help someone do more during their limited time in the park.  I think you're taking the documents and trying to  apply them to your situation, but limited time is not a need that needs special accommodation.  So as posted above, if you're waiting for them to do something in regards to that I think you'll be waiting forever. While it's true that disabilities and toddlers are different reasons for limited park time, the result is the same - a small window of time in the park.


----------



## nobodies36

charmed59 said:


> "many years from now"  That's the sad part.  I think until this gets resolved, Disney can't consider changing the DAC in anyway that would be closer to what the plaintiffs want, as that might be considered admitting guilt.  So until this suit goes away, it's probably not going to get better.



 That is very saddening. Even with my limited knowledge they will never win and by dragging this out they are forcing Disney into holding back any tweaks that could make a huge difference to those that need it- the same people that the plaintiffs claim to be. 

It seems crazy that they would open a lawsuit up knowing that it could take so much time to resolve that their children would have to do without (apart from their claims I don't know how they could enter a Disney park whilst suing). So the children suffer and could even have little interest in the parks once it is sorted one way or another.


----------



## aaarcher86

charmed59 said:


> "many years from now"  That's the sad part.  I think until this gets resolved, Disney can't consider changing the DAC in anyway that would be closer to what the plaintiffs want, as that might be considered admitting guilt.  So until this suit goes away, it's probably not going to get better.



You're assuming Disney is considering changing anything anyway. 'Get better' is pretty subjective. I don't see the basis of the DAS changing and I really don't see this lawsuit winning if it even makes it to court (doubtful).

I don't think it stops minor tweaks as they've already implemented some since this was filed - 60 day DAS for AP holders, stamps instead of signatures, etc.


----------



## nobodies36

aaarcher86 said:


> Do you mind pointing out specifically where Disney addresses 'people with limited park time?'  I haven't seen that at all, and it's not address in the official documents, or the letter from Meg Crofton you posted.
> 
> There is nothing legally required by the ADA to help someone do more during their limited time in the park.  I think you're taking the documents and trying to  apply them to your situation, but limited time is not a need that needs special accommodation.  So as posted above, if you're waiting for them to do something in regards to that I think you'll be waiting forever. While it's true that disabilities and toddlers are different reasons for limited park time, the result is the same - a small window of time in the park.



I did post it- the 3rd link but here it is here: https://wdpromedia.disney.go.com/me...Disability-Access-Service-Card-2014-04-10.pdf

I do know that is not required by the ADA and something Disney have chosen to offer (just as the other park does). I only ever referenced this after 4 days, 4 parks and at least four different CMs. I asked to speak to a lead and in the conversation referenced this and asked why I was being told the DAS was the only accommodation when I met more than one criteria. He never gave me a meaningful answer. I would have been happy if he had said we do, but since that accommodation could not be workable with another disability related issue you bought up I would totally understand. Or any other actual meaningful reasoning other than respond with we only have DAS and you can take it or leave it.


----------



## wilkeliza

nobodies36 said:
			
		

> I did post it- the 3rd link but here it is here: https://wdpromedia.disney.go.com/media/wdpro-assets/dlr/help/guest-services/guests-with-disabilities/Disney-Parks-Disability-Access-Service-Card-2014-04-10.pdf
> 
> I do know that is not required by the ADA and something Disney have chosen to offer (just as the other park does). I only ever referenced this after 4 days, 4 parks and at least four different CMs. I asked to speak to a lead and in the conversation referenced this and asked why I was being told the DAS was the only accommodation when I met more than one criteria. He never gave me a meaningful answer. I would have been happy if he had said we do, but since that accommodation could not be workable with another disability related issue you bought up I would totally understand. Or any other actual meaningful reasoning other than respond with we only have DAS and you can take it or leave it.



From what I have read here (note I am not a GR CM but am a past CM) I would probably say sorry there is nothing ee can offer as well. You say at any time you could become so tired you need to lay down even if it puts yours and others life in danger. I imagine the CMs are thinking goah if DAS didn't work and FP+ didn't work what can we do. Even if we give her X amount of no strings cards they are only valid for day of and this lady is telling us she may sleep from 2 to 36 hours at a time so even that may not work. She could pass out in the FP line since those can be up to 30 mins, she couls pass out on the ride and then we have an evacuation situation, she could pass out after she gets out of line and then we have a situation in the park. 
I just can't come up with any accomidation that would guarentee you can ride any number of rides. 

I do know that they have backed off giving the no stings cards except for extreme circumstancea (only ride someone with autisim will ride is Winnie the Pooh the family may recieve one no strings card for Winnie the Pooh to use with their FP+ for it and DAS return time) but they don't just give them out in large quantities any more.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

nobodies36 said:


> Sadly, just because you can think of what Disney will do, does not mean that will translate into fact. I did go in with the same information I have given a dozen times before and they did not come up with a solution. I gave them the opportunity to make a suggestion before I made any suggestions that would be reasonable accommodation as to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> Well (un)luckily for me I have no need to sensationalize anything. I cannot change my disability- if people don't like the truth of my illness then that is not my problem. I cannot and will not be apologetic for trying the accommodations offered to me and not being able to translate the workings to my disability. I did everything that was asked and managed one ride in the first 4 days of my trip. So the solution of just try and keep the FP reservations did not work. I had hoped that once they could physically see what did and did not get used, what time I entered and left the park, what effort I went to in order to try to make the system work for me they would be a little more understanding of my needs. They were not.
> 
> And since I was the only person present that is also posting here then you can make any false assumptions you like about the conversations that took place. I could tell you until I am blue in the face that I have never requested FOTL access and only sought help to rides the three rides a day I planned (assuming that another part of my disability does not get in the way that could not be reasonably accommodated and I had to change plans) and nothing more. I could but since everyone is entitled to their opinion and I know the facts since I was there I would be wasting my time flogging a dead horse.



I was NOT posting about you.  I was posting "you" as in a general "you".  If I wanted to address you specifically, I would have quoted you and then addressed you.  

Sorry, but, I don't look at who is online.  I thought about my post and what I wanted to say for several days.


----------



## CPT Tripss

SMD said:


> You can't really sue to make someone do something. In a civil suit you're saying that they owe you something because of what they did, or in this case didn't do for you.
> 
> If the court or jury agrees that Disney is wrong, then the court or jury would decide how much, if anything the plaintiffs are owed. Obvious Disney would most likely change their policies, to avoid paying more damages to more people going forward.
> 
> I've highlighted the parts where they're asking for money.
> 
> 
> 
> That last line is where they ask for the big bucks.



Isn't the entire purpose of an ADA suit to get an entity to do something.  Specifically to modify their facility and/or practices in order to provide access.  In an earlier case, Disney agreed to install tactile maps and make other changes for people with visual impairments.  As I said previously, Disney paid $10,000 to $20,000 per plaintiff and more than $1.4 million in attorney fees and an additional $100,000+ in costs.  Looks like the law firm is where the big bucks went . . .


----------



## aaarcher86

nobodies36 said:


> I did post it- the 3rd link but here it is here: https://wdpromedia.disney.go.com/media/wdpro-assets/dlr/help/guest-services/guests-with-disabilities/Disney-Parks-Disability-Access-Service-Card-2014-04-10.pdf  I do know that is not required by the ADA and something Disney have chosen to offer (just as the other park does). I only ever referenced this after 4 days, 4 parks and at least four different CMs. I asked to speak to a lead and in the conversation referenced this and asked why I was being told the DAS was the only accommodation when I met more than one criteria. He never gave me a meaningful answer. I would have been happy if he had said we do, but since that accommodation could not be workable with another disability related issue you bought up I would totally understand. Or any other actual meaningful reasoning other than respond with we only have DAS and you can take it or leave it.



Truly, I just don't know what more they could do. For someone with limited park time the combination of the DAS and FP+ allows for a minimum of 4 rides in 3 hours. Someone could easily get 5-6 rides in within that 3 hours. 

Aside from offering a stack of immediate FP entrance cards that essentially just take the planning aspect out of it, I don't know what else they could offer and that just doesn't seem like a viable solution.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

Nobodies - I am not able to see where Disney _guarantees_ me 4 rides a day, disabled or not.  Yes, that is the average # of rides a guest can do over a 365 day period. I emphasize average.  

I feel bad that you have such a hard time with Disney.  It must be very hard to live with your disabilities and to try to find some enjoyment.


----------



## Laura66

I still don't get what you want?  From what I'm reading - are you saying you "need" some sort of immediate access to a certain number of attractions because you "might" fall asleep anywhere from 2-20+ hours?
I apologize if I'm misunderstanding.
From what I get - I don't understand everything about GAC or DAS - that is no longer an option.   (Which I think is fair - unless it's a MAW situation)
I admit I'm curious as to how you deal with this in every day life.   Child care?   Did you mention if you drive?    How do you ensure you check into your hotel or use transportation to get to they hotels or Disney?


----------



## SueM in MN

*no more discussions about nobodies's situation

For whatever reasons, that poster does not think DAS, Fastpass + or what other things were being offered to them by Disney were helpful in their situation. 

There has been quite a bit of discussion with no resolution. 
We will just end it at that. No more discussions about the situation or answers about why or why not. 

Any further discussions about this situation will be deleted. *


----------



## aaarcher86

I can't remember which poster here is a lawyer... 

