Autism lawsuits to continue on appeal

I have a son who has mild sensory issues, ADHD and is on the higher functioning end of the spectrum. While I would like for him to be able to learn to be successful in all situations, I have learned that certain events, situations, and activities are not suitable for him. For example, the school he used to attend had a big fundraiser called Bingo Night that was attended by almost every school family. We tried many times and in many ways to attend it but it always ended badly. The combination of a loud, chaotic room and the high possibility of losing was just too much for him no matter what accommodations we made. As a result, we stopped going. Yes, it can be sad and frustrating but I learned the hard way that putting him in situations that set him up for failure wasn't fair to him and it wasn't fair for everyone else to change everything to make it suit him.
 
1.You can’t expect the world to adapt for him, but you sure can advocate for a world that is more accepting of who he is as he is.

2.Yes I understand that, but it is also understandable someone would be upset with something that was essentially once free costing money now. I’m not saying suing is the right avenue, but I understand the frustration behind the change that essentially makes something that was once accessible no longer accessible for you.

3.On paper, yes that makes sense. In practical application, it fails to account for how routine bound some individuals on the spectrum can be when it comes to the parks AND that they’re completely different environments for waiting on a plane/car vs the parks. I completely agree that it is an above and beyond benefit that provides increased access, which is well beyond the legal threshold Disney needs to abide by. I wouldn’t say that the DAS provides equal access consistently (some rides it might provide less and more for others depending on the ride and how well Disney is keeping up with ride times) but its intent is to provide more equal access in a sustainable manner and it does do a better job than the GAC.

4.Whether Disney ever intended the GAC to act like that or not, it did. People were ultimately accommodated in that capacity, and it is impossible to say that a CM never told them that it could help them in the waiting capacity. CMs do a lot of things they’re not supposed to unfortunately. Last week I heard a CM asking about a diagnosis of a guest for the DAS at guest relations, which they’re not supposed to do. I’m sure with lower crowds, CMs would let the DAS function with more instantaneous access at times and we’d end up in a situation like the GAC all over again. I know I’ve been waived on through when I’ve gone to get a return time for a ride with a wait over 45 minutes and there was almost no one in the FP line because the CM apparently didn’t feel like dealing with their device.

1. The world can accept and still not give into demands for special treatment that makes it so others get no access at all. People can advocate for the opposite as well - right? Someone could bring a case to court that Disney gives too much free stuff to those a disability. Free valet parking for people with HC tags, etc. With resort parking a new cost at WDW, do people with hang tags pay for that parking?

2. As stated before, parking at resorts now costs money. Buying an express pass is a choice. Are you heading towards stating that if it was once free for a person with a disability, it should always be free, even if the general population has to pay?

3. So, if someone has a certain routine, it's stuck that way for life, or ??? That doesn't fly in the real world, or at WDW. Attractions break down, attractions get closed, attractions get updated. Life is not static. Learning to cope with a change in routine is a very important lesson. People come and go, products may go out of stock, characters in TV shows leave, the power goes out, favorite shirts rip, people grow old and die. To allow someone to get stuck in routine in order to keep them behaving a certain way does them a great disservice. I believe we need to give them tools to use to handle the changes, not feed into the routine.

4. I hope you reported those CMs who were not doing their jobs correctly. They need better training, IMO.
 
I have a son who has mild sensory issues, ADHD and is on the higher functioning end of the spectrum. While I would like for him to be able to learn to be successful in all situations, I have learned that certain events, situations, and activities are not suitable for him. For example, the school he used to attend had a big fundraiser called Bingo Night that was attended by almost every school family. We tried many times and in many ways to attend it but it always ended badly. The combination of a loud, chaotic room and the high possibility of losing was just too much for him no matter what accommodations we made. As a result, we stopped going. Yes, it can be sad and frustrating but I learned the hard way that putting him in situations that set him up for failure wasn't fair to him and it wasn't fair for everyone else to change everything to make it suit him.

That's essentially what my family has done as well. I'm on the spectrum but was taught to "manage" my disability in a lot of ways - some healthy, some less-so, always from a place of love and trying to do what was best. I get overwhelmed by crowds and noise super easily. My partner has sensory issues and ADHD, so put the two of us together and there are a LOT of places or events that are a recipe for disaster. The response is that we don't go. Or we go in a different capacity/way than other people. There are many times I wish I could go - or, more specifically, that I wish I could be able to go and enjoy it the way a "typical" person would. But ultimately we make choices to try to balance our priorities and being fair to ourselves and the people around us. It's not my fault that I have a meltdown if I have to wait in a crowded, noisy line for more than about 10 minutes...but it's not the fault of the people around me, either, and they shouldn't suffer because of it.

