Piccolpat, I'm a little baffled by the conflicts in the evidence myself. Disney directly challenges the assertion that the plaintiff has not concept of time:
- the ability or inability to wait or defer gratification are not diagnostic criteria or requirements of autism.
- A.L. has an understanding of the concept of time “as is true for most individuals at his level of intellectual functioning.”
It's somewhat telling that plaintiff offered the CA11's characterization of psychological testimony instead of presenting it at trial. They try to explain this in a footnote but it largely amounts to arguing we didn't know we would really have to comply with the court imposed deadlines. Time, again.
What really bothers me is the uncertainty about the criteria to use to determine whether Disney must made changes. The CA11, in the prior appeal, said the question is about what is "necessary" to provide a "like experience." There's precious little on this from plaintiff. Essentially, he argues that his family tries to avoid wait times and waiting for more than 15 to 20 minutes can be problematic, even causing anxiety.
Is that enough to show that the plaintiff's desired modification is "necessary" when FP+ and
DAS is already being offered?
So what is a "like experience"? Is it avoiding having to wait in any line for more than 15 or so minutes? Plaintiff wants to be able to use "Fastpass lines." To be clear, he is not saying, I think, he wants to be able to use FP+ itself, just the "Fastpass lines" themselves. That is, without making an advance FP+ reservation, he wants permission to enter an attraction's Fastpass line as if he had made a FP+ reservation.
The question isn't whether other guests can do this - clearly they can't - but whether this "modification" is necessary to provide him with a "like experience" to other guests or whether Disney existing modification - FP+ and DAS - provide the "like experience."