But, what's the typical turnaround for this now that Disney has responded?  Would it take another 3 months before a judge decides that it gets thrown out or goes to trial?


----------



## Allison

aaarcher86 said:


> I can't remember which poster here is a lawyer...
> 
> But, what's the typical turnaround for this now that Disney has responded?  Would it take another 3 months before a judge decides that it gets thrown out or goes to trial?



Jack is a lawyer-JCB.


----------



## Bearshouse

I am just hoping that all these lawsuits don't have Disney go to the same that Universal did.  They have a new HUGS rule.  If you can't hold your head unassisted, upper body unassisted, grasp continually, and take a step you can only do the 3 or 4 stationary things!!!!

At Disney my son gets to ride Mission space orange and can do none of the above mentioned things.  He laughs, smiles and makes his sound for again every time he gets off any Disney ride.  Seriously if we have to wait somewhere else cooler to get to ride I am all for that.  If we have to make dining reservations at 180 days so we can sit down out of the heat so be it.  If we have to schedule our FP+ 60 days to ride what he loves so be it.  If we have to walk more and push his wheelchair more to make the DAS and FP+ work so be it.  

But please don't take away the enjoyment of being able to just be a family for one week every other year.  Disney is the only park that lets our son ride rides with the rest of us.  He spends his whole life sitting on the sidelines vacation shouldn't be the same.  

We are already planning our December 2015 trip.  DS will be turning 16!! A milestone only one specialist out of fifteen said we would ever see.  I would hate to have to tell him no mission space orange because others couldn't just follow the new rules.

Bearshouse


----------



## lanejudy

SueM in MN said:


> *no more discussions about nobodies's situation
> 
> For whatever reasons, that poster does not think DAS, Fastpass + or what other things were being offered to them by Disney were helpful in their situation.
> 
> There has been quite a bit of discussion with no resolution.
> We will just end it at that. No more discussions about the situation or answers about why or why not.
> 
> Any further discussions about this situation will be deleted. *



Please heed Sue's warning, or the thread will be closed.  Thank you.


----------



## wilkeliza

Bearshouse said:
			
		

> I am just hoping that all these lawsuits don't have Disney go to the same that Universal did.  They have a new HUGS rule.  If you can't hold your head unassisted, upper body unassisted, grasp continually, and take a step you can only do the 3 or 4 stationary things!!!!
> 
> At Disney my son gets to ride Mission space orange and can do none of the above mentioned things.  He laughs, smiles and makes his sound for again every time he gets off any Disney ride.  Seriously if we have to wait somewhere else cooler to get to ride I am all for that.  If we have to make dining reservations at 180 days so we can sit down out of the heat so be it.  If we have to schedule our FP+ 60 days to ride what he loves so be it.  If we have to walk more and push his wheelchair more to make the DAS and FP+ work so be it.
> 
> But please don't take away the enjoyment of being able to just be a family for one week every other year.  Disney is the only park that lets our son ride rides with the rest of us.  He spends his whole life sitting on the sidelines vacation shouldn't be the same.
> 
> We are already planning our December 2015 trip.  DS will be turning 16!! A milestone only one specialist out of fifteen said we would ever see.  I would hate to have to tell him no mission space orange because others couldn't just follow the new rules.
> 
> Bearshouse



I honesty hope they don't get too strict. Like you said a lot of places won't let people ride for various reasons and Disney has only the minimum requirement for not ridding (pregnant, heart conditions etc) I met a gentleman who was paralyzed from the waist down.  He can ride almost everything at Disney (he is working up to R&R said he needs crazy upper body strength for that) but other parks say no because neither of his legs work.


----------



## JenniBugInPink

wilkeliza said:


> I honesty hope they don't get too strict. Like you said a lot of places won't let people ride for various reasons and Disney has only the minimum requirement for not ridding (pregnant, heart conditions etc) I met a gentleman who was paralyzed from the waist down.  He can ride almost everything at Disney (he is working up to R&R said he needs crazy upper body strength for that) but other parks say no because neither of his legs work.


*I* had to quit riding RNRC because, as I describe it to Husband, my head bounces around like a ping pong ball between the bars that hold most people in securely and when I get off I feel like I have a concussion. I get banged around horribly and have a terrible headache, feel muzzy headed/woozy, and even a little sick after getting off. I LOVE roller coasters!! That one is the only one that's ever caused me a problem. Weird. I'm really short, and short waisted, and I sit very low in the seat, which I think just causes a problem (obviously). Or, perhaps it's migraine related, or, maybe I just have a lot of empty space in my head, LOL! 

Many folks have, as we have gone through these many pages, talked about how DAS as it is doesn't work for them but they were told that was all there was. People have been told or read repeatedly that the system can be individualized to meet guests' needs, but we haven't heard much about instances where that has happened. I just finished reading the Guide for Guests with Cognitive Disabilities published by Disney. There's a section in it that I can see would be open for interpretation, and is probably why some people are expecting "more than just the DAS" when they go to GR.  (-The emphasis is mine. Jenni)


> The Disability Access Service Card is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits at attractions due to their disability, and the service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction. Depending on a Guest with a cognitive disability’s individual service needs, *additional accommodations are available*. To learn more about the Disability Access Service Card *as well as additional accommodations available based on individual service needs*, visit the Guest Relations lobby location near the entrance at any of the four Theme Parks.


If I had read that, AND I wanted special treatment for my child (or was used to receiving special treatment/FOTL access via the GAC), I can see why being told, "There's just the DAS, you'll have to make do with that and FP+." might make me angry. I'm not saying that the DAS and FP+ can't be made to work - don't misunderstand! I'm just saying that Disney has made a document that makes it sound like "there's more that can be done, just ask".


----------



## lizzi6692

JenniBugInPink said:


> I had to quit riding RNRC because, as I describe it to Husband, my head bounces around like a ping pong ball between the bars that hold most people in securely and when I get off I feel like I have a concussion. I get banged around horribly and have a terrible headache, feel muzzy headed/woozy, and even a little sick after getting off. I LOVE roller coasters!! That one is the only one that's ever caused me a problem. Weird. I'm really short, and short waisted, and I sit very low in the seat, which I think just causes a problem (obviously). Or, perhaps it's migraine related, or, maybe I just have a lot of empty space in my head, LOL!



I have the same problem. I think it may be height related, since I'm only 5'2". Although my DH did have a similar experience and he's 5'8", so I'm not sure.


----------



## TulipsNZ

lizzi6692 said:


> I have the same problem. I think it may be height related, since I'm only 5'2". Although my DH did have a similar experience and he's 5'8", so I'm not sure.


Newish here, what is RNRC? I have this problem on many hanging coasters, is this one?
I'm 5'2 at a stretch


----------



## lizzi6692

TulipsNZ said:


> Newish here, what is RNRC? I have this problem on many hanging coasters, is this one? I'm 5'2 at a stretch


Rock N Roller Coaster. It's not a hanging roller coaster, but it has multiple inversions, which for me causes my head to bang around the head rest. I've only ridden it once because it gave me a really bad headache after just one ride.


----------



## SueM in MN

jcb said:


> It is quite difficult to get past the wild allegations.
> 
> If I could, I can't imagine the parents will get a return of GAC or "near immediate" access.  If the parents can show, in practice, that DAS is such an abysmal failure that it means Disney is not willing to individually evaluate the modification their child needs, then perhaps.  (I am not saying DAS works or not, I'm not qualified to say.)
> 
> But even here, the question would then be, what modification is reasonable under the circumstances.  Disney doesn't have to provide every desired modification, just a modification that permits the full and equal enjoyment.


It's easy to see that the parties in the lawsuit are targeting the "full and equal enjoyment" - they go into great detail about the joy on their child's face, the full feeling of bliss,meta.

They seems to be making the claim that the only way they can get that is by bringing back GAC exactly the way they used it before - as an unlimited, anytime, ride any attraction as many times as you want without more than a few minutes wait....
Even at busy times like Christmas, even if it means riding multiple times on high demand attractions.

They _were_ given individual accommodation according to the lawsuit - things like extra Fastpasses they could use any time and being given the first DAS Return Time at Guest Relations.
That is just not what they were looking for - the only thing they thought met their needs would be to reinstate the GAC, the way they used it.

As an example of giving access, but not being able to give full enjoyment -
Disney now has pool lifts at all pools. This makes it possible to put someone like my youngest DD into the pool. 
But, she gets cold very quickly and doesn't have "full and equal enjoyment" of the pool because it is way too cold for her.  That is directly related to her disability - she does not have enough fat to insulate her body well to conserve body heat, she can't move effectively in the water to generate body heat and the cold (to her) temperature makes her muscles tight. All of those things limit the time she can spend in the pool (she may be able to be in for only 10 minutes) and she does not have full and equal enjoyment.
Making the pool the same temperature as a hot tub would give her that same "full and equal enjoyment" as other guests because she needs water that hot to be comfortable in the water.

But, that would interfere with other guests' enjoyment because it would be way too hot for them to enjoy and, being that hot would limit their ability to stay in the pool.


intheshadows said:


> One thing to remember:
> 
> Per ADA, Disney DOES NOT have to "change the nature of the experience." For example, if someone is terrified of the dark, Disney does not have to turn on the lights in Space Mountain or Haunted Mansion.
> 
> Also, if someone does not meet height requirements (by disability or otherwise) they are not permitted to ride.
> 
> If you cannot be safely strapped into the restraints due to missing limbs, body shape, etc, no amusement park is required to provide an "accommodation" to allow you to ride it.



