To echo what others have said, this lawsuit has been a fascinating example of molding the message.
When you file a lawsuit, or, for that matter, any motion asking a judge to grant you relief, you need to clearly specify the relief you want. Similarly, when you defend a lawsuit, you want to (re)characterize what the lawsuit wants to be able to best defend it. Here is where I think the original complaint made a tactical mistake. One paragraph quoted a statement about
DAS:
The Disability Access Service is designed for Guests who are unable to tolerate extended waits due to disability. This service allows Guests to schedule a return time that is comparable to the current queue wait for the given attraction.
This service does not provide immediate or priority attraction access.
The complaint then attacked the last sentence, saying "Disney acknowledges the difference between immediate access and priority access; that is, immediate access is not necessarily preferential or superior treatment in comparison to the access afforded other guests. Even if Plaintiffs have a special need for
near-immediate access, they have never sought, and do not seek, “priority” access." (The court's decision calls the latter assertion into question, of course.)
Disney seized on the phrase "near-immediate access" even though the only time the complaint used this phrase was where I quoted it above and that was a pretty equivocal assertion (e.g., "even if"). I'm not saying this was improper or even underhanded. It didn't help the plaintiffs that the complaint also alleged: "With the Guest Assistance Card, though guests were not always expressly promised immediate access to the attractions,
immediate access was precisely what Disney, through its employees, routinely delivered." (My emphasis.) Then, on appeal, the court of appeals said "Plaintiffs therefore contend that access to all of Disney’s rides must be both nearly immediate."
Disney repeatedly used this phrase in its briefs, arguing (for example) "plaintiffs here do not have any right to near-immediate, repeated and rigidly executed access to all rides at WDW." It's no surprise that the first page of the latest decision states: "Disney’s general position is that unlimited, near-immediate access to every ride at its parks,
the proposed accommodation for A.L.’s autism, is not required by the ADA. . . ." It didn't help that the plaintiffs couldn't better define what they wanted: "unlimited access to Disney’s theme park attractions via Disney’s expedited “FastPass” lines, or similar relief through at least ten “readmission passes." Even worse, A.L.'s guardian said she wanted a readmission pass for each of of the 19 Magic Kingdom rides on A.L.'s preferred list for everyone in their party. Just ten readmission passes, the court found, would "essentially be like returning to the unlimited access to FastPass lines similar to the GAC system."