New DAS Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Disney Parks
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against Walt Disney Parks & Resorts and Inspire Health Alliance for changes made to the Disability Access Service system last year at Walt Disney World and Disneyland. This covers details of the DAS complaint, plus an extensive look at past precedent in the last legal challenge to line-skipping accommodations in the parks.
Disney overhauled DAS at Walt Disney World and Disneyland prior to the start of last summer. According to the company, the changes were due in large part to abuse, misuse, and proliferation of the program’s use–with issuances of DAS tripling from 2019 to last year. For more about the specifics of the new-look Disability Access Service, plus our commentary about winners & losers, collateral damage and more, see Disability Access Service (DAS) Changes at Walt Disney World FAQ.
We’ve been following this controversy closely for the last several months, receiving reports from readers and reading accounts of other guests applying for accommodations after the overhaul of DAS at Walt Disney World and Disneyland. Obviously, it’s a highly sensitive subject that is very, very personal since it is, quite literally, make or break for some guests trying to experience the parks. There have been widespread reports of guests who previously had DAS being denied and advised to use alternative accommodations, some of which are new–or are revised and highlighted more prominently.
Suffice to say, it’s been a contentious ~9 months between the company and the disabled community. Many fans have hoped that Walt Disney World and Disneyland would relax the policy or overhaul it once again, and there’s been a grassroots campaign to accomplish exactly that.
There have been a couple of recent tweaks to the program, the most notable of which is DAS verbiage removing “only” from the eligibility criteria. As we previously pointed out, that likely involved involvement from an army of attorneys, and even then, its motivations and outcomes are open to interpretation and debate. Our view is that it’s fairly consequential in the quantity of DAS issued despite being only a single word.
We thought we’d never know for sure what prompted the “only” change or what result it’ll have on the ratio of approvals to denials, but as it turns out, this lawsuit may be the answer. The complaint relies heavily on the presence of only, and a demand letter from last December that preceded the lawsuit.
The proposed class action suit Malone vs. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, Inspire Health Alliance, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of Orange County, California on February 10, 2025. You can read the complaint for yourself here.
Plaintiff Trisha Malone alleges that she applied for DAS based on a physical disability. Her DAS accommodation was denied on the grounds that she did not meet Disney’s newly imposed eligibility criteria, which now restricts DAS accommodations to guests who, due to a developmental disability such as autism or a similar condition, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period.
The plaintiff alleges that new eligibility criteria imposed by Disney screens out individuals with physical disabilities, thus denying them the accommodation required to enjoy full access to Defendant’s facilities. Malone also alleges that Disney’s alternative accommodations—such as Attraction Queue Re-Entry, Meet-Up, Rider Switch, or Location Return Times—fail to provide equitable access and imposed undue burdens, logistical challenges, emotional distress, and safety risks.
Malone contents that the new DAS policies and practices systematically discriminate individuals with physical disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The new DAS violates her rights to equal access, privacy, and dignity under those acts and also infringes upon Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidelines, state privacy rights under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), and contains deceptive terms and conditions that contravenes the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as California Business and Professions Code § 17200.
There are seven causes of action in total, all of which are California state law claims. (California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act by reference, which is how that’s looped into the lawsuit.)
From our perspective, the crux of this case is in whether the new-look DAS imposed eligibility criteria that “screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary.”
(I mentioned this before in analysis of the “only” change: By limiting the accommodation to only guests with developmental disabilities, it’s possible Disney is pre-screening out a class of disabled individuals that might run afoul of the ADA. If so, that’s still true with a straightforward reading of the statement of intent, since “only” simply reinforces the “due to” (just like previous iterations included “small percentage” of guests language).)
The core legal question is whether, by limiting DAS accommodations to guests with developmental disabilities who are “unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time,” Disney is unlawfully screening out individuals with physical or non-developmental disabilities.
Can Disney demonstrate that limiting DAS accommodations to only those individuals with developmental disabilities is necessary for the provision of its services? Basically, that should boil down to whether the pre-screening lawful in light of the alternative accommodations offered?
There’s obviously a lot more to the complaint than that, but we’re primarily concerned with the ADA. That’s what will be outcome-determinative for the future of DAS. The California claims are important for this particular plaintiff (and keeping the case in state court), but this is eventually going to be decided in federal court.