My example above of the pool is changing the nature.


TulipsNZ said:


> Newish here, what is RNRC? I have this problem on many hanging coasters, is this one?
> I'm 5'2 at a stretch





lizzi6692 said:


> Rock N Roller Coaster. It's not a hanging roller coaster, but it has multiple inversions, which for me causes my head to bang around the head rest. I've only ridden it once because it gave me a really bad headache after just one ride.


A good example of why it is not possible to give everyone full and equal enjoyment.


----------



## asc

I was interested in the actual language posted above:

_The Disability Access Service Card is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits at attractions due to their disability, and the service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction. Depending on a Guest with a cognitive disabilitys individual service needs, *additional accommodations are available*. To learn more about the Disability Access Service Card as well *as additional accommodations available based on individual service needs*, visit the Guest Relations lobby location near the entrance at any of the four Theme Parks. _

I guess, at least on paper, have the ability to accommodate things for guests although perhaps in practice, the DAS is it.

If that is the case, what is the point of the additional language?

Some have been dismissive of the idea about extending FP+ extension times and a few have slipped into the well normal people miss those to so why should you get extra...[the you're getting extra people]....but the above seems to suggest more is on the table than the DAS.

My child does have a cognitive disability so I actually care about what they mean by additional.


----------



## wilkeliza

asc said:
			
		

> I was interested in the actual language posted above:
> 
> The Disability Access Service Card is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits at attractions due to their disability, and the service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction. Depending on a Guest with a cognitive disability&#146;s individual service needs, additional accommodations are available. To learn more about the Disability Access Service Card as well as additional accommodations available based on individual service needs, visit the Guest Relations lobby location near the entrance at any of the four Theme Parks.
> 
> I guess, at least on paper, have the ability to accommodate things for guests although perhaps in practice, the DAS is it.
> 
> If that is the case, what is the point of the additional language?
> 
> Some have been dismissive of the idea about extending FP+ extension times and a few have slipped into the well normal people miss those to so why should you get extra...[the you're getting extra people]....but the above seems to suggest more is on the table than the DAS.
> 
> My child does have a cognitive disability so I actually care about what they mean by additional.



One additional service had been giving out the yellow no strings fast pass forms. Some families have gotten them and done have not. It really depends on what causes the issue. Does the person need to ride only one attraction all day? Do they need to ride a certain attraction x number of times before they will do anything else that day? In those situations they have offered the extra accommodations bit not typically to those who say the issue is the wait and only the wait.


----------



## aaarcher86

asc said:


> I was interested in the actual language posted above:  The Disability Access Service Card is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits at attractions due to their disability, and the service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction. Depending on a Guest with a cognitive disability&#146;s individual service needs, additional accommodations are available. To learn more about the Disability Access Service Card as well as additional accommodations available based on individual service needs, visit the Guest Relations lobby location near the entrance at any of the four Theme Parks.   I guess, at least on paper, have the ability to accommodate things for guests although perhaps in practice, the DAS is it.  If that is the case, what is the point of the additional language?  Some have been dismissive of the idea about extending FP+ extension times and a few have slipped into the well normal people miss those to so why should you get extra...[the you're getting extra people]....but the above seems to suggest more is on the table than the DAS.  My child does have a cognitive disability so I actually care about what they mean by additional.



Additional could easily be in the form of giving your first return time at GR or a stroller as a wheelchair tag.


----------



## infopurposesonly

wilkeliza said:


> One additional service had been giving out the yellow no strings fast pass forms. Some families have gotten them and done have not. It really depends on what causes the issue. Does the person need to ride only one attraction all day? Do they need to ride a certain attraction x number of times before they will do anything else that day? In those situations they have offered the extra accommodations bit not typically to those who say the issue is the wait and only the wait.



Our family received them in May, and not for looping.  I have several friends who have received them at WDW and Disneyland, not for looping, but because of issues with waiting, limited time in the park, and inability to plan for FP+ because of medical conditions.


----------



## SueM in MN

asc said:


> I was interested in the actual language posted above:
> 
> _The Disability Access Service Card is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits at attractions due to their disability, and the service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction. Depending on a Guest with a cognitive disabilitys individual service needs, *additional accommodations are available*. To learn more about the Disability Access Service Card as well *as additional accommodations available based on individual service needs*, visit the Guest Relations lobby location near the entrance at any of the four Theme Parks. _
> 
> I guess, at least on paper, have the ability to accommodate things for guests although perhaps in practice, the DAS is it.
> 
> If that is the case, what is the point of the additional language?
> 
> *Some have been dismissive of the idea about extending FP+ extension times and a few have slipped into the well normal people miss those to so why should you get extra...[the you're getting extra people]....but the above seems to suggest more is on the table than the DAS.*
> 
> My child does have a cognitive disability so I actually care about what they mean by additional.


Most of the comments on missing Fastpass times have been in reference to posters saying basically, "I don't want to make a Fastpass time because I might have to miss it". 
That was where most of the comments have come in regarding people without disabilities also missing times. More to say, "don't be concerned about missing your time. It happens", than what it sounds like may be being read into it.

I mentioned some times leeway is already given - for shows that are not full or things that don't have a long wait. 
There is also a bit of leeway built in - no one knows for sure, but it seems like about 15 minutes. I don't know if there is any way for CMs at attractions to override, but a first step would be having that ability and then having a way to see who would get override. Maybe if DAS gets incorporated into Magicbands at some point, that would be possible. At this point, as far as I know, it is not.


----------



## wilkeliza

SueM in MN said:
			
		

> Most of the comments on missing Fastpass times have been in reference to posters saying basically, "I don't want to make a Fastpass time because I might have to miss it".
> That was where most of the comments have come in regarding people without disabilities also missing times. More to say, "don't be concerned about missing your time. It happens", than what it sounds like may be being read into it.
> 
> I mentioned some times leeway is already given - for shows that are not full or things that don't have a long wait.
> There is also a bit of leeway built in - no one knows for sure, but it seems like about 15 minutes. I don't know if there is any way for CMs at attractions to override, but a first step would be having that ability and then having a way to see who would get override. Maybe if DAS gets incorporated into Magicbands at some point, that would be possible. At this point, as far as I know, it is not.



The built in wiggle room is 5 minutes before and 15 minutes after your hour window.


----------



## SueM in MN

wilkeliza said:


> The built in wiggle room is 5 minutes before and 15 minutes after your hour window.


Thanks - I was looking at the after since most people are concerned with missing it because of lateness.


----------



## OurBigTrip

asc said:


> I was interested in the actual language posted above:
> 
> _The Disability Access Service Card is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits at attractions due to their disability, and the service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction. Depending on a Guest with a cognitive disabilitys individual service needs, *additional accommodations are available*. To learn more about the Disability Access Service Card as well *as additional accommodations available based on individual service needs*, visit the Guest Relations lobby location near the entrance at any of the four Theme Parks. _
> 
> I guess, at least on paper, have the ability to accommodate things for guests although perhaps in practice, the DAS is it.
> 
> If that is the case, what is the point of the additional language?
> 
> Some have been dismissive of the idea about extending FP+ extension times and a few have slipped into the well normal people miss those to so why should you get extra...[the you're getting extra people]....but the above seems to suggest more is on the table than the DAS.
> 
> My child does have a cognitive disability so I actually care about what they mean by additional.



I would hope that Disney continues to minimize the additional accommodations, and IMO, they should never be given for looping or shortened park time.


----------



## asta

wilkeliza said:


> One additional service had been giving out the yellow no strings fast pass forms. Some families have gotten them and done have not. It really depends on what causes the issue. Does the person need to ride only one attraction all day? Do they need to ride a certain attraction x number of times before they will do anything else that day? In those situations they have offered the extra accommodations bit not typically to those who say the issue is the wait and only the wait.



I would hope that WDW does not hand something like that out because someone thinks it is their right to loop on a ride while others wait. This should be way down on a list of reasons for extra accommodations. If the word gets out that it is the 'magic' reason then I can see the DAS system will become the abusive system that the GAC evolved into.


----------



## Coonhound

OurBigTrip said:


> I would hope that Disney continues to minimize the additional accommodations, and IMO, they should never be given for looping or shortened park time.



I agree. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to help a family out by doing this for them if they "need" it. The problem is... it's not just one family. It could be hundreds or thousands of families every day and then we are back to what we had with the GAC. And then suddenly those "accommodations" are not enough because they are expected so when someone isn't given those "accommodations" they get up in arms.


----------



## lanejudy

asc said:


> I was interested in the actual language posted above:
> 
> _The Disability Access Service Card is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits at attractions due to their disability, and the service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction. Depending on a Guest with a cognitive disabilitys individual service needs, *additional accommodations are available*. To learn more about the Disability Access Service Card as well *as additional accommodations available based on individual service needs*, visit the Guest Relations lobby location near the entrance at any of the four Theme Parks. _...