In a way I can relate to the plaintiffs' families, because planning and routine is really important to me: I plan ahead of time to do these things in this order in this timeframe. When that doesn't work, it stresses me out to an unreasonable degree. But I have to deal with that every single day. That's not just a Disney problem; that happens when the line is too long at the grocery store or I have to circle back to pick up a prescription that isn't ready yet or my rehearsal is being held at a different place so my route/commute time is different or a meeting I had planned gets moved to a different time. To say nothing of all of the wait/hurry-up that goes into traveling to any location, including and perhaps in particular Disney! Either you are capable of confronting these daily frustrations or you aren't, and if you aren't I'm not sure how you could go to (let alone enjoy) Disney at all. Personally, while there are some things I would go back and ask my parents to change if I could regarding how they managed my condition, I am so incredibly grateful to them for insisting that I learn how to handle disruption, frustration, and the unexpected. Otherwise I honestly don't know how I would be able to do much of anything as an adult. I understand that many of these plaintiffs' children have more severe manifestations than mine, but I still have to wonder how they handle life outside of Disney. Surely that's not the only place they have to wait, share, change plans, or handle disappointments - no matter how hard their parents try to limit exposure.
 
I understand that many of these plaintiffs' children have more severe manifestations than mine, but I still have to wonder how they handle life outside of Disney. Surely that's not the only place they have to wait, share, change plans, or handle disappointments - no matter how hard their parents try to limit exposure.

And while the parents are around now to run interference, "advocate" (and I have it in quotes because what they are doing now is not advocating what's best for their child at all, IMO), and limit exposure, who is going to deal with these issues when the parents are dead? If they end up with a loving sibling, is that person going to be able to balance their own family plus the demands of the highly involved sibling? Group homes are not going to run interference for the multitude of clients they have. The parents need to realize that they are setting their loved child up for a disaster once they are gone. And I'm not saying it's easy, or that everyone can have the same level of success learning to cope with the world - I've been part of the process for over 15 years now, and I've seen success and failure. Most of the failure has come from parents who do not want to follow through at home with what we do at school though, or have the mentality that their kid couldn't possibly be a little bit independent. Luckily, there have been very few of those. And I know they loved their kids, but just didn't have the ability to think about the future.
 
1. The world can accept and still not give into demands for special treatment that makes it so others get no access at all. People can advocate for the opposite as well - right? Someone could bring a case to court that Disney gives too much free stuff to those a disability. Free valet parking for people with HC tags, etc. With resort parking a new cost at WDW, do people with hang tags pay for that parking?

2. As stated before, parking at resorts now costs money. Buying an express pass is a choice. Are you heading towards stating that if it was once free for a person with a disability, it should always be free, even if the general population has to pay?

3. So, if someone has a certain routine, it's stuck that way for life, or ??? That doesn't fly in the real world, or at WDW. Attractions break down, attractions get closed, attractions get updated. Life is not static. Learning to cope with a change in routine is a very important lesson. People come and go, products may go out of stock, characters in TV shows leave, the power goes out, favorite shirts rip, people grow old and die. To allow someone to get stuck in routine in order to keep them behaving a certain way does them a great disservice. I believe we need to give them tools to use to handle the changes, not feed into the routine.

4. I hope you reported those CMs who were not doing their jobs correctly. They need better training, IMO.

I have never, ever stated that one group should get special treatment over another. In fact, I have repeatedly stated the needs of all should be balanced, and in the case of Disney, I think they have done a better (though not perfect) job of achieving that to provide maximum access with the DAS over the GAC. I have only ever tried to express empathy toward individuals who are frustrated with a system and world that you're constantly battling with for access. It sucks, and it is okay to acknowledge that. Expressing frustration and empathizing with that frustration does not equate to refusing to acknowledge and accept change that happens though. It is the way of the world, but it doesn't mean that if something happens you just have to plaster a smile on your face and act like it is no big deal. I have also stated that while people may choose litigation as their means for addressing their malcontent with changes, I do not necessarily condone that choice even if I empathize with the situation that drove them to make the choice to go to court. Let me make it clear, I do not agree that the current court case under discussion is a wise choice and I do believe that the plaintiff's energy would be better spent on other avenues to address their problems with the system, like working to accept that it is a better overall system in place even if it means they no longer get the access they were accustomed to.

