13 Reasons Why You Should Feel Safe Going Back To Amusement Parks This Summer

We’re in a strange time and, while I’ve been away from writing for quite some time, I think circumstances warrant a brief revival of the blog.  Is this my last article?  Probably not.  But maybe.  We’ll see how things go over the next few months.  The reason I’m back is because I've been recently asked by a friend to explain why it will be safe for her to go back to her local amusement park - something that I know raises a lot of eyebrows in the current environment. I thought this might be a question that others are interested in so ... here goes. 

For background (for those that don't know what I do these days), I am still a lawyer as I’ve been for the last 15 years, but I’m also a consultant to the theme park industry specializing in operations. As many of you know, I've been involved in ride operations in one form or another for 27 years.  Through our company, International Ride Training LLC, my partners, the amazing duo of Cindee Huddy and Patty Beazley, and I advise amusement parks around the globe on the best way to manage people and, in particular, run rides. We don't do anything with maintenance, foods, games, or retail. We know rides and, more generally, operations - and hopefully without sounding too arrogant - we are pretty good at what we do. 

Since this whole thing began, we have done pretty much nothing except help the amusement industry get ready to reopen in a manner that is safe from both a traditional ride safety perspective and from a public health perspective. So I know – very, very well - what is being done behind the scenes to make sure that it is safe for you to come to the park this summer.  Our industry is, however, an unfamiliar one to most people who see only the end result in the park but have no idea what it takes to actually operate on a daily basis.  Because of this, many in government and in the general public instinctively believe that an amusement park, water park, or family entertainment center cannot open in a COVID-19 world.  In short, those people are wrong and are operating from a lack of understanding about what parks can and will do to limit exposure.  So I thought I would share those things with you so you have some better idea of what to expect when/if you return to the park this summer.  I should also add that I work with parks all over the world, so I'm not speaking for any one particular park specifically. While every park may do things slightly differently to get ready to welcome you this year, in general, you can expect to see some or all of these precautions the next time you visit a park this summer.

Is The Industry Overreacting to AT&T’s Carnival Commercial?

Recently, an AT&T commercial has caused quite a stir in the amusement industry.  The commercial, which I’ve embedded below, depicts a carnival operator loading guests into a scrambler-type ride.  The guest’s ask the operator whether the ride is safe and what will happen if something “bad” happens during the ride.  The operator’s answers –  “I assembled it myself last night … think I did an OK job,” and “We just move to the next town,” indicate an obviously apathetic attitude toward guest safety.  The tag line for this commercial – “just OK is not OK” – is given as the guest’s let themselves out of the ride.  This commercial is the latest in a string of ads for AT&T that poke fun at a number of industries and professions – doctors, car mechanics, tattoo artists – all to drive home the point that consumers should expect better than just “OK” and, of course, AT&T provides just that “better than OK” experience for its customers.  Check it out for yourself:

This ad has really rankled a large segment of the amusement industry.  Both the Outdoor Amusement Business Association and the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions have issued formal letters to AT&T protesting the ad's depiction of amusement ride safety and demanding the discontinuance of this commercial.  At least one carnival owner has posted a video protesting the commercial.  The tenor of these, and other, objections essentially boils down to the fact that the commercial portrays a carnival ride operator in ways that do not accurately represent safety in our industry.

On the other hand, there are those in the industry who argue that expressed outrage is misplaced. These folks argue that the commercial is obviously satirical, just like the similar ads targeting other professions, and that we, as an industry, should be able to take the joke.  Matt Heller and Josh Liebman even devoted an entire episode of their AttractionPros podcast to a detailed discussion of this issue after which, SPOILER ALERT, they both concluded that the commercial should not be pulled from the airwaves.  

So who is right?  Is the industry’s outrage over this commercial justified or are we being too sensitive about an obvious attempt at advertising humor?   I’ve really been thinking this over and, while I don’t think we should necessarily demand that the ad be withdrawn entirely, I do think that this ad is qualitatively different than the ads that came before it in a way that AT&T should consider as it rolls out additional spots in this ad campaign.