I suspect the wording of this statement is intentionally vague.  It leaves Disney open to offering something, at the discretion of the Guest Relations CMs -- based on the individual request as well as the current in-park conditions.  For most guests, this statement could be simply interpreted as aaarcher86 suggests -- stroller tag, first return-time given at GR, also the ability to ask at attractions for specific seating, to avoid stairs, slow walkways, rent/borrow hearing equipment -- all of which are "additional accommodations" beyond the DAS and available based on the specific individual's needs.  I think a lot of people who want more/other than DAS are reading a lot into such a statement and interpreting it to be use-anytime FPs.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

asc said:


> I was interested in the actual language posted above:
> 
> _The Disability Access Service Card is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits at attractions due to their disability, and the service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction. Depending on a Guest with a cognitive disability’s individual service needs, *additional accommodations are available*. To learn more about the Disability Access Service Card as well *as additional accommodations available based on individual service needs*, visit the Guest Relations lobby location near the entrance at any of the four Theme Parks. _
> 
> I guess, at least on paper, have the ability to accommodate things for guests although perhaps in practice, the DAS is it.
> 
> If that is the case, what is the point of the additional language?
> 
> Some have been dismissive of the idea about extending FP+ extension times and a few have slipped into the well normal people miss those to so why should you get extra...[the you're getting extra people]....but the above seems to suggest more is on the table than the DAS.
> 
> My child does have a cognitive disability so I actually care about what they mean by additional.



My DD also has a cognitive disability.  We went to Disneyland in January and used the DAS along with FastPasses.  We were very successful and I felt it was better than the GAC.  My DD is a planner and likes to know what she is doing next and when so this worked out perfect for her.  She even stated such when she requested a DAS card.  

We came up with a situation that it was just not possible using the DAS and FP wasn't an option.  My DD tried 3 times to solve this situation and she was beginning to get frustrated.  I told her it wasn't worth it because if she became too frustrated and had a meltdown her day in the park was over and she was back at the hotel.  She decided that she would try GR and see if they had a solution to her problem that she hadn't thought about.  She also wanted to tell them that, in this situation, the DAS wasn't working.  The CM who issued the DAS card to her told her that if she had any problems she could come back and tell them.  My DD approached the CM in GR and told them she had a problem and explained to them what she had tried.  The CM was very attentive to my DD and explained a couple of things to her.  They worked back and forth with the situation and finally the CM gave my DD XX with instructions on who to give it to and what to say.  He mentioned that he would make contact for her.  It worked great!  My DD made sure to go directly back to GR to thank them and to tell them it worked.  Note:  XX was not some kind of FOTL pass, or FP.

In our case we had something specific - one thing that didn't work when everything else about the DAS and FP was working.  

I think if one approaches GR with the idea that DAS and FP just isn't going to work at all, then I think Disney has a hard time working with you because the DAS and FP is what they offer.  However, I think that, like us, you approach GR with a specific situation where you tried and experienced difficulty and are open minded to solutions, Disney CM's can work individually with you.  In other words, I don't believe that Disney is going to alter their entire DAS for you, all day, for every attraction, for your length of stay.  

I don't believe that Disney would implement the DAS if they didn't believe that it would be successful 99.9% of the time.  That is just my opinion because I certainly wouldn't implement something unless I was pretty sure of it's success.  

Note:  the use of "you" is a general "you" and not directed at a specific person.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

lanejudy said:


> I suspect the wording of this statement is intentionally vague.  It leaves Disney open to offering something, at the discretion of the Guest Relations CMs -- based on the individual request as well as the current in-park conditions.  For most guests, this statement could be simply interpreted as aaarcher86 suggests -- stroller tag, first return-time given at GR, also the ability to ask at attractions for specific seating, to avoid stairs, slow walkways, rent/borrow hearing equipment -- all of which are "additional accommodations" beyond the DAS and available based on the specific individual's needs.  I think a lot of people who want more/other than DAS are reading a lot into such a statement and interpreting it to be use-anytime FPs.



I agree with your thoughts on this issue.  You posted this as I was typing my experience. I think they are being vague because the solution isn't always the same.


----------



## cmwade77

lanejudy said:


> I suspect the wording of this statement is intentionally vague.  It leaves Disney open to offering something, at the discretion of the Guest Relations CMs -- based on the individual request as well as the current in-park conditions.  For most guests, this statement could be simply interpreted as aaarcher86 suggests -- stroller tag, first return-time given at GR, also the ability to ask at attractions for specific seating, to avoid stairs, slow walkways, rent/borrow hearing equipment -- all of which are "additional accommodations" beyond the DAS and available based on the specific individual's needs.  I think a lot of people who want more/other than DAS are reading a lot into such a statement and interpreting it to be use-anytime FPs.



Exactly, there may be legitimate individual needs, such as:

needs to be in a certain spot in a theater due to limited vision
cannot handle stairs
Needs to be able to see the sign language interpreter, so needs a specific spot

The DAS does a good job at allowing those who need the assistance to be able to wait in a safe location, but it is not intended to bypass the wait times. 

But there is still room for improvement.


----------



## JenniBugInPink

SueM in MN said:


> ...
> As an example of giving access, but not being able to give full enjoyment -
> Disney now has pool lifts at all pools. This makes it possible to put someone like my youngest DD into the pool.
> But, she gets cold very quickly and doesn't have "full and equal enjoyment" of the pool because it is way too cold for her.  That is directly related to her disability - she does not have enough fat to insulate her body well to conserve body heat, she can't move effectively in the water to generate body heat and the cold (to her) temperature makes her muscles tight. All of those things limit the time she can spend in the pool (she may be able to be in for only 10 minutes) and she does not have full and equal enjoyment.
> Making the pool the same temperature as a hot tub would give her that same "full and equal enjoyment" as other guests because she needs water that hot to be comfortable in the water.
> But, that would interfere with other guests' enjoyment because it would be way too hot for them to enjoy and, being that hot would limit their ability to stay in the pool.
> 
> My example above of the pool is changing the nature.
> A good example of why it is not possible to give everyone full and equal enjoyment.


With my RA, I would be VERY happy if they raised the temperature of the pools. It would be so nice to have getting in the pool actually be a pain relieving experience.  If they ever DO make that accomodation, I'll be the first one in, LOL! 



OurBigTrip said:


> I would hope that Disney continues to minimize the additional accommodations, and IMO, they should never be given for looping or shortened park time.





asta said:


> I would hope that WDW does not hand something like that out because someone thinks it is their right to loop on a ride while others wait. This should be way down on a list of reasons for extra accommodations. If the word gets out that it is the 'magic' reason then I can see the DAS system will become the abusive system that the GAC evolved into.





Coonhound said:


> I agree. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to help a family out by doing this for them if they "need" it. The problem is... it's not just one family. It could be hundreds or thousands of families every day and then we are back to what we had with the GAC. And then suddenly those "accommodations" are not enough because they are expected so when someone isn't given those "accommodations" they get up in arms.


Like you, I worry that abuse of this could lead to the problems that existed with the GAC, but it doesn't seem that is happening. I don't think anyone is suffering from an overdose of pixie dust at present. 



2tinkerbell said:


> My DD also has a cognitive disability.  We went to Disneyland in January and used the DAS along with FastPasses.  We were very successful and I felt it was better than the GAC.  My DD is a planner and likes to know what she is doing next and when so this worked out perfect for her.  She even stated such when she requested a DAS card.
> 
> We came up with a situation that it was just not possible using the DAS and FP wasn't an option.  My DD tried 3 times to solve this situation and she was beginning to get frustrated.  I told her it wasn't worth it because if she became too frustrated and had a meltdown her day in the park was over and she was back at the hotel.  She decided that she would try GR and see if they had a solution to her problem that she hadn't thought about.  She also wanted to tell them that, in this situation, the DAS wasn't working.  The CM who issued the DAS card to her told her that if she had any problems she could come back and tell them.  My DD approached the CM in GR and told them she had a problem and explained to them what she had tried.  The CM was very attentive to my DD and explained a couple of things to her.  They worked back and forth with the situation and finally the CM gave my DD XX with instructions on who to give it to and what to say.  He mentioned that he would make contact for her.  It worked great!  My DD made sure to go directly back to GR to thank them and to tell them it worked.  Note:  XX was not some kind of FOTL pass, or FP.
> 
> In our case we had something specific - one thing that didn't work when everything else about the DAS and FP was working.
> 
> I think if one approaches GR with the idea that DAS and FP just isn't going to work at all, then I think Disney has a hard time working with you because the DAS and FP is what they offer.  However, I think that, like us, you approach GR with a specific situation where you tried and experienced difficulty and are open minded to solutions, Disney CM's can work individually with you.  In other words, I don't believe that Disney is going to alter their entire DAS for you, all day, for every attraction, for your length of stay.
> 
> I don't believe that Disney would implement the DAS if they didn't believe that it would be successful 99.9% of the time.  That is just my opinion because I certainly wouldn't implement something unless I was pretty sure of it's success.
> Note:  the use of "you" is a general "you" and not directed at a specific person.


I think your story is a perfect example of how the system ought to work. I'm glad things worked so well. I hope all of our situations go this well (for those of us who haven't yet gone through the DAS system, those of us who are trying again with the new FP+ in place, or those of us trying to figure out how to make it work better for our families). I think the key was working with the system and finding what worked for you, then when a specific need arose, you were able to let GR know exactly what didn't work and why. Then they could find a solution to that one problem, rather than just a vague complaint that "the DAS won't work for me...".