Routine is a continual challenge for those on the spectrum because it is our touchstone with making sense of the world. It has nothing to do with behavior. At all. To say it is connected to behavior is doing us a HUGE disservice. Not abiding by certain routines can cause unbelievable stress in the life of the person on the spectrum because it brings our processing to a sudden stop among other issues, and this is totally at odds with how the world functions because there is continual change so it is an unfortunate reality we're confronted with daily. I have previously said routines can and do change, but it is not an easy process, and for some individuals it is more rough than others depending on the routine in question. Allowing what routines you can to stay relatively static in the life of someone with autism is doing them a kindness. You're giving them peace and the ability to actually live in the moment instead of being massively stressed out. Quality of life matters. Trying to change us is not necessarily improving our quality of life. It can actually make things worse. There is a reason why suicide rates are so high in individuals on the spectrum, particularly those labeled as "high functioning." We are continually taught to suppress our needs because they're "inappropriate," and it eventually catches up in addition to all of the other struggles we encounter and deal with on a day to day basis. You can give someone all the tools you want, but if the tools don't ultimately work for them to make a positive difference in their life, they're not going to help. There is a balance, and what that balance looks like is going to depend on the individual. It's why I appreciate that the DAS is supposed to be needs based vs diagnosis based because needs vary so much from one person to the next even when they have the same diagnosis. What works for one person on the spectrum may be a disaster for another person. What I'm ultimately trying to say I guess is it is great if you're able to give someone on the spectrum resources and tools they need to make their life in this world a little easier, but if you try your best to give them tools and resources to help them and it isn't working, that is okay too since we're all different and it isn't a failure in parenting. It just means you have to get more creative in how you live your life and where you set your expectations for what you and your family can reasonably do.

I didn't bother reporting the CM since I had just spent 2 hours addressing on-going AP and magic band issues and I was at my limit. I was on the verge of a total and complete meltdown, so I had to let it go and leave to go somewhere else to address my needs.
 
One argument I have heard with regard to this lawsuit that has some level of validity is the GAC addressed and provided an accommodation for those whose disability impacts their ability to wait at all in a temporal sense. The DAS does not address this at all. So yeah. There was some loss of accommodation for people whose primary needs were related to their ability to wait at all.

You can’t expect the world to adapt for him, but you sure can advocate for a world that is more accepting of who he is as he is. Acceptance is the only thing that makes the difference between making it from one day to the next sometimes.

Yes I understand that, but it is also understandable someone would be upset with something that was essentially once free costing money now. I’m not saying suing is the right avenue, but I understand the frustration behind the change that essentially makes something that was once accessible no longer accessible for you.

In practical application, it fails to account for how routine bound some individuals on the spectrum can be when it comes to the parks AND that they’re completely different environments for waiting on a plane/car vs the parks.

I have never, ever stated that one group should get special treatment over another.

I disagree, as the above quotes from your PP state that this one group, people with autism, are not getting accommodated like they used to at WDW, and what they need is more accessibility beyond the DAS. What would you agree to for "acceptance" if not more immediate access at WDW?
 


Thank you.
I’m going to this to the other thread about the lawsuit from a few months back. That way, the background and the update will stay together.
 
I think one of the issues (and I understand why it is the way it is) is due to the fact Disney doesn't have a process that validates diagnoses. I understand the DAS system is a 'needs based' program and the new DAS system works for the vast majority of people that would be using it, but for the small percentage that doesn't there perhaps could be an additional level of concierge that is processed on a more official medical level (HIPAA compliant). Not even sure this is possible, but it would be a potential solution as this appears to be restricted to people with 'severe' autism.

In the article and documents filed with the court, Disney themselves highlight their own issue with the program by making the statement that 7 of the 30 law suits are not valid based upon the premise they are not officially diagnosed as 'severely autistic'. A much more complicated diagnosis medical process would perhaps be an option? But i'm sure there are reasons why they don't do this...

Interestingly, as it is a needs based assessment, there is nothing stopping 'rich families' as depicted in the article, from lying about their kids needs and getting a DAS anyway, so not sure what it solves or what purpose that statement serves?
 
There's nothing stopping anyone at any economic or income level from lying. Except ethics, morals, guilt, compassion, sensibility... never mind that the DAS doesn't do what the GAC evolved into.
 
There's nothing stopping anyone at any economic or income level from lying. Except ethics, morals, guilt, compassion, sensibility... never mind that the DAS doesn't do what the GAC evolved into.

Of course you are correct, the reference to economic status was simply in response to Disney's lawyers explaining that the motivation for changing the rules was due to 'affluent families hiring children / people with disabilities to get to the front of the line'....
 