In life and law, the best predictor of future outcomes is past precedent. To that point, there’s the case of A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. from a few years ago that was filed in response to the change from the Guest Assistance Card (“GAC”) to DAS. In that, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether Disney’s accommodations for guests with disabilities complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
You can read the full appellate decision here, but I’m going to go through some of the key facts, legal issues, and the court’s findings below. As you read, I think you’ll spot a number of parallels between the past and current controversies and cases.
In that case, A.L. is an adult male diagnosed with autism who visits Walt Disney World with his mother. A.L. is in his late twenties, but his developmental age is 5 to 7 years old. Due to his condition, A.L. has extremely limited communication skills and requires a structured routine, disruption of which leads to meltdowns.
Until October 2013, the GAC system provided a disabled guest and his group with unlimited, repeated, and on-demand access to rides and attractions. A.L. used this to experience, in order, a list of 19 attractions he enjoyed at Magic Kingdom. However, Disney determined that the GAC system was unsustainable due widespread abuse and fraud. It became an unlimited front-of-the-line pass for anyone requesting it because Disney could not ask a visitor for proof of disability. The GAC system became a media sensation for all of the wrong reasons, with mainstream stories about guests hiring disabled tour guides. (Sound familiar?)
During that case, Disney’s Industrial Engineering team presented the results of its studies on attraction impact resulting from GAC, which was significant. The study concluded that the GAC system was unintentionally providing a small minority of visitors multiple opportunities to experience a given ride while denying regular guests the chance to experience a given ride even once. This study prompted Disney to implement changes to the GAC system in the interest of balancing guests’ needs.
In October 2013, Disney replaced the GAC system with the DAS program. You’re probably familiar with this, as the mechanics of DAS are fairly unchanged then versus now (it’s the approvals and denials that are at issue here). Basically, A.L.’s family determined that the return time system used by DAS required too long of a wait for A.L., and since it would not be possible to visit all of A.L.’s regular rides in order without some waiting, and that they would need to leave the park.
The DAS program proved to be unpopular among some of Disney’s fans with disabilities. By early 2014, plaintiffs began filing lawsuits—forty-four in total—challenging the DAS program on the basis that it violated Title III of the ADA because it did not allow visitors with disabilities to go on rides without waiting and in the order they wanted. The plaintiffs filed their cases in either the Central District of California or the Middle District of Florida; the cases filed in California eventually were transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
A.L. sought a permanent injunction requiring that he be permitted unlimited access to Walt Disney World’s attractions via the FastPass lines or similar relief through at least ten Re-admission Passes (“Re-Ads”). The central question of the consolidated case was whether Disney’s existing disability accommodations were sufficient under the ADA or if the requested modifications were necessary and reasonable.
The district court found that A.L.’s requested modification of unlimited access to Disney’s theme park attractions—via Disney’s expedited FastPass lines or through at least ten readmission passes for each person in his party—was neither necessary nor a reasonable accommodation. As to whether the proposed modification was necessary, the district court found that access for A.L. using the DAS Card and FastPass, without further modification, was a “like experience” to that of non-disabled guests.
The district court explained that, because the DAS system allowed disabled guests to access the most popular attractions in the park with less wait time than the standby line, those guests could experience more attractions than a non-DAS guest could experience because some of their time spent waiting in physical lines throughout the day had been eliminated.
The district court noted that Disney’s evidence showed A.L. could have experienced “a significantly higher number of rides than a typical nondisabled guest experiences in a day.” Thus, the district court found that the DAS card provided A.L. with a “‘like,’ if not better, experience and equal enjoyment than nondisabled guests experience.”
As to reasonableness, the district court explained the accommodation would “lengthen the wait times for all other riders, severely impacting the remaining non-DAS users,” and “potentially lead to the same fraud and overuse that existed with the GAC system, which required a complete overhaul.”
The district court also noted that “word spreading on social media that one disabled individual received an accommodation of ten readmission passes will increase the demand to be treated similarly by every disabled individual once they find out, as well as those willing to misrepresent they are disabled,” leading to the same issues plaguing the GAC system.
Even if the requested modification were necessary and reasonable, the district court determined that Disney was not required to accommodate A.L. with the request because, based on Disney’s uncontroverted industrial engineering studies and its expert’s opinion, it would fundamentally alter Disney’s services to its other visitors, by increasing wait times for most other guests without DAS, which in turn would dramatically reduce guest satisfaction levels.