----------



## 2tinkerbell

I need to make it clear that our experience with the DAS was 99.9% successful.  The situation that we encountered was with 1 attraction and only 1 time.  We were given the additional accommodation for that attraction only.  The other times we utilized the DAS and FastPasses.

To be specific, it involved the Haunted Mansion.  We had a return time on the DAS.  I don't believe that FP was available because it opened a day early from removing the overlay.  My DD needed additional accommodation which she had asked for 3 different times and in 3 different ways. The alternate wait place was great, my DD just needs other accommodations (which is not stopping or slowing down the ride) to enjoy this particular attraction.


----------



## lost*in*cyberspace

SueM in MN said:


> .......
> 
> As an example of giving access, but not being able to give full enjoyment -
> Disney now has pool lifts at all pools. This makes it possible to put someone like my youngest DD into the pool.
> But, she gets cold very quickly and doesn't have "full and equal enjoyment" of the pool because it is way too cold for her.  That is directly related to her disability - she does not have enough fat to insulate her body well to conserve body heat, she can't move effectively in the water to generate body heat and the cold (to her) temperature makes her muscles tight. All of those things limit the time she can spend in the pool (she may be able to be in for only 10 minutes) and she does not have full and equal enjoyment.
> Making the pool the same temperature as a hot tub would give her that same "full and equal enjoyment" as other guests because she needs water that hot to be comfortable in the water.



Have you tried using a wetsuit?


----------



## SueM in MN

2tinkerbell said:


> My DD also has a cognitive disability.  We went to Disneyland in January and used the DAS along with FastPasses.  We were very successful and I felt it was better than the GAC.  My DD is a planner and likes to know what she is doing next and when so this worked out perfect for her.  She even stated such when she requested a DAS card.
> 
> We came up with a situation that it was just not possible using the DAS and FP wasn't an option.  My DD tried 3 times to solve this situation and she was beginning to get frustrated.  I told her it wasn't worth it because if she became too frustrated and had a meltdown her day in the park was over and she was back at the hotel.  She decided that she would try GR and see if they had a solution to her problem that she hadn't thought about.  She also wanted to tell them that, in this situation, the DAS wasn't working.  The CM who issued the DAS card to her told her that if she had any problems she could come back and tell them.  My DD approached the CM in GR and told them she had a problem and explained to them what she had tried.  The CM was very attentive to my DD and explained a couple of things to her.  They worked back and forth with the situation and finally the CM gave my DD XX with instructions on who to give it to and what to say.  He mentioned that he would make contact for her.  It worked great!  My DD made sure to go directly back to GR to thank them and to tell them it worked.  Note:  XX was not some kind of FOTL pass, or FP.
> 
> In our case we had something specific - one thing that didn't work when everything else about the DAS and FP was working.
> 
> I think if one approaches GR with the idea that DAS and FP just isn't going to work at all, then I think Disney has a hard time working with you because the DAS and FP is what they offer.  However, I think that, like us, you approach GR with a specific situation where you tried and experienced difficulty and are open minded to solutions, Disney CM's can work individually with you.  In other words, I don't believe that Disney is going to alter their entire DAS for you, all day, for every attraction, for your length of stay.
> 
> I don't believe that Disney would implement the DAS if they didn't believe that it would be successful 99.9% of the time.  That is just my opinion because I certainly wouldn't implement something unless I was pretty sure of it's success.
> 
> Note:  the use of "you" is a general "you" and not directed at a specific person.


Sounds like you (the specific you) have done a great job with teaching your daughter to advocate for herself.



cmwade77 said:


> Exactly, there may be legitimate individual needs, such as:
> 
> needs to be in a certain spot in a theater due to limited vision
> cannot handle stairs
> Needs to be able to see the sign language interpreter, so needs a specific spot
> 
> The DAS does a good job at allowing those who need the assistance to be able to wait in a safe location, but it is not intended to bypass the wait times.
> 
> But there is still room for improvement.


One of the issues with the GAC was that it started out with giving specific accommodations for needs.
For example, people who could not handles stairs got a GAC stamp that basically said, "avoid stairs". It was only used on those few attractions that actually had stairs.
By the end, many of those same people were getting a GAC for alternate entry and using it for every attraction.

I think that is one of the things Disney was trying to get rid of by pulling those out of the DAS program.

Those things could be handled with more information to guests so they know what to expect and firm procedures for CMs. 


2tinkerbell said:


> I need to make it clear that our experience with the DAS was 99.9% successful.  The situation that we encountered was with 1 attraction and only 1 time.  We were given the additional accommodation for that attraction only.  The other times we utilized the DAS and FastPasses.
> 
> To be specific, it involved the Haunted Mansion.  We had a return time on the DAS.  I don't believe that FP was available because it opened a day early from removing the overlay.  My DD needed additional accommodation which she had asked for 3 different times and in 3 different ways. The alternate wait place was great, my DD just needs other accommodations (which is not stopping or slowing down the ride) to enjoy this particular attraction.


Just mentioning that this is talking about Haunted Mansion at Disneyland, so people don't wonder if HM at WDW is getting a holiday overlay.


lost*in*cyberspace said:


> Have you tried using a wetsuit?


That would probably be somewhat helpful.

It did give me a couple of hilarious mental images and a good laugh though.
My DD is 5 feet tall and about 75 pounds, so she would need a pretty little wetsuit. We have enough trouble getting her clothes on and off sometimes, so the idea of wrestling her into a wet suit was pretty hilarious.


----------



## TulipsNZ

> It did give me a couple of hilarious mental images and a good laugh though.
> My DD is 5 feet tall and about 75 pounds, so she would need a pretty little wetsuit. We have enough trouble getting her clothes on and off sometimes, so the idea of wrestling her into a wet suit was pretty hilarious.



My 5 year olds 3/4 wetsuit would fit her I think, she may do well in a full body junior wetsuit.  She is tall but thin for most sizes but I think you could make it work.


----------



## SueM in MN

TulipsNZ said:


> My 5 year olds 3/4 wetsuit would fit her I think, she may do well in a full body junior wetsuit.  She is tall but thin for most sizes but I think you could make it work.


Thank you.

I think she would take one look at it and start signing, "No. All finished" and if we tried to get it on, she would be peeling it off as fast as we were peeling it on. She has sensory issues with some things that are tight feelings and if she doesn't like the looks of something, it's not going on.
I will look on the internet with her though to see if she would even be willing to try.


----------



## DopeyDame

2tinkerbell said:


> My DD also has a cognitive disability.  We went to Disneyland in January and used the DAS along with FastPasses.  We were very successful and I felt it was better than the GAC.  My DD is a planner and likes to know what she is doing next and when so this worked out perfect for her.  She even stated such when she requested a DAS card.
> 
> We came up with a situation that it was just not possible using the DAS and FP wasn't an option.  My DD tried 3 times to solve this situation and she was beginning to get frustrated.  I told her it wasn't worth it because if she became too frustrated and had a meltdown her day in the park was over and she was back at the hotel.  She decided that she would try GR and see if they had a solution to her problem that she hadn't thought about.  She also wanted to tell them that, in this situation, the DAS wasn't working.  The CM who issued the DAS card to her told her that if she had any problems she could come back and tell them.  My DD approached the CM in GR and told them she had a problem and explained to them what she had tried.  The CM was very attentive to my DD and explained a couple of things to her.  They worked back and forth with the situation and finally the CM gave my DD XX with instructions on who to give it to and what to say.  He mentioned that he would make contact for her.  It worked great!  My DD made sure to go directly back to GR to thank them and to tell them it worked.  Note:  XX was not some kind of FOTL pass, or FP.
> 
> In our case we had something specific - one thing that didn't work when everything else about the DAS and FP was working.
> 
> I think if one approaches GR with the idea that DAS and FP just isn't going to work at all, then I think Disney has a hard time working with you because the DAS and FP is what they offer.  However, I think that, like us, you approach GR with a specific situation where you tried and experienced difficulty and are open minded to solutions, Disney CM's can work individually with you.  In other words, I don't believe that Disney is going to alter their entire DAS for you, all day, for every attraction, for your length of stay.
> 
> I don't believe that Disney would implement the DAS if they didn't believe that it would be successful 99.9% of the time.  That is just my opinion because I certainly wouldn't implement something unless I was pretty sure of it's success.
> 
> Note:  the use of "you" is a general "you" and not directed at a specific person.



I obviously don't know your daughter's issues, but it sounds like you are doing an amazing job of empowering her and helping her learn, while also helping her enjoy her vacation!  And that you all have a great attitude about trying to work WITH Disney instead of fighting against them.  Kudos, momma.


----------



## asc

2tinkerbell said:


> My DD also has a cognitive disability.  ....



unfortunately my daughter has a limited ability to articular her needs with us let alone with a third party that she does not know - even using an alternative communication device.  i am glad it worked out.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

asc said:


> unfortunately my daughter has a limited ability to articular her needs with us let alone with a third party that she does not know - even using an alternative communication device.  i am glad it worked out.



That has to be hard to constantly be guessing and playing what we used to call "twenty one questions" over what your DD wants.  It also puts more pressure on you to advocate for your DD.  Hang in there.  We all have our areas of challenge.  ((HUGS))

The biggest point of posting our personal experience is that Disney worked with my DD's individual needs with one specific issue where she was experiencing difficulty.  We approached Disney with a specific issue and not a general issue such as "the DAS won't work for us."