At the outset, I think it is worth noting what is actually GOOD about this ad.  The overall message, that “just OK is not OK" when it comes to ride safety should be viewed as a positive.  In fact, by total coincidence, a few weeks before this ad debuted, I actually used the AT&T car mechanic “just OK is not OK” commercial to kick off a class I was teaching at the iROC Ride Camp.  The point of the class was that ride operators certified under the International Ride Operator Certification program cannot be “just OK.”  And, to that extent, I think the message of the AT&T carnival commercial – and its predecessors – is spot on.

But there is a difference between this ad and the others that came before it.  Prior ads focused on professions about which the stereotype, to the extent there is one, is generally positive or, at least, neutral. Doctors are well trained and instill confidence.  A car mechanic actually knows how to fix brakes well.  Tattoo artists are just that – artists – who take pride in their creative expression.  The portrayal of a doctor proclaiming his uncertainty about performing surgery right after being reinstated, or a car mechanic who espouses the saying “If the brakes don’t stop you, something will,” or the tattoo artist who openly recognizes his mediocre skill, thus works against the public stereotype of these professions.  The humor comes from the fact that the person featured in the ad is the polar opposite of what anyone generally expects to encounter in those scenarios.  The contrast between the positive stereotype and the obviously substandard individual portrayed in the commercial drives home the point that, as consumers, we cannot accept “just OK.”  

But the AT&T carnival commercial is different because rather than contrasting a substandard example against a positive societal stereotype, the commercial feeds into a negative stereotype and furthers it. I’ve written, years ago, about the stereotype that our industry is full of “carnies” that are “toothless, uneducated, and frequently intoxicated ‘rednecks’ who have no concern for the safety of our guests.”  This stereotype is particularly strong when it comes to mobile operators.  Notwithstanding the fact that the mobile operators I know are uniformly dedicated to guest safety just as much as their fixed-site counterparts, the public stereotype is that these rides are not as safe and their operators are not as attentive. This commercial thus establishes its message not by contrasting reality with a ridiculous example of the opposite, but by capitalizing on an existing negative stereotype that our industry has worked hard, for decades, to overcome.  The message is not, “most doctors are of a very high caliber and thus you would never accept this example of a substandard doctor.”  Instead, it is, “this is what carnival ride operators are and you should demand better.”  That is what distinguishes the AT&T carnival commercial from its predecessors and that is why, to an extent, the industry has a legitimate gripe about the message this commercial sends.  

Even still, I have to agree with Matt and Josh (and others) that I don’t think the ad should be discontinued.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  First, I tend to think that the distinction I’m making here, while true, is one that is missed by the vast majority of the viewing public.  Most people will see this commercial as just another “Just OK is not OK” commercial without any positive or negative consideration of stereotype being reinforced.  Some may even see the positive message discussed above – that ride safety is serious business and no one would ever accept this kind of apathy toward it.  Second, I think that too much public protestation over this ad risks the industry appearing defensive about ride safety when we have no basis for such defensiveness.  As we all know, the industry is extraordinarily safe largely because of, not in spite of, the operators we employ.  The vast majority of our operators are responsible, well-trained, attentive, and truly care about our guest’s experience.  The numbers prove it.  The more we vociferously demand the removal of this ad, the more we risk unintentionally sending a message that it might have hit too close to home.  This is not to say that IAAPA or OABA should not have protested – they absolutely should have come to the defense of their members.  That is precisely why trade associations exist.  I just think continued protestations, beyond what is already out there, might actually undermine our message - a message we have every right to be extremely proud of.   

