Disney Sued Over Disability Access Policies at Theme Parks

As a devoted cinephile, I’m sharing some troubling news about Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. They are currently grappling with a significant class action lawsuit, named Malone vs. Disney, concerning contentious modifications to the Disability Access Service (DAS) at Disneyland and Walt Disney World. This legal action alleges that Disney, in conjunction with their contracted medical screening partner, Inspire Health Alliance, are involved in discriminatory practices that breach numerous federal and state disability laws.

Lawsuit Alleges Disney is Violating the ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act

The lawsuit claims that Disney’s updated DAS policies unfairly restrict access to their services by only allowing it to guests with developmental disabilities like autism, while excluding individuals with physical disabilities. The plaintiffs believe this change infringes upon the rights of those with physical disabilities, contravening the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).

The lawsuit alleges that Disney enforces biased and pressuring practices, making guests reveal personal health details in public areas, thereby infringing on their privacy. Additionally, it questions the legitimacy of Disney’s demand that disabled visitors agree to a seemingly misleading and unenforceable class action waiver as a prerequisite for even being considered eligible for DAS accommodations.

The Heart of the Controversy: Restrictive Eligibility Criteria

In 2024, Disney implemented significant modifications to its Disability Access Service (DAS) program, expressing worries about the overuse of this service. Interestingly enough, these changes coincided with the launch of Genie+, Disney’s new paid fastpass system. Previously, fastpass was an included feature in the ticket price for Disney Parks.

The revised rule now restricts who can access DAS primarily to individuals with developmental disabilities such as autism, among others, who find it challenging to stand in a standard queue for an extended duration due to their condition. Earlier, the DAS was open to a more extensive group of disabled individuals, encompassing those with mobility issues, chronic pain conditions, and other physical disabilities that made lengthy queuing uncomfortable or impossible.

The lawsuit contends that this change isn’t just exclusive but also unlawful. This is because businesses, under both the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and Unruh Act, are not allowed to establish eligibility conditions that either explicitly or implicitly exclude individuals with disabilities unless these criteria are essential for delivering the goods, services, facilities, benefits, or accommodations provided.

The plaintiffs argue that Disney’s policy limiting the Disability Access Service (DAS) only to individuals with developmental disabilities is inconsistent and lacks a legal basis.

Alleged Privacy Violations and Public Disclosures of Medical Information

As a fervent supporter, I’d like to highlight an aspect of contention: the method employed by Disney and Inspire Health Alliance for determining DAS eligibility. The parties involved have expressed concern, asserting that disabled visitors were compelled to openly share confidential medical details in the presence of Disney staff and other patrons, thereby breaching HIPAA and CMIA privacy safeguards.

Instead of permitting in-person DAS (Disability Access Service) registration, Disney now insists that Walt Disney World visitors apply via a live video conversation with a cast member. Guests at Disneyland can opt for online registration, but they’re still advised to follow the same procedure. The lawsuit claims these procedures lack privacy protection and pose unnecessary challenges for individuals with disabilities.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim that Inspire Health Alliance’s involvement in the screening process makes the legal scenario more intricate. Acting as a contracted third party gathering and assessing medical data on behalf of Disney, the company is also alleged to have breached state privacy regulations, with charges of mishandling and inappropriately disclosing protected health information.

Disney’s Alternative Accommodations Under Fire

The lawsuit further questions Disney’s assertion that substitutes like Attraction Queue Re-Entry, Rider Switch, or Location Return Time offer equal opportunities for guests denied DAS (Disability Access Service). Instead, the plaintiffs suggest that these alternatives do not effectively cater to many disabled individuals, particularly those with physical disabilities.

For instance:

Attraction Queue Re-Entry (also called Meet-Up in some sections) – The lawsuit describes how this forces guests to leave a queue and return later, which plaintiffs argue creates unnecessary physical strain, logistical complications, and safety risks, especially for guests with mobility impairments.
Rider Switch – The complaint states that requiring disabled guests to wait outside the queue while their party rides does not adequately accommodate individuals who physically cannot endure long waits. It also limits party sizes and can isolate disabled guests from their group.
Location Return Time – The lawsuit criticizes this option for requiring guests to request accommodations in public settings, leading to embarrassment, emotional distress, and an inequitable system that still forces long waits. It also highlights that this is not offered at both Disneyland and California Adventure, creating a disparity in access.