----------



## Aladora

2tinkerbell said:


> That has to be hard to constantly be guessing and playing what we used to call "twenty one questions" over what your DD wants.  It also puts more pressure on you to advocate for your DD.  Hang in there.  We all have our areas of challenge.  ((HUGS))



Ahh yes, the "what are you trying to communicate to me" game. I remember it well.

There was a point in time where my son had some pretty severe speech issues and we could only understand 50% of what he was saying. At the time he was only 4 or so but could spell words he could not pronounce. He would get so frustrated when we did not understand the word he was saying that we ended up asking him to spell the word! 

It's amazing the work-arounds that we parents have to come up with.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

I so remember the time my sister, who was babysitting my DD, called me at work.  My co-worker came running over and said, "You have an emergency call.  It's your sister and your daughter is crying."  I picked up the phone and my sister said, "What is a toodie?"  I said, "A cookie."  My sister then started laughing and said, "No wonder she is standing there with her hand up towards the cookie jar.  I thought she wanted something in the cupboard because that is what it looks like. I have gone through everything in the cupboard that she could possibly want."  We laugh about it now.  

We used to say, "Can you give me a clue" when we didn't understand my DD.  My DD got really good at giving clues and we got really good at the "21 Questions".


----------



## Aladora

2tinkerbell said:


> I so remember the time my sister, who was babysitting my DD, called me at work.  My co-worker came running over and said, "You have an emergency call.  It's your sister and your daughter is crying."  I picked up the phone and my sister said, "What is a toodie?"  I said, "A cookie."  My sister then started laughing and said, "No wonder she is standing there with her hand up towards the cookie jar.  I thought she wanted something in the cupboard because that is what it looks like. I have gone through everything in the cupboard that she could possibly want."  We laugh about it now.
> 
> We used to say, "Can you give me a clue" when we didn't understand my DD.  My DD got really good at giving clues and we got really good at the "21 Questions".



It sounds like your DD had the same speech issue as my DS, replacing the hard "k" sound with a "t" sound. I remember when DS was 2 1/2, hearing him trying to grab a balloon and saying "trap, trap" over and over. I had no idea what he was trying to say until I remembered that he always said "tat" instead of "cat". Turns out that my child who barely said "mommy" had picked up my habit of saying "crap" when frustrated.


----------



## SueM in MN

2tinkerbell said:


> That has to be hard to constantly be guessing and playing what we used to call "twenty one questions" over what your DD wants.  It also puts more pressure on you to advocate for your DD.  Hang in there.  We all have our areas of challenge.  ((HUGS))
> 
> 
> 
> We are into 21 questions here too.
> My DD can't speak (she has a communication device she doesn't always want to use), but she has a large vocabulary of words she understands. The 21 questions get really tough when she answers no to getting her fingernail polish "taken off" because she wanted to be asked if she wanted it "removed".
> 
> Sometimes lots of fun
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest point of posting our personal experience is that Disney worked with my DD's individual needs with one specific issue where she was experiencing difficulty. * We approached Disney with a specific issue and not a general issue such as "the DAS won't work for us."*
Click to expand...

I think you hit on the biggest thing right there - if a guest has a specific issue of difficulty, they are willing to come up with compromises.

Most of the people in the lawsuit either didn't try at all or tried to make DAS work like they had used GAC by insisting "DAS won't work for us. We need an endless supply of automatic Fastpasses."


----------



## fabfemmeboy

Since it was asked a couple pages ago but never answered:  What happens next?

The Plaintiffs are allowed to file a "reply" to Disney's brief, essentially refuting Disney's arguments...though sometimes when the reply brief is poorly written, it serves mostly as a chance to double-down on all your arguments from the complaint.  Based on the quality of the complaint, I'm guessing that's what will happen here.  Usually Plaintiffs have something like 15 days to reply but it's almost always extended to more like a month.  Then Discovery begins, which is a long (very long, in civil suits usually 12-18 months kind of long) process in which the sides request different kinds of information from each other - documents about the decision to implement DAS or do away with GAC, documents about how the change was rolled out and what kind of impact it's had, a series of questions answered in writing ("interrogatories") about the acts of the case and other background matters (i.e. whether plaintiffs have brought similar cases against other companies in the past, medical questions that relate to each plaintiff's limitations, etc.), and depositions.  Depending on what kind of protective orders (legal orders stating what information cannot be disclosed to anyone outside the case.  When there are minors in the case, let alone medical information pertaining to minors, there will almost certainly be at least some kind of protective order) are put in place, it would not surprise me if the plaintiffs' attorney starts leaking/publicizing any potentially-incendiary documents they receive from Disney.  

But other than that, everyone waits awhile.


----------



## jcb

fabfemmeboy said:


> Since it was asked a couple pages ago but never answered: What happens next?
> 
> The Plaintiffs are allowed to file a "reply" to Disney's brief, essentially refuting Disney's arguments...though sometimes when the reply brief is poorly written, it serves mostly as a chance to double-down on all your arguments from the complaint. Based on the quality of the complaint, I'm guessing that's what will happen here. Usually Plaintiffs have something like 15 days to reply but it's almost always extended to more like a month. Then Discovery begins, which is a long (very long, in civil suits usually 12-18 months kind of long) process in which the sides request different kinds of information from each other - documents about the decision to implement DAS or do away with GAC, documents about how the change was rolled out and what kind of impact it's had, a series of questions answered in writing ("interrogatories") about the acts of the case and other background matters (i.e. whether plaintiffs have brought similar cases against other companies in the past, medical questions that relate to each plaintiff's limitations, etc.), and depositions. Depending on what kind of protective orders (legal orders stating what information cannot be disclosed to anyone outside the case. When there are minors in the case, let alone medical information pertaining to minors, there will almost certainly be at least some kind of protective order) are put in place, it would not surprise me if the plaintiffs' attorney starts leaking/publicizing any potentially-incendiary documents they receive from Disney.
> 
> But other than that, everyone waits awhile.



 Disney has not filed a motion or brief, just an answer.  The parents don't have an opportunity or right to file a response to the answer (though sometimes folks try and it is often quite helpful).  

 I agree with most everything else (though these attorneys have filed several lawsuits against DL/WDW and have yet to "leak" anything of any consequence in those).  http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=51879641&postcount=249



aaarcher86 said:


> I can't remember which poster here is a lawyer...
> 
> But, what's the typical turnaround for this now that Disney has responded? Would it take another 3 months before a judge decides that it gets thrown out or goes to trial?


 
 Years, not months.  Without a motion pending, the court isn't going to rule on anything.


----------



## BSmithington

Coonhound said:


> I agree. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to help a family out by doing this for them if they "need" it. The problem is... it's not just one family. It could be hundreds or thousands of families every day and then we are back to what we had with the GAC. And then suddenly those "accommodations" are not enough because they are expected so when someone isn't given those "accommodations" they get up in arms.



I experienced this first hand. A few years back we used the DAC for medical reasons. We were allowed into the FP line on just about every attraction. I remember "looping" at Peter Pan. It was my family and about four-five other families that must have rode PP at least 10 times. The stand-by was well over 45 minutes. One family was annoyed bc the other families had 4-5 people per unit. They were not getting immediate access and the Mother was complaining that her son's disability required immediate access not a 10 minute wait.


----------



## Jedana

BSmithington said:


> I experienced this first hand. A few years back we used the DAC for medical reasons. We were allowed into the FP line on just about every attraction. I remember "looping" at Peter Pan. It was my family and about four-five other families that must have rode PP at least 10 times. The stand-by was well over 45 minutes. One family was annoyed bc the other families had 4-5 people per unit. They were not getting immediate access and the Mother was complaining that her son's disability required immediate access not a 10 minute wait.



You used the GAC, you mean.  


I have 3 nephews who are challenged, although each to a different degree.   (All 3 are from one of my sibling's 3 kids--one for each of her kids.  All born within a year of each other.)   

One is able to attend school, but has trouble staying focused on the work--he'd rather be in his own world, but can pay attention with the tools the parents have given him--they worked with him all the time to get him where he is.  He would function fine without a DAS, I think--he understands waiting in lines, time, etc.  

One is unable to be potty trained, and cannot attend school without an aide--they aren't sure if he can read or not, he doesn't speak unless he is very agitated (and only says stop or go way), and his parents are not engaged at all.  He would need a DAS, but I'm not sure he would understand what it was for.  

The third struggles with time and spacing, but his parents did nothing his first 5 years to help him; luckily his aide is very good and works with him, and taught the parents how to do so.  He still struggles with waiting in lines or time (you tell him one hour, he thinks it's been an hour when it's been 5 minutes).   He would have done extremely well with the old GAC, but I think the DAS would be a struggle for him.  

Life is unfair, and all anyone can do is make the best of what you have.


----------



## JenniBugInPink

BSmithington said:


> I experienced this first hand. A few years back we used the DAC for medical reasons. We were allowed into the FP line on just about every attraction. I remember "looping" at Peter Pan. It was my family and about four-five other families that must have rode PP at least 10 times. The stand-by was well over 45 minutes. One family was annoyed bc the other families had 4-5 people per unit. They were not getting immediate access and the Mother was complaining that her son's disability required immediate access not a 10 minute wait.