Innovate and Improve Through One Simple Change In How You Ask Legal Questions

As I write this, I’m sitting in the United Club at Orlando International Airport (a perk of the constant travel I seem to do) and am reflecting back on a truly fantastic week at the IAAPA Expo 2018.  This year, for the first time, International Ride Training exhibited and had a booth in the Exploration Station – to the left of the ninjas and across from the dinosaur (you have GOT to love this industry).  The booth was a monumental success as it gave us the opportunity to meet with countless clients, potential clients, and new friends just discovering us for the first time.  I was also privileged to be a featured speaker for two seminars on the Americans With Disabilities Act and to actively participate in other sessions and meetings. In short, I met A LOT of people and, being a lawyer, got a lot of questions about compliance and best practices, whether it be with respect to the ADA or ride operations safety or business issues.  Most often, these questions started with a familiar clause:  “Do I have to ….”  Now, in reflecting back on these conversations, I’m wondering if that’s not exactly the right question.  Maybe the better question is “How do I ….” Or “What’s the most reasonable way to ….”  What’s the difference?  Read on, friends.  

The Eleventh Circuit Ruling That Calls Autism Policies Across The Industry Into Question

Well, it has now been just over two years since my last entry on The Legal Roller Coaster.  Much has happened since then, and I’ll tell you about a lot of it very soon, but suffice it to say that it has never been my intention that The Legal Roller Coaster would be shelved permanently.  A brief (or not so brief, depending on your perspective) hiatus was, however, required.  Nonetheless, I’m pleased to say that I’m back and that there will be some changes (for the better) coming soon.  But in the meantime, a new long-awaited decision has been issued that makes now the best time in two years to return to the blogosphere. 

In mid-August, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..  A copy of the decision can be found here in case you are interested in reading it.  I wrote about this case before on a number of occasions (and I encourage you to read at least this piece before you read the rest of this one as it contains a much more fulsome explanation of the lower court ruling than I’m going to provide here), and I’ve been waiting for quite some time for the Court of Appeals’ ruling.  And now, having read it, I regret that I’m not sure its much help to the industry.  Why?  Let’s get into it.

A Safer Ride? (Pt. 3) - Is State Amusement Regulation The Problem?

            The amusement season is quickly winding down as daily operation (for seasonal parks) comes to a close and schools go back into session.  Like schools, legislatures around the country will also be heading into session shortly and, given the tragic and unfortunate incidents in the amusement industry recently, it is likely that at least some of these – maybe even at the federal level – will consider new regulation of the industry.  As I’ve detailed before in my last two pieces, the siren song of federal regulation is almost impossible to ignore in the wake of an amusement ride-related death or serious injury.  But the only real reason to look seriously at replacing the current system with a new federal oversight program is if the states' regulatory programs are not working.  So, for my final piece in this series I thought it would make sense to look at the evidence, or lack thereof, that state regulation is failing. 

A Safer Ride? (Pt. 2) - What Would Federal Amusement Ride Regulation Cost & Do Regulators Even Want It?

            The question of federal oversight of amusement ride safety is one that comes up every summer in the wake of an unfortunate, sometimes tragic, incident in the industry.  But while many in politics and the media are quick to speak out in favor of federal ride safety oversight, this rhetoric is typically devoid of any detail.  What would a federal ride safety program look like?  What would it cost?  And does the agency that would be charged with administering it share the view that it would be a good idea?  In my last post, I made my case for why I just do not see the federal government being any better (and perhaps it would be worse) than the states when it comes to ride safety oversight.  But even setting that aside, it is important to think about the details here and consider whether this program might be not enough bang and too much buck. 

A Safer Ride? (Pt. 1): Is The Federal Government A Better Regulator Than The States?