In assessing whether A.L.’s requested modification to the DAS program was necessary under Title III of the ADA, the court held that Disney must afford A.L. “the opportunity to have something akin to or similar to the experience” of non-disabled guests but Disney “was not required to make the preferred accommodation of A.L.’s choice.”
Because places of public accommodations must “provide disabled patrons an experience comparable to that of able-bodied patrons,” whether an accommodation sought by a disabled person is “necessary” as a matter of law is determined by considering first “how [the business’s] facilities are used by nondisabled guests.”
The analysis then turns to whether the business has taken reasonable steps to provide disabled guests with a ‘like experience’ to that of non-disabled guests. “[F]acilities are not required to make the preferred accommodation of plaintiffs’ choice. Facilities need make only reasonable accommodations that are ‘necessary.’” As a matter of law, it is not enough to show that the accommodation Disney offers does not eliminate all discomfort or difficulty.
Due to the legal issues raised in this case that are distinct from A.L., I suspect the above reasoning will be key to the ultimate outcome of this case.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in A.L., agreeing that the requested modifications were not necessary and would fundamentally alter Disney’s operations. The court emphasized that the ADA does not require businesses to make accommodations that would fundamentally change their services or operations.
It’s worth noting that the Eleventh Circuit cited several other ADA cases involving Disney Parks & Resorts in its decision. I checked each of these decisions and they were likewise decided in Disney’s favor with similar reasoning. (Which tracks, as a court typically would cite precedent that support its conclusions.) Perhaps further research would reveal decisions where the plaintiff prevailed, but I could find no such cases. There’s a first time for everything, but I do not believe the Malone case will be that time. It will be an uphill battle for the plaintiff here, or in any future cases challenging the new-look DAS, to prevail.
Nevertheless, it’ll be interesting to see what happens. As we’ve mentioned previously, it was inevitable for the DAS changes to end up in court. Disney likely viewed a lawsuit as the cost of doing business, and had its legal team meticulously prepare the new DAS policies in a manner that would make them litigation-proof. There were 24 lawsuits last time, with the first filed only a few months after GAC was retired in favor of DAS. If anything, it’s surprising there haven’t been more complaints filed this go-round, and sooner. It’ll be an interesting saga to watch, and if this does proceed to trial, it’s likely that more will be revealed about abuse and misuse numbers either via discovery or testimony of Disney’s Industrial Engineers.
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help. For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
YOUR THOUGHTS
Thoughts on the lawsuit in California over DAS policies at Walt Disney World and Disneyland? Think this litigation will result in changes or another total overhaul to Disability Access Services? Hopeful that this will prompt increased approvals for those who truly need DAS while keeping abuse low? Agree or disagree with our assessment? Please try to stay on topic–we’ve noticed some of these DAS comments sections get heated and personal. Discuss the policy itself, not others’ use (or lack thereof) of it.
Does anyone happen to know what Trisha Malone‘s disability is? The only Trisha Malone on Instagram that seems to have a disability is a girl with a latex allergy. I would be pretty disappointed if she felt that required going to the front of a line at a place that’s full of balloons, not just on rides.
Other people’s disabilities are none of your business.
Until the most recent change in DAS, I had the privilege of using the service due to multiple physical issues. Because they are physical and not neuro-divergent, I am no longer “qualified” for DAS. Though the interviews became more and more invasive and to some extent embarrassing, I still participated because it meant I would be able to enjoy the park(s) and a few rides. I did not abuse the system. I was extremely grateful that it was offered and allowed me the chance to enjoy the experience – the same as any other able-bodied guest. I hope that Disney re-evaluates their position and will continue to provide the opportunity. Equally, I hope that those individuals who seek to take advantage of and abuse the system would consider how they would feel if they truly needed it and were denied because some guests did not consider the needs of others.
Purchasing Lightning Lane access allows you to reduce your wait times as well.
@Andy Disabled people shouldn’t have to spend more money to have the same experience. I know you think LL magically solves everything, but speaking as a physically disabled person, it does not.
I didn’t say that LL “solves everything.” But if you don’t have DAS, purchasing LL gives you the “same experience” as other park guests who also purchased LL.
I guess just as we have a theory of federal Platonic golf, we’ll ultimately need a theory of federal Platonic theme park touring.
