On November 9, 2007, three named plaintiffs with mobility impairments limiting their ability to walk filed this class action against Walt Disney World. They requested certification of a class of individuals who 1) suffered from a mobility disability, 2) relied upon a Segway PT for assistance with their mobility, and 3) had visited or intended to visit a Disney theme park. They brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging that Disney’s policy against allowing Segway PT two-wheeled, self-balancing vehicles into the Disney World Resort was discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The plaintiffs argued that an estimated 4,000 to 7,000 individuals with disabilities within the United States relied on Segways for mobility. Disney offered rental wheelchairs and power scooters at an additional expense, but no mobility devices that permitted the user to ride upright. The plaintiffs alleged that the option to rent a seated mobility device was inadequate for three reasons: 1) it cost the plaintiffs an additional expense, 2) wheelchair users were permitted to bring in their own mobility devices, and 3) a standing position was safer. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to discontinue the policy and require Disney to allow the use of Segway PT devices by guests with disabilities . They also asked for a declaratory judgment that the prohibition violated Title III of the ADA as well as for attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 20, 2008 the court (J. Gregory A. Presnell) dismissed the suit on a motion from the defendant. The court held that under the initial complaint, the plaintiffs lacked standing because by failing to show concrete plans for future visits to Disney World, they could not show that they would experience future discrimination. The order gave the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 2008 WL 490581. The plaintiffs refiled on April 1, 2008.

On December 26, 2008, the parties filed a simultaneous Joint Motion for Conditional Class Certification and for Preliminary Approval of Joint Stipulation of Settlement. 2008 WL 5452909. The plaintiff submitted a Second Amended Complaint on the same day to expand the complaint to explicitly include the Disneyland Resort in California—an addition that the proposed settlement hinged on. On January 5, 2009, Judge Presnell granted these motions, conditional on the outcome of a fairness hearing. Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 254 F.R.D. 680 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

However, on October 6, 2009, the court vacated the order that had conditionally certified the class, preliminarily approved the settlement, and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint. The court found that the evidence showed that the plaintiffs still lacked standing to represent and bind the class of Segway users with disabilities, specifically because many of them would not accept the settlement terms. The court quoted two objectors in particular, who rejected the terms of the settlement because the alternative four-wheeled device Disney proposed to provide resembled a scooter and would make their disabilities more obvious. The objectors argued that the proposed settlement actually increased stigmatization. Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 2009 WL 3242028 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6).

The plaintiffs appealed this decision, and on December 14, 2010, the federal Court of Appeals (Judges Charles R. Wilson, William H. Pryor, and R. Lanier Anderson) for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded. The Court of Appeals found that the named plaintiffs did have standing as representatives of the proposed class. The appellate court reinstated the December 26, 2008 motions and the Second Amended Complaint. Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 405 F. App'x 401 (11th Cir. 2010).

On remand, the court issued an order approving the Class Action Settlement, and on April 25, 2011, the court issued a final judgment approving the settlement. Disney agreed to develop its own four-wheeled electric vehicle operated by a standing rider and to provide at least fifteen of these devices at the Disney Resorts. Disney also agreed to pay each of the three named plaintiffs $4,000 and to allow the named plaintiff's complimentary use of the special electric vehicles during one visit to Disney World.

The court-approved settlement awared attorneys' fees and costs totaling $60,000 to the firms representing two of the named plaintiffs. The third named plaintiff's attorneys were awarded $40,000 in a separate order.

On April 29, 2011, the objectors appealed the approval of the settlement and the grant of final judgment, claiming that the plaintiffs were not sufficiently representative of the class. The Eleventh Circuit (Judge Joel F. Dubina) denied this appeal in an opinion dated August 30, 2012, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class and approving the settlement. Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 692 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2012). The objectors sought review from the Supreme Court but were denied in 2013. Miller v. Walt Disney World Co., 569 U.S. 918 (2013).

Disney introduced its Electric Standing Vehicles on May 2, 2013, charging a daily rental fee. The case is now closed.

Alex Colbert-Taylor - 05/31/2013
Elizabeth Johnson - 02/18/2019


compress summary