To state the obvious (and to understate the matter significantly), this has been an extremely bad week in the amusement industry. The week began with news of the death of 10-year old Caleb Schwab at Schlitterbahn waterpark in Kansas City, Kansas.  Just days later, news broke of an accident at a carnival in Tennessee involving a Ferris wheel and resulting in injury and hospitalization to three guests.  And the week ended with news that a three-year old was thrown from a roller coaster at Idlewild amusement park in Pennsylvania.  As the public has learned more about these incidents, and especially the reportedly gruesome nature of Caleb’s death, the outcry for answers has been immediate and unmistakable.  The media, in particular, has repeatedly focused on the so-called “patchwork” of state regulations in the amusement industry and, more specifically, the fact that there is no federal regulatory body overseeing ride safety in the United States.  

None of these criticisms are particularly new – indeed they arise whenever a tragedy strikes our industry.  But this time, faced with the unbearably tragic death of a young boy at a family-friendly waterpark, these criticisms seem to have gained more traction in the public consciousness.  It is simply impossible to look at a picture of Caleb Schwab and to not feel the greatest empathy for his family and to not want to make changes to ensure that no other family has to ever go through this again.  It is easy to argue, as Jake Tapper recently did on CNN, that the system failed Caleb, and that the answer is federal oversight. 

But, even after this week, one of the worst I can remember in the nearly 25 years I’ve been involved in the industry, I still maintain that federal ride safety regulation is not the answer.  And I think it’s time, after all these years writing this blog, that I explain exactly why I feel that way.  As I’ve done with other important issues in the industry, I’m going to look at this in three parts:  In this piece, I’m going to look at the question of whether the federal government is somehow inherently “better” than the states at regulating.  The next piece will look at what a potential federal ride safety program might actually look like and, critically, how much it might cost U.S. taxpayers.  The third will look at the question of whether there is any actual evidence that state regulation is not working.  The media has made their case.  It’s time for me to make mine.

Interaction Reaction: The Impact of Interactivity On An Amusement Operator's Liability Exposure

A few days ago, I read an interesting article on LinkedIn about the

rise of interactivity in the attractions industry and something it said got my lawyer-brain thinking.  Here’s what it was:

Interactivity doesn’t stop with great-looking, immersive technology.  There is a still a need for pure physical interaction. 

“Pure physical interaction.”  As a fan of amusements, that phrase puts a grin on my face and starts the adrenaline pumping.  As a former operator, that phrase equals “repeat business” and additional revenue - something that the article emphasized.  But as a lawyer, that phrase made me pause for a minute and think about whether the rising popularity of interactivity could change the liability calculus for owners and operators of these attractions.  I thought that question deserved a closer look.

Disney's Autism Policy Passes ADA Muster - But What Does That Mean For The Rest Of The Industry?

Does the ADA require immediate, on-demand boarding for guests with cognitive disabilities such as autism?  It is among the questions most frequently asked of me and one for which there has been no judicial guidance … until now.  Late last week, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a first-of-its-kind ruling on the issue in a case called A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.  In the decision, Judge Anne Conway ruled in Disney’s favor essentially finding that immediate, on-demand boarding was not “necessary,” as that term is used in the ADA, and thus that Disney was not obligated to provide it to autistic guests.  While there may be a couple of small areas in the court’s analysis that some could quibble with, on the whole the decision is well-reasoned, reasonable, and practical.  But what does it mean in the broader context?  What affect, if any, will this case have on future cases in the industry?  Those are the questions that I think warrant a little discussion – and thus have drawn me back to blogging after an extended absence (which I hope you can all forgive).

IAAPA’s First Virtual Advocacy Day Is Here! And We Need Your Support!

This week, IAAPA’s North American Government Relations Subcomittee will be on Capitol Hill for its annual Advocacy Day (the name is actually something of a misnomer, since it actually takes place over two days).  On Tuesday and Wednesday, March 24-25, twenty-three members of the committee (including me) as well as invited guests from other IAAPA committees and members of the industry, will be meeting with elected officials in the House and Senate, their staffs, the Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and other government officials to communicate the industry’s interests to those that shape federal policy.  In all, we have scheduled thirty-six legislative meetings, including meetings with seventeen members of Congress, in only two days. 