I would argue that we’re looking at the antithesis of Platonic, more or less. That the fundamental essence, or whatever, of theme park touring dictates you’re armed with a stroller, ECV, or other battering ram-esque device. Perhaps a sharp elbow would do.
If you don’t feel or make an impact, quite literally, during rope drop, you were not technically participating in the sport.
Thank you for this. A few years ago I was at a Halloween party in which the fast land was only used for DAS (the old system). The fast pass lane was longer then the normal Q for 7 dwarfs mine train. I was eye opening how many people at the party had DAS.
I’m not sure what it means, but there is something interesting about the fact that comments can be left on for a post about park/attraction accessibility for guests and they need to be turned off for a post related to Disney’s broader DEI efforts (work that would of course include accessibility considerations for staff and guests, I imagine). I don’t know what the takeaway is there, but it’s an interesting juxtaposition. I wonder how Disney is threading that needle internally or if these topics even intersect internally at all.
Comments are on here because readers have been both respectful and insightful on recent articles about DAS. The comments have been an asset that have improved the article.
By contrast, we get random rants about DEI on a regular basis that are off-topic 100% of the time. Not once has a DEI comment ever added value to an article; it just ends up being a hassle for me in figuring out where to draw the line on moderation without complaints of bias. So I chose the path of least resistance: no comments at all, so no moderation at all.
Thanks for responding, Tom. I meant to include a sentence saying that I wasn’t questioning your decision, so I apologize if it came off that way. I can understand where you are coming from based on what you’ve shared and it’s ultimately your blog where you get to make these calls. What surprises me is that people can be civil when commenting on posts about accessibility and that things go off the rails when the DEI acronym is used. These topics seem linked or intersecting to me. Like, DEI has a bad brand even though it would include working on accessibility which many folks value.
Agreed, Taylor. Companies are doing away with their “DEI” departments and initiatives because “DEI” has become a front in the culture wars. But companies with executive leadership that believe in core values like diversity and inclusion will continue to reflect those values. They’ll just come up with a new name for it.
While I agree that the GAC was very favourable and I was able to benefit from it I was very aware that the misuse of it was ridiculous and something needed to be done and the initial DAS worked well for our family and seemed fairer. However with the recent change in DAS means I can’t go to the parks any longer. The new system does not take into account people with multiple issues. For example someone using a wheelchair can use the main lines and therefore get a similar experience to non-wheelchair users. Someone with IBS can leave the queue and rejoin at a similar point after they have used the restrooms. However, if you have both conditions you are unable to leave the line in most rides as you have to either try and go back in a wheelchair through the line or wait until you get to a point where you can leave the line where there are staff to help (often not many of these around) this leads to a great deal of embarrassment and often not being able to leave in time.
Purchasing Lightning Lane access would also mitigate the risk of that sort of situation.
You still have to explain your medical condition to the CM because LL can still be long. LL is not a solution, Medical privacy is a solution.
Andy- so I (and others in a similar position) have to purchase Lightening lane in order to be in the same position as other people- how equitable is that?
I personally think that people who need DAS should be able to provide medical evidence- it would certainly be less intrusive than the call system that they currently put people through.
You need to purchase Lightning Lane access to be in the same position as other people who also bought Lightning Lane access, yes.
My thought on this is: Disney has data on this, and they need to use it. Disney should be able to present the mean or median number of rides that guests experience per day (ones who do NOT use a paid service). Let’s say it’s six. Then the DAS would only need to provide access to six rides to create an equivoque experience to what able-bodied folks are doing in the parks.
The clear downside to this is that it could be a PR issue. Imagine Disney saying that the average guest (who doesn’t pay for LLMP/LLSP) only manages 4 or 5 rides per day. I think customers would be kind of pissed to realize that the baseline park experience is such a low number. It’s also information that I’m sure competitors would be eager to know, for either benchmarking of customer experiences or heck, even as marketing ammunition.
The Disney Industrial Engineering team performed an “incremental analysis” study in 2015 and its results were shared during the A.L. case. They were eye-opening, making it very clear why Disney made the GAC -> DAS changes in the first place.
I suspect whatever is revealed here will be similarly shocking (should this case progress to that point), and potentially outcome-determinative.