I think one of the issues (and I understand why it is the way it is) is due to the fact Disney doesn't have a process that validates diagnoses. I understand the DAS system is a 'needs based' program and the new DAS system works for the vast majority of people that would be using it, but for the small percentage that doesn't there perhaps could be an additional level of concierge that is processed on a more official medical level (HIPAA compliant). Not even sure this is possible, but it would be a potential solution as this appears to be restricted to people with 'severe' autism

I couldn’t disagree more. If anyone simply can’t wait and needs immediate access in order for the attraction to be accessible, then Disney probably isn’t for them.

And Disney didn’t discontinue the GAC only because of the rich people - it was being abused by too many people...the people in the lawsuit, for example.
 
I couldn’t disagree more. If anyone simply can’t wait and needs immediate access in order for the attraction to be accessible, then Disney probably isn’t for them.

And Disney didn’t discontinue the GAC only because of the rich people - it was being abused by too many people...the people in the lawsuit, for example.

While perhaps there is an element of truth to this, it isn't necessarily everyone's truth. As such you cannot always judge a situation based upon your own specific needs and perspective, sometimes there is the need to walk in someone elses shoes. Not saying I agree with the lawsuit, I was merely putting forward some potential solutions that would cater for the 'exceptions' rather than the general rule.
 
While perhaps there is an element of truth to this, it isn't necessarily everyone's truth. As such you cannot always judge a situation based upon your own specific needs and perspective, sometimes there is the need to walk in someone elses shoes. Not saying I agree with the lawsuit, I was merely putting forward some potential solutions that would cater for the 'exceptions' rather than the general rule.

It doesn’t matter if that is their need - if they can’t wait at all, then there is no reasonable accommodation that can meet that need.
 
It doesn’t matter if that is their need - if they can’t wait at all, then there is no reasonable accommodation that can meet that need.

Well technically this isn't true, the GAC was a workable solution in theory and thus 'reasonable'. If it weren't then it wouldn't have been implemented in the first place. It became 'unreasonable' due to the nature of the process and abuse of its privileges by those that were willing to do it.... which is cited in the Disney Court documents and the article itself.

The reason there is so much ambiguity around the process is the adjudication of the word 'reasonable'...... highlighted perfectly by the discourse in this thread and the subjective opinion of what it means to different people.
 
A much more complicated diagnosis medical process would perhaps be an option?
Disney adapts to the need of the otherly-abled by making as much as possible physically accessible, and by having a very equitable means for people who cannot wait in line to still enjoy the attractions. A much more complicated process to serve a comparatively miniscule number of visitors is unreasonable. PLus, with every person with Autism being different, you would need individualized plans for each DAY person.
 
Disney adapts to the need of the otherly-abled by making as much as possible physically accessible, and by having a very equitable means for people who cannot wait in line to still enjoy the attractions. A much more complicated process to serve a comparatively miniscule number of visitors is unreasonable. PLus, with every person with Autism being different, you would need individualized plans for each DAY person.

That's a fair assessment, and it is akin to Pandora's box.
 
Of course you are correct, the reference to economic status was simply in response to Disney's lawyers explaining that the motivation for changing the rules was due to 'affluent families hiring children / people with disabilities to get to the front of the line'....
The mentions about ‘affluent people hiring people with disabilities’ as motivation for changing the rules was mostly cited by reporters and has been used by the people who started the lawsuit as proof that Disney did not need to change the system.
 
While perhaps there is an element of truth to this, it isn't necessarily everyone's truth. As such you cannot always judge a situation based upon your own specific needs and perspective, sometimes there is the need to walk in someone elses shoes. Not saying I agree with the lawsuit, I was merely putting forward some potential solutions that would cater for the 'exceptions' rather than the general rule.

Well technically this isn't true, the GAC was a workable solution in theory and thus 'reasonable'. If it weren't then it wouldn't have been implemented in the first place. It became 'unreasonable' due to the nature of the process and abuse of its privileges by those that were willing to do it.... which is cited in the Disney Court documents and the article itself.

The reason there is so much ambiguity around the process is the adjudication of the word 'reasonable'...... highlighted perfectly by the discourse in this thread and the subjective opinion of what it means to different people.

If there are people with issues that make it impossible for them to wait, or accept a change in plans, how can anyone accommodate that? What happens if the ride closes down due to a malfunction? Or it stops while they are on it? A hurricane comes through and closes the park for a day? If a person cannot truly handle a change in scheduling, there is nothing anyone can do. So, to demand preferred, almost immediate access because someone can't wait in line is preposterous, IMO. What happens if they are just boarding and the ride stops?
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top