_[If you're not a George Takei fan, you probably won't get the reference. That's ok. I'm getting very punchy. Up in the middle of the night making FP+'s, then at 7AM had to try to get (and mostly failed at) Food & Wine ressies.  Will have to try again on the 31st.]_


----------



## jcb

I think I mentioned this in a prior post as a possibility but today Disney asked the California federal court to transfer the lawsuit to the federal court in Orlando   Disney argues, "24 of the 26 plaintiffs who brought this case . . .  in California only complain of experiences in Florida. Similarly, 24 of the 26 do not reside in California; indeed, most of them live in Florida or in other east coast states."



> plaintiffs overwhelmingly reside in Florida or in states which are much closer to Florida than California and their claims arise from alleged facts and circumstances arising in Florida. In fact, the DAS card program was primarily designed by Disney employees at WDWin Florida, and its implementation (including employee training) at the WDW theme parks took place in Florida.


----------



## SueM in MN

jcb said:


> I think I mentioned this in a prior post as a possibility but today Disney asked the California federal court to transfer the lawsuit to the federal court in Orlando   Disney argues, "24 of the 26 plaintiffs who brought this case . . .  in California only complain of experiences in Florida. Similarly, 24 of the 26 do not reside in California; indeed, most of them live in Florida or in other east coast states."


Thanks for keeping us up to date on this, Jack.


----------



## PlutoPony

jcb said:


> I think I mentioned this in a prior post as a possibility but today Disney asked the California federal court to transfer the lawsuit to the federal court in Orlando   Disney argues, "24 of the 26 plaintiffs who brought this case . . .  in California only complain of experiences in Florida. Similarly, 24 of the 26 do not reside in California; indeed, most of them live in Florida or in other east coast states."



What's the advantage to the Plaintiffs in having this suit in CA courts instead of FL?


----------



## jcb

PlutoPony said:


> What's the advantage to the Plaintiffs in having this suit in CA courts instead of FL?



There is a long-held perception that courts in California are more friendly to unusual claims than are Florida courts.


----------



## bidnow5

I'm sure that why they filed in California. Florida isn't as easy for claims


----------



## aaarcher86

jcb said:


> I think I mentioned this in a prior post as a possibility but today Disney asked the California federal court to transfer the lawsuit to the federal court in Orlando   Disney argues, "24 of the 26 plaintiffs who brought this case . . .  in California only complain of experiences in Florida. Similarly, 24 of the 26 do not reside in California; indeed, most of them live in Florida or in other east coast states."



Thanks for the update.  

Just so I have the timeline correct since I was clearly thinking incorrectly before... 

Discovery comes BEFORE the judge evaluates and either throws it out or sets a court date, right?  

Or will a judge evaluate the claim/response and decide if it goes forward or not, THEN causing everyone to go through discovery if it proceeds forward?


----------



## mttmilner

I think it will also be interested to see if the plantiffs stay away from WDW until this is settled. It seems like future trips would help Disney as opposed to hurting them.


----------



## jcb

aaarcher86 said:


> Thanks for the update.
> 
> Just so I have the timeline correct since I was clearly thinking incorrectly before...
> 
> Discovery comes BEFORE the judge evaluates and either throws it out or sets a court date, right?
> 
> Or will a judge evaluate the claim/response and decide if it goes forward or not, THEN causing everyone to go through discovery if it proceeds forward?



In federal court (where this case is) judges do not, as a rule, evaluate cases before permitting discovery.  A judge can be asked to rule on whether the case will proceed before discovery but generally only does so if the sued party files a motion to dismiss (it can happen in other situations but they don't apply here).  

 Disney has not filed a motion to dismiss.  Its motion to transfer the action to Florida actually makes the point that a lot of the discovery (depositions, mainly) will be of people who are in Orlando or the Southeastern United States.  So Disney seems to be contemplating that there will be some discovery at a later time.

 Disney still has the ability to file a motion for summary judgment which asks the judge to dismiss the case because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a trial.  This can be done before or after discovery but typically is done after discovery.


----------



## 2tinkerbell

jcb said:


> In federal court (where this case is) judges do not, as a rule, evaluate cases before permitting discovery.  A judge can be asked to rule on whether the case will proceed before discovery but generally only does so if the sued party files a motion to dismiss (it can happen in other situations but they don't apply here).
> 
> Disney has not filed a motion to dismiss.  Its motion to transfer the action to Florida actually makes the point that a lot of the discovery (depositions, mainly) will be of people who are in Orlando or the Southeastern United States.  So Disney seems to be contemplating that there will be some discovery at a later time.
> 
> Disney still has the ability to file a motion for summary judgment which asks the judge to dismiss the case because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a trial.  This can be done before or after discovery but typically is done after discovery.



Thanks so much Jack for your posts and explaining the process for us.  I am actually finding this whole situation interesting.

I believe that the plantiff's attorney is in CA.  If moved to FL, does the attorney need to have a license in FL in order to proceed?


----------



## CPT Tripss

Never mind.  My question was already answered.


----------



## LilyWDW

How much of a chance do you think Disney has in changing the venue? I don't have much experience in there, just a couple corporate law and health care law classes.


----------



## aaarcher86

jcb said:


> In federal court (where this case is) judges do not, as a rule, evaluate cases before permitting discovery.  A judge can be asked to rule on whether the case will proceed before discovery but generally only does so if the sued party files a motion to dismiss (it can happen in other situations but they don't apply here).
> 
> Disney has not filed a motion to dismiss.  Its motion to transfer the action to Florida actually makes the point that a lot of the discovery (depositions, mainly) will be of people who are in Orlando or the Southeastern United States.  So Disney seems to be contemplating that there will be some discovery at a later time.
> 
> Disney still has the ability to file a motion for summary judgment which asks the judge to dismiss the case because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a trial.  This can be done before or after discovery but typically is done after discovery.



Cool.  Thanks for explaining.  

What's your opinion in regards to this case (if it's okay to say)?


----------



## aaarcher86

2tinkerbell said:


> Thanks so much Jack for your posts and explaining the process for us.  I am actually finding this whole situation interesting.
> 
> I believe that the plantiff's attorney is in CA.  If moved to FL, does the attorney need to have a license in FL in order to proceed?



It's the opposite, actually.  He's in Florida.


----------



## Jedana

mttmilner said:


> I think it will also be interested to see if the plantiffs stay away from WDW until this is settled. It seems like future trips would help Disney as opposed to hurting them.



I wonder, CAN Disney ban them from the parks/DTD/stores during the lawsuit?

If so, WOULD Disney ban them?


----------



## jcb

aaarcher86 said:


> It's the opposite, actually. He's in Florida.



There are two counsel.  One is in Florida, the other in L.A.


----------



## jcb

Jedana said:


> I wonder, CAN Disney ban them from the parks/DTD/stores during the lawsuit?
> 
> If so, WOULD Disney ban them?



A park ban would almost certainly be found to be retaliation in violation of the ADA.


----------



## jcb

aaarcher86 said:


> Cool. Thanks for explaining.
> 
> What's your opinion in regards to this case (if it's okay to say)?



You are welcome.  I am happy to try to explain things.  I've learned a great deal from "listening" to the discussion in this tread. 

 As to my opinion of the case, I've pretty much explained that in the two blogs the DIS has posted:  http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/07/13/disney-responds-to-disability-access-service-lawsuit/ and http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/04/04/new-lawsuit-attacks-disneys-new-disability-access-service/

 I also think Disney's lawyers believe they have a good shot at a venue transfer or else they wouldn't have filed the motion.  These aren't fly-by-night lawyers.  They know the judge's tendencies a lot better than I do.  So my guess is that the judge will seriously consider transferring some or all of the claims in the lawsuit to Florida.  But it is too early to say for sure.


----------



## aaarcher86

Jedana said:


> I wonder, CAN Disney ban them from the parks/DTD/stores during the lawsuit?
> 
> If so, WOULD Disney ban them?



I feel like the plaintiffs continuing to visit would only strengthen Disney's case.  

How can you say, 'I'm treated terribly and this system is working for us' but then continue to thrust yourself into that situation?


----------



## Coonhound

aaarcher86 said:


> I feel like the plaintiffs continuing to visit would only strengthen Disney's case.
> 
> How can you say, 'I'm treated terribly and this system is working for us' but then continue to thrust yourself into that situation?



That's what I thought, you can't say "I hate this, it isn't working at all, my child can't function this way" but then be like "somehow we are making it work enough to keep coming back again and again.." Lol


----------



## SueM in MN

Here's a link to a news post about the change in venue.

http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/General...ey_transferred_from_California_to_Florida.htm


----------



## North of Mouse

SueM in MN said:


> Here's a link to a news post about the change in venue.
> 
> http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/General...ey_transferred_from_California_to_Florida.htm



Love the first (only) comment on this article. It is 'indeed' the lawyers that encourage outrageous lawsuits because of the $$$'s in their eyes. Totally disgusting and not fair to the ones that need to file 'legitimate' lawsuits.


----------



## aaarcher86

I'm on my phone, but could someone post the petition and response to add plaintiffs to keep this thread updated?


----------



## jcb

aaarcher86 said:


> I'm on my phone, but could someone post the petition and response to add plaintiffs to keep this thread updated?



I don't have them with me on my computer at work but I'll try to remember to post links to the motion and responses this evening or this weekend.


----------



## aaarcher86

jcb said:


> I don't have them with me on my computer at work but I'll try to remember to post links to the motion and responses this evening or this weekend.