I beleive that DAS needs to have a better look at what conditions call for DAS. It should not be about Autism guest. My son has many health issues was even a make a wish recipant to disney and last year was denied DAS. All the years I have been vvisiting Disney I have provided his medical papers. I know there are many people that use there weight as DAS and I beleve that is wrong and abusive to the DAS. What Disney needs to do is have guest provide medical proff of there condition. People who have serious conditions are being denied over Autism and that is wrong.
My daughter was able to use DAS (Type 1 diabetes) under the old system. It was nice for her to help with blood sugar levels but we were able to do way more on DAS that we could otherwise. For instance, between the Fast pass and DAS (and good planning) we did many rides twice in a day. I have also been to WDW twice this year and the wait times are way less than during comparable times the previous year (with the old DAS) in place. And it feels like crowd sizes were higher during the times we went this year. So DAS is very much related to wait times for everyone.
My husband has also used a wheel chair (not through DAS) and there was never a problem accessing a ride. So while inconvient for some, the new DAS really is mostly working the way is should. People fail to understand that ADA only requires sufficient accomodation for people to access not have the experience of their choice.
I will be surprised if a lawsuit is effective. Disney is not obligated to give special access. By law, they are only required to follow the ADA. They anre going that plus going above and beyond. Everything else is a perk. Believe me, their lawyers were prepared and knew somebody would find an ambulance chaser to pursue a legal path. And I call them a n ambulance chaser because there are not any laws being broken. This is tough and I completely get it, but nobody is entitled to go to Disney. If this were a hospital, grocery store or a life necessity I could see legal action making a change, but this is not a life necessity. It is a luxury that many cannot afford.
You’re correct, Disney is not a “right”. Speaking from experience though, it was (is?) one of the few truly accessible vacation destinations available. Flying is hard, if not impossible for many with developmental, mental, and physical disabilities. Even if you can get there, most countries, even those with strong public programs are inaccessible simply due to their age. Wheel chairs on cobble stones are rough! Disney billed itself as a vacation destination for everyone, and made it very clear through multiple promotional materials that they meant EVERYONE. To my knowledge, no one was demanding their theme parks become as accessible as they were, they eagerly offered it. To back track now, and say they only ever meant to accommodate those in wheel chairs (to a point) and those with developmental disabilities seems disingenuous. DAS was being abused, and I understand it needed to change. But it’s reductive to say people are upset because they viewed Disney as a “right”. Accommodation was a gift offered by Disney, then taken away with no real alternative for those who depended on it to have a real vacation.
@Megan The alternative is purchasing Lightning Lane access.
Great article. Your thoughts on the primary allegation are very insightful, and obviously Disney will deploy some of the same responses. Less-discussed is the secondary allegation – that people were being pressured to disclose sensitive medical information in non-confidential settings. This hasn’t been tested before, since previous iterations of the program stayed away from medical background.
WDW’s application process is via private video call or in-park tablet, whereas DL’s process is in-person only. I’ve never seen it done (in fact, I can’t remember the last time I went to Guest Relations), but I do find it credible that the WDW tablet calls or DL screenings may not be sufficiently confidential – in the sense that I can’t believe Disney have private rooms available for this purpose.
No, Disneyland’s process is *NOT* in-person only. Both DLR and WDW allow people to apply up to 60 days before their visit via video chat.
The difference is that those applying in person at DLR can speak directly with someone at the ticket booths. Those applying in person at WDW are handed a tablet and go through the same video chat procedure they could have done from home.
Disney needs to work out a better procedure for Return-To-line such as providing the individual leaving with a laminated pass, and having fixed and staffed points of entry/exit. As it is now, they are expecting people with disabilities to thread their way uncomfortably through the length of a narrow line, in a manner that looks suspiciously like line-cutting. As line-cutting, including “rejoining our friend holding a place for us” is rampant and infuriating to guests, they need to work out a better way. The current procedure is also extremely difficult for solo disabled travelers without 2 people along with them – to accompany them as they exit the line and another to hold the place in line for them to return to.
As an architect I deal continuously with accessibility issues. The goal of both the California Building Code and the ADA
are the same: all entrances and primary paths of travel for a public building must be accessible in the same way for both ambulatory and non-ambulatory users. The point is not necessarily to provide special entrances or unique accommodations for those with physical disabilities but to provide equivalent access for everyone. Disney wins in court because it appears they follow the law as it is generally interpreted. (The California code actually has a small section specifically pertaining to amusement park rides.)