This year, IAAPA’s Government Relations Department, as well as the North American Government Relations Subcommittee, is asking for your help to make Advocacy Day 2015 an even bigger success than it usually is.  In addition to our physical presence on the Hill this week, we are asking you to take part in the first-ever Virtual Advocacy Day!  What’s that, you ask?  Well, while we are meeting face-to-face with members of Congress and other policy-makers in Washington, we want you to take to social media with the hashtag “#IAAPAVAD” to amplify the messages that Advocacy Day attendees are bringing to DC.  Tweet your Senators!  Tweet your Representatives!  Tweet the CPSC, the State Department, the Transportation Department, the FAA!  Show them that you care about the industry and the issues that affect it. 

So, what are the issues that we will be addressing over the next few days and how can you help?  Well, keep reading to find out more about our priority issues and how you can contact your representatives and policy makers.  

Do Height Requirements On Rides Violate The ADA?

A couple of weeks ago, I had the privilege of spending a couple days with a highly talented group of amusement professionals at the iROC Safety School in Las Vegas.  This is the second year that I have been invited to speak at the event, and it is quickly becoming a highlight of the year.  The topic of both this year’s and last year’s presentations was the Americans With Disabilities Act which, as faithful readers of this blog know, is a particular passion of mine.  After a 90 minute seminar on ride access last year, much of the Q&A session revolved around the issue of autism which, coupled with the filing of the lawsuit against Disney, prompted me to take a closer look at the issue in the “Here & Now” series.  This year, I came to iROC ready to go on the issue of autism, but interestingly a new issue reared its head that I hadn’t thought a whole lot about before: The question of height requirements and, specifically, whether enforcing a height requirement against a guest with a disability violates the ADA.  So, as with the autism issue last year, I thought this deserved a little more thought and some attention here. 

Six Flags Just Earned A Win In An ADA Case - And No One Seems To Have Noticed

Forest or Trees?

Last week, as I was toiling away on a big case I’m working on, my email inbox blew up with news of an ADA case out of a federal court in New Jersey involving Six Flags Great Adventure.  As many of you know, I usually pay close attention to such things, and the news I was hearing was uniformly bad:  “Six Flags lost another ADA decision,” some told me.  “The judge in New Jersey got it dead wrong, just like the judge in Texas,” said others.  “These judges are starting a war between parks and manufacturers,” someone else suggested.  The newspaper headlines seemed to uniformly focus on the “victory” for the disabled plaintiff.  Unfortunately, it took me a few days to get around to actually reading the decision, and guess what?  Much to my surprise, I disagree with much of the reaction I had encountered.  In fact, while it is not a home run for Six Flags, there is much in the decision that is extremely good for the industry in terms of ADA compliance.  Yes, at the end of the day Six Flags lost this particular ruling, but focusing on that is a mistake as it overlooks two very positive aspects of this ruling for the industry, and the strong chance I believe Six Flags will have to win this case should it go to trial.  

IAAPA Is Over, So What's Next? How Does A Couple Of Days In New Orleans In February Sound?

IAAPA 2014 in Orlando was a huge success!   From talking to my clients and peers that were there, I think all agree that the quality of the educational sessions and networking opportunities was, as usual, consistently fantastic.  But what now?  Well I have a suggestion.  How about a trip to New Orleans in the dead of winter?  Sound good?
 
Recently, the American Conference Institute reached out to me about being a media partner for an upcoming, and first of its kind, conference on Recreation, Leisure, and Amusement Park Compliance and Litigation.  Now, over the years, I've had a few whispers from various people about setting something like this up, but nothing that has either been backed by someone like ACI, who has A LOT of experience with quality business conferences on a variety of topics, or that I thought would be of interest to a broad swath of the industry.  Well, that's all about to change.

