Disneyland visitor is handicapped with a new, tougher pass
Last July, Treesha Malon, residing in San Diego, applied for a disability exemption in a booth outside the Disneyland Gardens and California Adventure.
The disability access service, or the DAS, which she wanted would have allowed it to avoid waiting for a long time to ride the famous Disney ride.
Malon met with employees representing Disney to meet her request DAS. In this public place, they asked for special medical information from the disabled woman.
After a short exchange, Malon was rejected, because her disability did not fulfill new stricter standards.
This denial was detailed in a 32 -page complaint from the movement brought to Malon against Parks and Walt Disney Resorts along with the Inspire Health Alliance in the Orange County Supreme Court on Monday.
Malon’s complaint claims that Disney violated the secrecy and invaded its specificity, and the Civil Transport Law in UNRUH and many civil rights blogs in California ended.
The woman’s lawyer claims that the new DAS Pass “illegally excludes individuals with other disabilities.” The complaint did not provide any details about the plaintiff’s disability.
She asks Disney to return to a less restricted version of the DAS Pass app. It is also looking for legal damage, response, and lawyer costs.
Her lawyers did not respond to a phone call asking to comment.
A Disney spokesman, who asked not to be called, said the park is striving to provide a great experience for its disabled visitors.
The spokesman said: “Disney offers a wide range of effective residence for disability, and I have worked widely with experts to ensure that our individual guests’ needs are correctly identical to the residence they need, and we believe that the claims in this complaint are not worth.”
Pass Disney’s Das Pass is not a license to wait. Instead, it provides a passenger passenger holder to attract, as they will be placed in line with those who have paid for secret arrival or Lightning Lane.
In April, Disney announced that it changed DAS qualifications. I noticed the new formulation The DAS program, which was the most popular in the garden, was “aimed at absorbing these guests who, due to disability such as autism or the like, were unable to wait on a traditional waiting list for a long period of time.”
Changes came into effect on May 20 in Disney World and June 18 in Disneyland.
Old standards It was much widerFor guests, “who are having difficulty tolerance while waiting for a traditional waiting list due to disability.”
Disney said that the result of that language, the use of the program has doubled three times between 2019 and 2024.
However, these ancient criteria required by Malon.
Malone sued on behalf of many unveiled customers, denied the DAS pass since June 18. Inspire Health Alliance, which submitted the lawsuit for nurses who collaborated with Disney employees to determine Wordines.
Malon’s lawyers argue in the complaint that the claim of guests to undergo an examination process with eligibility standards that are not affected by individuals with physical disabilities contradicts the UNRUH Law in California and the law of Americans with disabilities, or ADA.
UNRUH discrimination By California based on age, assets, color, disability, national origin and a variety of other factors.
In the previous interviews, Disney maintained the times she provided Many accommodations for their disabled guests.
This includes a sign of sensory experience to refer to any parts of the garden with noisy noise, darkness and beating, which is rapid horseback riding and raised from the ground. Disney also offers translators of sign language, wheelchairs, steam bike rental, portable and video assisting designation on some tours, dialogue and text programs on others.
As for waiting, Disney provides the “return to the waiting list”, which allows the party to keep a place in a queue for the guest with a disability. There are some other similar options, including the residence of the “site return time” provided to those on the two seat chairs.
Malon’s lawyers said this residency “failed to provide fair access and impose unjustified burdens, logistical challenges, emotional risks and safety risks.”