Response to ADA Suit

[jcb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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 . . .