On a Roll: Cedar Fair Wins A Major Victory For The Industry In The Missouri Supreme Court

Cedar Fair has done it again.  In 2011, Cedar Fair came out on the losing end of a surprising California Court of Appeals decision, Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., a case that stunningly held that guests riding a bumper car ride do not assume the risk of injury caused when the cars bump.  In 2013, the California Supreme Court reversed that decision in a decision that represented a major victory for the entire industry.  In November 2013, Cedar Fair again suffered defeat in a case called Chavez v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (“Chavez I”), this time in the Missouri Court of Appeals.  That case broadly expanded the standard of care applied in negligence cases against amusement parks, likening their operation of amusement rides to the operation of airplanes, explosives or firearms.  I strongly criticized the Chavez I decision as not only bad in result, but bad in the flawed reasoning required to reach that result.  Well, the Missouri Supreme Court seems to have agreed (although I won’t go so far as to surmise that any of the justices read this blog necessarily).  In a decision issued on November 12 called Chavez v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (“Chavez II”), the highest court in Missouri not only overruled the Court of Appeals ruling in Chavez I, but also took the remarkable step of undoing more than sixty years of case law defining the negligence standards applied to amusement parks in Missouri.  Whereas, before Chavez II, it could safely be said that some, not all, amusement operators would be held to a heightened degree of “utmost care” in preventing injuries to their guests, after Chavez II, the law in Missouri is the more appropriate “ordinary care” standard in every amusement case.  This is a big win for the industry.  And once again, we have Cedar Fair to thank for it.

Why Six Flags' Loss In A Recent ADA Decision Might Ultimately Be Good For The Amusement Industry As A Whole

Over the last couple of years, I have told you about a very important case in our industry called Castelan v. Universal Studios.  Castelan was the first decision of its kind to shed some light on the standards applicable to amusement rides under the Americans With Disabilities Act.  I won’t re-hash what I said about the Castelan case again (you can click here and here to read my coverage of that case), but suffice it to say that a big takeaway from Castelan was its holding that, in states that required operators to follow ride manufacturer recommendations, the Americans With Disabilities Act allowed amusement ride owners and operators to use a ride manufacturer’s accessibility restrictions as, in effect, a proxy for proof that allowing disabled guests to ride created an “actual risk” of injury to that guest that satisfied the “legitimate safety requirements” exception to the ADA.   (If you didn’t understand that sentence, I highly recommend reading this for some clarification.)  Well, a federal court in Texas has recently weighed in on the issue and has reached a very different result – ruling against Six Flags Over Texas in a nearly identical case to Castelan and, in fact, rejecting much of the Castelan decision in the process.  The decision is certainly a bad result for Six Flags in that case, but is it a bad decision for the industry as a whole?  Many will undoubtedly say it is.  I don’t necessarily agree. 

Here & Now (Pt. 3): Isn't Standing In Line An Essential Rule Of The Park .. Even For Autistic Guests?

Click here to read Here & Now (Prologue): The Question of Autism In Amusement Parks Under the ADA
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 1): Is Immediate Ride Boarding For Autistic Guests Really Necessary? 
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 2): Is Immediate, On-Demand Ride Access For Autistic Guests Reasonable?

What does this ...

have to do with this?

A recent lawsuit brought against the Walt Disney Company has brought into the public spotlight an issue that the amusement industry has struggled with for years:  what accommodations are legally required for autistic guests and other guests with cognitive disabilities that cannot wait in line.  Last year, Disney’s parks (along with several others, including the Cedar Fair parks) instituted a policy that dramatically changed the procedure for these guests.  Rather than being granted on-demand, immediate boarding privileges upon arrival at a ride (as had been the practice for years), guests at these parks must now check-in, either at the ride or at a guest relations location (depending on the park), and make an appointment to return, at which time the guest and his party will be immediately boarded.  The appointment time corresponds to the length of the line.  So is this procedure acceptable under the Americans With Disabilities Act?  The plaintiffs in the recent Disney lawsuit say it is not – that immediate, on-demand boarding is a required accommodation under the law.  But is it?   