Cool thanks. I couldn't find the thread quickly to do it when it happened.


----------



## OurBigTrip

jcb said:


> A park ban would almost certainly be found to be retaliation in violation of the ADA.



The only thing I've found in the ADA regarding retaliation applies to employment, which would not be relevant in this case.

edited to add:  I'm pretty sure that a business on private property can ban anyone for any reason, so long it isn't based on bias against a federally protected class.  And people who file lawsuits are not a federally protected class.


----------



## jcb

OurBigTrip said:


> The only thing I've found in the ADA regarding retaliation applies to employment, which would not be relevant in this case.
> 
> edited to add:  I'm pretty sure that a business on private property can ban anyone for any reason, so long it isn't based on bias against a federally protected class.  And people who file lawsuits are not a federally protected class.



42 U.S.C. 12203 provides: "No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter."

"Chapter" refers to Chapter 126 in Title 42, i.e., all of the ADA (as amended), not just Title I (the employment provisions). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap126.htm 

By filing a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have "participated" in a "proceeding" under the ADA.  Now we can debate whether a ban amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not aware of a decision directly addressing this but I'd not recommend my (hypothetical) client try it.


----------



## wilkeliza

jcb said:


> 42 U.S.C. 12203 provides: "No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter."  "Chapter" refers to Chapter 126 in Title 42, i.e., all of the ADA (as amended), not just Title I (the employment provisions).  By filing a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have "participated" in a "proceeding" under the ADA.  Now we can debate whether a ban amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not aware of a decision directly addressing this but I'd not recommend my (hypothetical) client try it.



Although they may not be formally banned I believe continuing to go to a nonessential place that you are suing for not meeting your needs won't look great for your lawsuit.


----------



## jcb

wilkeliza said:


> Although they may not be formally banned I believe continuing to go to a nonessential place that you are suing for not meeting your needs won't look great for your lawsuit.





[deleted snarky comment]


----------



## jcb

Here are links:

proposed amended complaint 

Disney opposition

Plaintiff's response to Disney opposition


----------



## Goddesstree

jcb said:


> 42 U.S.C. 12203 provides: "No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter."
> 
> "Chapter" refers to Chapter 126 in Title 42, i.e., all of the ADA (as amended), not just Title I (the employment provisions). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap126.htm
> 
> By filing a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have "participated" in a "proceeding" under the ADA.  Now we can debate whether a ban amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not aware of a decision directly addressing this but I'd not recommend my (hypothetical) client try it.



Disney is not a person, it is a corporation, correct?


----------



## jcb

Goddesstree said:


> Disney is not a person, it is a corporation, correct?



Well, some of us think that Disney was a person.  

But the company is also a person under U.S. law:

1 U.S.C. 1 states: 
the words person and whoever include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;


----------



## Goddesstree

Thanks for the info - don't know why they have to combine entities when they are completely different, as I think a single person is much different than a huge corporation, and should have different standards. A person should have the right to discriminate against someone who has filed a lawsuit against him, while a corporation should not. 

If you are filing a lawsuit against a doctor, should that doctor still have to treat you? I don't think so, and I'm on the edge of such a situation myself. It's wrong to make a person have to provide a service for someone who has sued.


----------



## OurBigTrip

Goddesstree said:


> It's wrong to make a person have to provide a service for someone who has sued.




I agree 100%, although I also agree that the plaintiffs are hurting themselves by continuing to go, especially when they post pictures and stories on social media, talking about how their trip with DAS was harder, but still successful.


----------



## jcb

Goddesstree said:


> Thanks for the info - don't know why they have to combine entities when they are completely different, as I think a single person is much different than a huge corporation, and should have different standards. A person should have the right to discriminate against someone who has filed a lawsuit against him, while a corporation should not.
> 
> If you are filing a lawsuit against a doctor, should that doctor still have to treat you? I don't think so, and I'm on the edge of such a situation myself. It's wrong to make a person have to provide a service for someone who has sued.



Most discrimination laws are limited.  An individual isn't typically a "public accommodation" under Title III of the ADA unless the individual runs a business that sells to the public.  Most federal discrimination laws apply to "employers" and typically require the employer to have 15 or more employees. 

Retaliation provisions are a mixed bag.  Some only apply to employers but some apply to "persons."  There isn't a general catch-all retaliation provision.  Unless you are the government, you usually can refuse to do business with someone who has sued you.   The biggest exception to this would be a civil rights suit but even here some statutes limit who can be sued for retaliation as well as discrimination.  This is also tied up into what constitutes "discrimination."

If I were to choose not to have anything to do with the plaintiffs because they filed the DAS lawsuit against Disney, I am still a "person" but I would argue my personal choice is not "discrimination" under the statute I quoted earlier.


----------



## mickmomolly

If Disney offers a settlement, then they can have it written in the settlement agreement that anyone who takes the money must voluntarily agree to not go to the parks anymore. They are not banned, it is the person's choice to accept the settlement, and the persons choice to agree never to go to disney again. So, technically allowed!


----------



## CPT Tripss

wilkeliza said:


> Although they may not be formally banned I believe continuing to go to a nonessential place that you are suing for not meeting your needs won't look great for your lawsuit.



When you claim that you don't get enjoyment, but rather you are harmed by WDW because of their policy change and you continue to go.  . Sounds kind of pathological . . . 



Goddesstree said:


> Disney is not a person, it is a corporation, correct?



It's kind of like Certs . . .  Corporations are people and entitled to rights as recently decided in the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United cases.


----------



## cmwade77

CPT Tripss said:


> When you claim that you don't get enjoyment, but rather you are harmed by WDW because of their policy change and you continue to go.  . Sounds kind of pathological . . .
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of like Certs . . .  Corporations are people and entitled to rights as recently decided in the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United cases.



I think the lawsuit should seek to change policy and not to provide any money, at least if what they claim has happened.

Any monetary value should be to provide a new vacation equal to the old one once the policy changes have been made.

Anything more than that is just greedy.


----------



## jcb

http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/General...ility_Access_lawsuit_must_file_separately.htm


----------



## aaarcher86

jcb said:


> http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/General_Disney_News/Families_in_Disney_s_Disability_Access_lawsuit_must_file_separately.htm



Does that dismiss the group lawsuit then?


----------



## wilkeliza

aaarcher86 said:


> Does that dismiss the group lawsuit then?



Yes they are basically saying this doesn't fall under class action because there are too many variables.


----------



## jcb

The DAS lawsuit was never a class action nor a proposed class action.  The families wanted to join all of their claims into one lawsuit.  The word "group" is as good as any non-legal term to describe the lawsuit the families filed (the legal term is "joinder" but that term is too arcane). This ruling "severed" the "group" lawsuit.  The first family named in the group filing does not have to file a new lawsuit but all the other families have to file separate lawsuits.  The judge said she will hear all the lawsuits, and I expect they may be "consolidated" for some purposes or rulings, but the ruling makes it clear that the judge will not have one trial for all the families.


----------



## StitchesGr8Fan

wilkeliza said:


> Yes they are basically saying this doesn't fall under class action because there are too many variables.



So this leads me to wonder:
1. How many of these families will pursue an individual lawsuit?
2. If people pursue individual lawsuits, are they doing it for financial gain, or policy change?
3. Are multiple individual lawsuits enough to prompt Disney to make a policy change?


----------



## wilkeliza

jcb said:


> The DAS lawsuit was never a class action nor a proposed class action.  The families wanted to join all of their claims into one lawsuit.  The word "group" is as good as any non-legal term to describe the lawsuit the families filed (the legal term is "joinder" but that term is too arcane). This ruling "severed" the "group" lawsuit.  The first family named in the group filing does not have to file a new lawsuit but all the other families have to file separate lawsuits.  The judge said she will hear all the lawsuits, and I expect they may be "consolidated" for some purposes or rulings, but the ruling makes it clear that the judge will not have one trial for all the families.



Sorry about the misuse of terms. I had read that it was a class action and thought it was. I didn't realize several groups could jointly sue and it not be a class action.


----------



## jcb

StitchesGr8Fan said:


> So this leads me to wonder:
> 1. How many of these families will pursue an individual lawsuit?
> 2. If people pursue individual lawsuits, are they doing it for financial gain, or policy change?
> 3. Are multiple individual lawsuits enough to prompt Disney to make a policy change?



I can't answer 1 or 2 without speculating.

For 3, if the court were to hold DAS violated the ADA in one of the lawsuits, that would set a precedent for other lawsuits where the facts were nearly identical.  The ruling (unless overturned) would undoubtedly be held against WDW in the other lawsuits and could, in theory, force WDW to change DAS.  The fact that all ladders have multiple warning labels on them proves that one lawsuit can bring about change.  My favorite is the chain saw manual which warns against sitting on the outside of the limb while you are cutting off the limb:





Of course, my answer to "3" is also based on speculation.


----------



## jcb

wilkeliza said:


> Sorry about the misuse of terms. I had read that it was a class action and thought it was. I didn't realize several groups could jointly sue and it not be a class action.



No worries.  There is a difference but it is a quite confusing area.  I doubt that even if the families had tried to file the lawsuit as a class action that the judge would have let it go forward as a class action.  She made it clear the families' claims were too different.


----------



## SueM in MN

THanks for the update, Jack. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.


----------

