Disney wins First DAS ADA Discrimination Lawsuit

[avagaston]

Last night, several more stipulations of dismissal were filed in Florida federal court by families who had asserted claims involving DAS. That's not surprising or even notable. But just to follow up on my speculation about Disney agreeing not to seek court costs, Disney and the family that lost the recent appeal also filed a notice yesterday. After prevailing in the district court, the Disney filed a motion asking the court to award it $23,104.32 in costs. Costs are a term of art and typically include the out of pocket expenses a party has to pay in a lawsuit other than experts and attorney fees. Typically, the most expensive "cost" is to pay court reporters for depositions and in court transcripts. Disney claimed it had to pay some $13k for these transcripts.

The notice filed yesterday, however, said


It's still a whimper.

it a shakme tjey couldnt to bring back the GAC as a etlement term

 

[avagaston]

Last night, several more stipulations of dismissal were filed in Florida federal court by families who had asserted claims involving DAS. That's not surprising or even notable. But just to follow up on my speculation about Disney agreeing not to seek court costs, Disney and the family that lost the recent appeal also filed a notice yesterday. After prevailing in the district court, the Disney filed a motion asking the court to award it $23,104.32 in costs. Costs are a term of art and typically include the out of pocket expenses a party has to pay in a lawsuit other than experts and attorney fees. Typically, the most expensive "cost" is to pay court reporters for depositions and in court transcripts. Disney claimed it had to pay some $13k for these transcripts.

The notice filed yesterday, however, said


It's still a whimper.

thanks for your ezplanationl

 

[avagaston]

Sorry but that doesn't really narrow it down because the docket entry reflects activity in the court of appeals that the court sent to the district court. I looked at the court of appeals docket and there are seven filings in early March. None substantive. One was an order permitting the plaintiffs to file an oversized brief. The other was an order permitting the plaintiffs to file parts of the record under seal (i.e., where the general public cannot access it). I have no idea what they want under seal but it is probably medical information relating to the plaintiffs' disabilities though it could be some of the data Disney relied on showing wait times etc.

juwt to be clear did they settle or not?

 

[jcb]

juwt to be clear did they settle or not?

It depends on how you define settlement. Disney winning at trial and on appeal and then agreeing not to pursue costs if plaintiffs don't pursue to the case further isn't what most folks think of as a settlement. Disney isn't actually giving up $23k in real money. In reality, most folks don't have a spare $23k to pay costs and, if they could be recovered, would likely have cost more than that to recover,

 

[avagaston]

It depends on how you define settlement. Disney winning at trial and on appeal and then agreeing not to pursue costs if plaintiffs don't pursue to the case further isn't what most folks think of as a settlement. Disney isn't actually giving up $23k in real money. In reality, most folks don't have a spare $23k to pay costs and, if they could be recovered, would likely have cost more than that to recover,

its z sham ethey could agree to have both gac and das

 

[HopperFan]

itw a shuame dfkisney cou agree to have both GAC and DAS~

it a shakme tjey couldnt to bring back the GAC as a etlement term

its z sham ethey could agree to have both gac and das

There is no need for the GAC and it won't come back for many reasons.

- It was abused by many (aka the plaintiffs).
- It was overused by many (aka the plaintiffs).
- It was not used as intended by Guests or CMs = should not have been used for immediate access (aka the plaintiffs).
- Most the issues that it provided info to CMs as need are now solved with accessibility OR you just tell the CM your need such as "no steps" "seating issues for vision" etc.

DAS solves the needs that can not be addressed with the accessibility that Disney has addressed in their queues.

Plaintiffs arguments and arguments for GAC are in essence asking for above and beyond services.

 

[avagaston]

There is no need for the GAC and it won't come back for many reasons.

- It was abused by many (aka the plaintiffs).
- It was overused by many (aka the plaintiffs).
- It was not used as intended by Guests or CMs = should not have been used for immediate access (aka the plaintiffs).
- Most the issues that it provided info to CMs as need are now solved with accessibility OR you just tell the CM your need such as "no steps" "seating issues for vision" etc.

DAS solves the needs that can not be address with the accessibility that Disney has addressed in their queues.

Plaintiffs arguments and arguments for GAC are in essence asking for above and beyond services.

thank you I zp[reciate ity

 

[OurBigTrip]

There is no need for the GAC and it won't come back for many reasons.

- It was abused by many (aka the plaintiffs).
- It was overused by many (aka the plaintiffs).
- It was not used as intended by Guests or CMs = should not have been used for immediate access (aka the plaintiffs).
- Most the issues that it provided info to CMs as need are now solved with accessibility OR you just tell the CM your need such as "no steps" "seating issues for vision" etc.

DAS solves the needs that can not be addressed with the accessibility that Disney has addressed in their queues.

Plaintiffs arguments and arguments for GAC are in essence asking for above and beyond services.

Couldn't agree more.