Lawsuit Seeks Class Certification and Major Policy Changes

The lawsuit seeks class certification for various affected groups, including:

Guests who applied for DAS after June 18, 2024, and were required to sign Disney’s terms and conditions.
Guests who disclosed private medical information during the DAS application process in a public setting.
Guests with physical disabilities who were denied DAS under Disney’s new criteria.
Guests with disabilities who were directed to Disney’s alternative accommodations, which allegedly imposed undue hardship and failed to provide equitable access.

1. Compensation as required by law (statutory damages).
2. Payment for the legal costs incurred during this case (legal fees).
3. A court order (injunctive relief) that requires Disney to amend their DAS policies to adhere to disability regulations.

A Sudden Change in Disney’s DAS Policy Wording – A Legal Move

A recent modification in Disney’s Disability Access Service (DAS) policy might be related to the ongoing lawsuit. Earlier, the website specified that DAS was designed exclusively for guests with developmental disabilities like autism or similar conditions who cannot stand in a regular queue for a prolonged duration. However, Disney has now slightly altered the wording of its policy.

Disney has now removed the word “only.”

This apparent minor adjustment might bring significant legal ramifications. Removing “only” from their policy could allow Disney to argue that DAS is not exclusively for individuals with developmental disabilities, possibly as a strategic move to counter the lawsuit’s allegations. Yet, unless Disney alters its eligibility requirements and starts granting DAS to guests with physical disabilities, this modification might be more about improving public perception than genuine inclusivity.

Public Backlash and Advocacy Efforts

The modifications to Disney’s Disability Access Service (DAS) have stirred considerable public disapproval. A coalition called the “DAS Supporters” has been at the forefront of the opposition, organizing demonstrations against the policy alteration and creating an online petition. Notably, this group is not officially linked to the ongoing lawsuit regarding the matter.

Additionally, there’s been a lot of uproar due to instances where guests have been denied Disability Access Service (DAS) under the updated policy. Stories have emerged about terminally ill individuals, cancer patients, and disabled veterans being turned down for accommodations. Some cast members have even suggested that these affected guests should “practice waiting in line at home,” which has only intensified the backlash against Disney’s handling of the situation.

How Universal’s Disability System Compares to Disney’s

Instead of facing strong criticism and legal challenges like DAS, Universal Orlando and Universal Studios Hollywood have opted for a distinct strategy in disability accommodations. They collaborate with an impartial third party, IBCCES (International Board of Credentialing and Continuing Education Standards), to determine guest eligibility for these services.

At Universal, individuals needing disability accommodations are invited to apply via the Accessibility Card (IAC) system by IBCCES. This process offers a discreet and secure means of verifying eligibility without requiring participants to share sensitive medical details publicly, as is the case with Disney’s system that involves live video interviews with cast members. Instead, guests upload medical documents, such as a doctor’s note, for review by IBCCES specialists. If approved, they receive an IAC card which can be presented at Universal’s Guest Relations upon arrival to facilitate their experience.

As per IBCCES, this system is intended to streamline the process at attractions on-site, eliminate awkward discussions about personal needs, and help park staff promptly provide any available accommodations in a seamless manner. In contrast to Disney’s intrusive questioning method, Universal’s approach eliminates the requirement for guests to disclose their disabilities to park employees or defend their accommodations in public settings.

Moreover, it’s important to note that the IAC card doesn’t mandate specific accommodations as each venue decides what it can offer. However, this system does ensure help for disabled guests, avoiding the potentially intrusive and subjective eligibility procedures found at Disney parks. This more confidential and organized method sets a significant distinction between these two prominent theme park companies, with one utilizing a third-party verification system backed by medical records, while the other depends on internal interviews and cast member judgement.

What’s Next for the DAS Lawsuit?

Moving ahead with the court case in Orange County Superior Court, Disney might encounter growing legal challenges to adapt or reverse their recent DAS modifications. Should the plaintiffs successfully demonstrate that Disney’s revised policies infringe upon the ADA, Unruh Act, and CMIA, the company may be compelled to implement significant alterations in its accessibility provisions.

Currently, Disney stands firm on their DAS policies, asserting that the adjustments were made to prevent misuse. Yet, as legal examination intensifies and public discontent persists, the resolution of this lawsuit may shape significantly how amusement parks manage disability services moving forward.

The DAS lawsuit could turn out to be an extended, intricate court case, yet it’s already brought attention to the obstacles faced by disabled visitors when attempting to enjoy theme park rides. It’s uncertain whether Disney will need to alter their approach in response; time will tell.

2025-02-11 18:58