L.J.P. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.
900 F.3d 1270
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Consolidation of 30 suits by families (36 plaintiffs) with severe autism alleging Walt Disney Parks’ Disability Access Service (DAS) fails to accommodate their disabilities in violation of Title III of the ADA.
- Disney’s DAS: a no-physical-line system that (1) grants immediate access to rides with ≤15-minute posted waits, (2) issues “return times” (appointments) for longer waits, (3) allows one DAS return time at a time but unlimited over the day, and (4) supplements FastPass+ and discretionary Re-ad Passes; no medical proof required to obtain a DAS card.
- Plaintiffs’ core claims: many of them cannot comprehend time, cannot defer gratification beyond ~10–15 minutes, and require rides in a fixed order (including repeats); thus they say DAS’s “virtual” waiting is insufficient and request a guaranteed max 10–15 minute wait (or equivalent unlimited FastPass/Re-ad access).
- District court granted summary judgment for Disney, holding plaintiffs failed to show the requested modifications were “necessary” under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); court did not decide reasonableness/fundamental alteration. Disney conceded standing on appeal.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed parts (no intentional/disparate-impact claim recognized), but reversed/vacated summary judgment on the “necessary modification” issue and remanded for factual findings because genuine disputes remain about whether DAS affords a “like experience.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Disney’s uniform DAS is an impermissible blanket policy | DAS is inadequate for severely autistic plaintiffs who need individualized, near-immediate access | DAS’s uniform DAS is a valid across-the-board accommodation given practical constraints and guest volume | DAS issuance of DAS cards to cognitively disabled guests is not per se violative of the ADA (affirmed) |
| Whether requested modifications (guaranteed ≤10–15 minute waits / unlimited FastPass/Re-ad) are “necessary” under § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) | Needed to prevent meltdowns and to provide a like experience because plaintiffs cannot wait or understand virtual waits | DAS already eliminates physical-line waits and provides comparable or better access than nondisabled guests have without individualized special passes | Reversed: genuine disputes of material fact exist about plaintiffs’ inability to wait and insistence on routine; remand for bench trial on necessity (vacated summary judgment) |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded and proved intentional or disparate-impact ADA claims | (Some plaintiffs sought to argue intent/disparate-impact on appeal) | Complaints allege failure to make reasonable modifications; not intentional/disparate-impact claims | Complaints did not state intentional or disparate-impact claims; district court’s dismissal of such claims affirmed |
| Whether the court may resolve reasonableness / fundamental-alteration on appeal | Plaintiffs say district court should decide in first instance on remand | Disney asks affirmance because requested relief would be unreasonable/fundamentally alter park operations (cites prior abuse of older Guest Assistance Card) | Court declined to decide these on appeal; left reasonableness/fundamental alteration for district court on remand because of factual complexity |
Key Cases Cited
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (three-part ADA inquiry: reasonable, necessary, and fundamental alteration; decided on fundamental alteration grounds)
- Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (Title III requires providing disabled guests a "like experience" to nondisabled guests)
- Argenyi v. Creighton Univ., 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2013) (adopts "meaningful access/like experience" standard for necessary modifications)
- Liese v. Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir. 2012) ("necessary" inquiry is fact-intensive and context-dependent under Rehabilitation Act; guiding precedent)
- Silva v. Baptist Health S. Fla., Inc., 856 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2017) (applies Liese; necessity for auxiliary aids is fact-intensive; reversed summary judgment)
- Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (discusses autism’s heterogeneity and need for individualized consideration in educational context)