About Me

My photo
I am a consultant and general counsel to International Ride Training LLC as well as a practicing attorney in Avon, Connecticut. A particular focus of mine is the legal needs of the amusement and tourism industry. My focus on the amusement industry derives from my pre-law career as an operations manager with Cedar Fair Entertainment Company and Universal Orlando. Having started my career as a ride operator at Cedar Point in 1992, I progressed through the seasonal ranks and ultimately became the Manager of Ride Operations and Park Services at Worlds of Fun in Kansas City. I also worked in Universal's operations department during the construction and development of Islands of Adventure. Today, I am an active member of the New England Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions and the International Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions. I have been invited to speak at amusement industry meetings and seminars and have worked on a variety of matters relating to this industry.

Legal Disclaimer (because, you know, I'm a lawyer)

This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice (or any legal advice). By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher and / or author nor can such a relationship be created by use of his Blog / Web Site. By using thisBlog / Web Site you understand that any statement on the blog site are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of Wiggin and Dana LLP or International Ride Training LLC. By using this blog site you understand that the Blog/Web Site is not affiliated with or approved by Wiggin and Dana LLP or International Ride Training LLC. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state or jurisdiction. This blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Regardless, the hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Here & Now (Prologue): The Question Of Autism In Amusement Parks Under The ADA

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the issue of autistic guests and, more specifically, what services must be extended to autistic guests under the Americans With Disability Act, is one of the hottest topics in the amusement industry today.  To illustrate, I spoke about the Americans With Disabilities Act at an amusement industry event in Las Vegas in February and, while my comments were not directed at the legal requirements surrounding autism specifically, virtually all the questions from the attendees were.  I spent a good portion of two days talking, in one way or another, about one repeated question:  Does an amusement park have a legal obligation to allow autistic guests (and, by extension, their families) immediate boarding on rides?  It’s a question with very little answer in the existing law.  

Well, that may be changing.  As many of you undoubtedly know, a recent lawsuit against Disney called A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US,Inc., has put this question directly to a federal court in California.  It’s a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against an amusement park operator with the know-how and resources to litigate this issue to a ruling.  It’s a case the entire amusement industry needs to watch, and an issue that is very worthy of some discussion – particularly as we approach summer and the height of the amusement industry’s operating season.

Now, before I go further and before I am accused of insensitivity to the autistic community, there is a critically important point to make.  There is a difference between legal requirements on the one hand and guest service on the other.  I am concerned only with the former.  That is to say, whether a park may choose to extend immediate boarding privileges to disabled guests, and more specifically autistic guests, in the interest of providing a service is not the question at hand.  There is obviously no legal impediment to such an offering. But that’s an entirely different question from whether the ADA legally requires amusement operators to allow autistic guests to skip  lines.  And that is the only question that concerns me for the time being.    

 Nor is this piece going to pick apart the specifics of the access policy at issue in the Walt Disney case.  I’ve already done that in a prior piece.  For now, it’s enough to know the following:

1.  Before October 2013, Disney had a system at its theme parks that allowed guests with disabilities to bypass the line and board rides immediately.  For obvious reasons, this was a very popular program.
2.  Starting in October 2013, Disney changed its policy to, as relevant here, require guests who, due to a disability, cannot wait in line to obtain an “appointment” for a ride.  The appointment time corresponded to the length of the line.  The upshot here being that, even if a guest cannot wait in the line, that guest must nonetheless wait before being allowed to ride.  Guests cannot “stack” ride appointments either, so it is generally not possible to set up back-to-back appointments such that a disabled guest waits for the first ride of the day, but none thereafter. 
3.  Guests who do not believe that Disney’s policy adequately addresses their particular needs may discuss the matter with Guest Relations to determine if another reasonable accommodation can be made. 
The Complaint filed in the Disney action, all 176 pages of it, alleges a litany of issues with the new program, including inconsistent enforcement and service issues at Guest Relations, insensitive employee communication with disabled guests, and claims that the policy inflicts emotional distress on parents faced with a “meltdown” (the exact word used in the complaint, repeatedly) by their autistic children.  It even goes so far as to allege that the policy is the result of an intentional effort to keep autistic children out of Disney parks so as not to impair the “Disney Magic” for other guests.  While, uhhhh, interesting, I’m not going to get into these issues too much here because, at bottom, what the plaintiffs in the Disney case want is immediate boarding on rides.  That’s the million dollar issue.

So let’s get into it:  Does the ADA require parks to give immediate boarding access to autistic guests?  This is a complicated issue that raises, to my mind, three questions:

1.  Is immediate boarding necessary, in the legal sense, for autistic guests at amusement parks?  While what little case law exists seems to largely gloss over this question, probably due to a concern about appearing insensitive, I think it is a legitimate question to ask in light of the unique place the amusement industry appears to have with respect to autistic guests and waiting? 

2.  Is an appointment system, as opposed to immediate boarding, unreasonable with respect to autistic guests?  This is the central focus of the Disney complaint and the one that the Court will have to struggle with.  Luckily, in the cruise ship context, one court already has.

3.  Doesn’t eliminating lines fundamentally alter the services an amusement park provides to its guests?  Put another way, isn’t waiting in line an integral part of the amusement park experience (albeit not one that most people enjoy) such that eliminating it results in a wholly different guest experience? 

Because each of these questions raises interesting and important issues in their own right, I’m going to take a page from my recent Blackfish / White Lies series and proceed in multiple parts – one devoted to each of these questions.  So…for now, I leave you with a (hopefully) whetted appetite.  


  1. Can't wait!! We deal with this all the time with Section 504 accommodations etc. in education. It will be interesting to see how the amusement industry will have to deal with this issue and what your "take" is on this.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. Click Here

  6. An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing a little analysis on this. And he in fact bought me breakfast because I found it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love reading more on this topic.
    popcorn time download

  7. I like this post,And I guess that they having fun to read this post,they shall take a good site to make a information,thanks for sharing it to me. gpwlaw-wv.com/

  8. I’ll grade this blog as an A and it shows how much effort has been put into this.
    collections harassment

  9. In the face of global economic challenges coupled with the increasing loss of American jobs why would a U.S. law firm want to even consider legal outsourcing? Are there valid reasons why targeted legal outsourcing should be considered by every U.S. law firm?Brian Holm Attorney San Diego

  10. Law firm promoting do sites and all the more publicizing system of core values that are joined into the specialized data with our profound learning of business affirmed. go here


Please Note: If you are using Firefox or Internet Explorer, you may encounter difficulty posting comments unless you have 3rd Party Cookies enabled. If you cannot post comments, please enable 3rd Party Cookies and try again. If that does not work, please let me know at erikhbeard@gmail.com.