Hopefully Disney will “hold the line” here and fight this thing. As you point out, a reasonable accommodation does not have to be perfect. I think DAS already goes above and beyond this level and is, in fact, generous and compassionate. A simple return to queue, even if slightly inconvenient, should be more than enough to cover what the law requires. I am sure Disney will be grateful that the Class Action Fairness Act exists. The plaintiff tried to plead state-law only claims to file this in California state court. CAFA should let Disney remove this to Federal court, where the AL decision will be respected.
I think the one thing that they need to change (and they may have already) was the need to BUY a ticket before you know if you qualify for DAS. It’s a lot of money to go to Disney, not to mention stress, and I understand that aspect of anger from those who had formally received DAS accommodations and with new policies would no longer qualify.
I was about to present an argument here but I think the district court’s opinion pretty much covers the way I feel. Essentially, the narrative that DAS is the only thing Disney has put in place to accommodate a person with disabilities is totally false. And while the idea that those with disabilities should get a better experience than “abled” guests is noble and empathetic, I believe an equal/comparable experience should be the goal/policy. I’m not opposed to DAS; it’s necessary for some, but just needs to be offered judiciously.
I say this as someone who has used DAS under the previous guidelines (not scamming; my family member just didn’t have an autism-like condition). We did get to experience MORE than we would have as fully abled guests. We felt blessed, and nice that the “tables had turned” for once (because most places in the world can, at best, offer a diminished experience to the disabled) but looking back, that wasn’t really fair.
It’s not really fair that I have to tell teenage CMs my entire medical history, but here we are.
To multiple teenagers who have no idea what you’re saying and we’ll come up with random, different and totally incongruent solutions depending on the ride.
We just came back from a week long visit to the parks in Orlando. Thankfully my kiddo was granted a DAS pass as we would not have been able to enjoy the parks had we not been granted one for him. Before calling Disney to see if he qualified, the hubby and I had conversations about whether or not we could still go to Disney if a DAS was not granted for our child. While there, in some instances, even the shorter lightening lane lines were too much for him and we needed to leave and come back later. I feel for guests who need it but can’t access it.
I have to agree with the humiliating part of it. To use the ‘alternative means’ you literally have to explain your medical problems to the CMs at every ride often with tens of people around. Then you have the CM who have no real training in the field deciding if your symptoms are serious enough asking some very invasive questions. Some of these CM are college students who have to make judgments based on medical assessment that they don’t understand. After our last trip we decided that we wouldn’t be returning but I was also sure that a lawsuit was waiting to happen.
Yes, this is it. I shouldn’t have to explain why I need a wheelchair and sometimes need to leave the line to every CM in front of dozens of people at every ride. It’s humiliating and it makes me feel conspicuous when I just want to feel like part of my family.
Even worse, I could hear a discussion with a Vet. She mentioned PTSD, anxiety, etc. She was there only with her child. The accommodation at Slinky (the worst one ever and we skipped it altogether) was to leave her six year old child in line for two hours and for her to rejoin when he was at the front of the line. As you can imagine, she didn’t take it well.
I always think in these scenarios… unintended consequences. Know Americans love to litigate but don’t see Disney wholesale opening up the remit of DAS, more likely it has the opposite effect (within bounds of law).
I agree. There’s a better chance this litigation ends with restricting/eliminating the DAS system than expanding access back to large new groups of disabilities. Seeing the dramatic changes to LL waits in the past 6 months, I am confident Disney will have no trouble convincing a Court that the old system was totally unsustainable.
(I am a litigator who deals with discrimination law and also an ex-DAS user whose specific physical disability is no longer accommodated— but I actually can access rides easier now by paying for short LLs, a year ago I would often end up having to leave them because they were so long)
I think you’ve mentioned in the past that you have a Law degree, articles like this make me really appreciate that. Thank you!
I do, but haven’t practiced law in years, and even when I did, never had a single case pertaining to ADA. My last experience with these types of legal issues was probably something brief in law school–I don’t even remember.
All of that is to say that I have no specialized expertise, which is precisely why I didn’t offer much commentary. Anyone off the street could read the A.L. decision and this complaint, and have insights of equal or better quality than mine.
At the very least you have a better idea of where to look and what to look for. You seem to be good at parsing these things into non-legalese for us!