The first two pieces of this series have looked at the questions of whether immediate, on-demand boarding on amusement rides is necessary (giventhat front-of-the-line access does not seem to be requested in any other publicaccommodation) and / or reasonable (given prior case law in the cruise shipcontext finding it is not).  I’m ending this series by considering the third element of an ADA claim of this sort:  Does allowing on-demand, immediate boarding “fundamentally alter the nature of” the amusement park experience?  I believe it does – in dramatic fashion.

Here & Now (Pt. 2): Is Immediate, On-Demand Ride Access For Autistic Guests Reasonable?

Click here for Here & Now (Prologue): The Question Of Autism In Amusement Parks Under The ADA
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 1): Is Immediate Ride Boarding For Autistic Guests Really Necessary?
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 3):  Isn't Standing In Line An Essential Rule Of The Park ... Even For Autistic Guests?

A recent lawsuit filed against the Walt Disney Company has put before a Federal Court in California the question of whether amusement parks have a legal obligation under the ADA to allow autistic guests to skip the line and board rides immediately upon arrival.  It’s a question that the industry has struggled with for years without much guidance in the legal literature.  This series is taking a closer look at that question.  Last time, I looked at the question of whether it was “necessary,” in ADA parlance, for anautistic guest to have immediate boarding privileges.  Today, I’m tackling what I believe to be the central question raised in the Walt Disney lawsuit:  Is it reasonable to allow guests with disabilities to have on-demand, immediate boarding on amusement rides?  Put another way, is it reasonable to provide guests with disabilities with an appointment time at which immediate boarding will be granted?

As I mentioned in the first piece in this series, public accommodations, like amusement parks, are only required to make “reasonable modifications” under the Americans With  Disabilities Act.  But what does "reasonable" mean in the context of an amusement park? 

Here & Now (Pt. 1): Is Immediate Ride Boarding For Autistic Guests Really Necessary?

Click here to read Here & Now (Prologue): The Question of Autism In Amusement Parks Under the ADA
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 2): Is Immediate, On-Demand Ride Access For Autistic Guests Reasonable?
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 3):  Isn't Standing In Line An Essential Rule Of The Park ... Even For Autistic Guests?

Is it really necessary for autistic guests to have immediate access to rides?  It’s a question that really has two meanings depending upon your point of view.   From a lay-person’s perspective, the question of necessity is a loaded one, potentially involving overtones of insensitivity or intolerance.  To even question necessity is itself socially taboo.  After all, who are we, as guests without disabilities and their consequent life challenges, to question whether an autistic person or his family really “needs” something that will, regardless of literal necessity, make lives easier and a day in the park more pleasant?  Given the challenges inherent in being the parent of an autistic child, who would be so callous as to deny, or even question, an additional convenience during a day in the park?

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

Click here to read Here & Now (Pt. 1): Is Immediate Ride Boarding For Autistic Guests Really Necessary?
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 2): Is Immediate, On-Demand Ride Access For Autistic Guests Reasonable?
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 3):  Isn't Standing In Line An Essential Rule Of The Park ... Even For Autistic Guests?

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.

The SeaWorld / OSHA Ruling: How It Happened & What It Means (UPDATED 4/14/14)

SeaWorld’s killer whale trainers are out of the water, at least for performance purposes, seemingly for good.  So says the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in SeaWorld of Florida, LLC (see update below) v. Perez – the SeaWorld OSHA appeal that I have written about previously and that featured prominently in Blackfish.  As you may recall, following the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau at SeaWorld Orlando, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (“OSHA”) investigated and issued citations requiring, as relevant to this case, that SeaWorld immediately stop allowing its trainers into the water with orcas during performances.  Pursuant to OSHA’s ruling, SeaWorld’s trainers could only interact with the whales during performances if separated by a physical barrier that would, in effect, prevent a whale from dragging a trainer into the pool as had occurred with Ms. Brancheau.

(more after the jump)