In the case of A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., No. 20-12720 (11th Cir. 2022), the involvement of a Disabled Access Expert Witness was a central point of contention in a lawsuit concerning alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case provides an important example of how procedural compliance and expert testimony intersect in ADA litigation.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff, A.L., is an individual with disabilities who sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, claiming that Disney’s services did not provide reasonable modifications as required under Title III of the ADA. The plaintiff alleged that Disney failed to accommodate his needs during park visits, particularly in connection with wait times and access to attractions, which he claimed substantially limited his ability to enjoy the park experience.
The case centered on whether Disney’s Disability Access Service (DAS) policy—which offers alternative wait accommodations—was sufficient under the ADA, and whether individualized modifications were required based on the plaintiff’s specific disability.
Role of the Disabled Access Expert Witness
In building his case, A.L. attempted to introduce testimony from Dr. Lila Kimel, an expert in disability rights, access accommodations, and human behavior. As a Disabled Access Expert Witness, Dr. Kimel’s role was to offer insight into:
-
The adequacy of Disney’s DAS policy for guests with cognitive or developmental disabilities.
-
Whether the plaintiff’s requested modifications (such as reduced wait times or more immediate access) were reasonable and necessary.
-
The psychological and logistical implications of Disney’s policies on individuals with his specific condition.
Dr. Kimel had reviewed the park’s procedures, prior litigation documents, and applicable ADA regulations. She was expected to testify that the existing accommodations were insufficient for individuals with the plaintiff’s specific impairments and that Disney failed to make reasonable, necessary modifications.
Court Proceedings and Findings
However, the expert’s testimony was never heard by the jury. A.L.’s legal team filed an updated witness list and included Dr. Kimel after the court’s scheduling deadline. The court had previously instructed A.L. to streamline his filings and exclude previously rejected material, but his updated submission included already excluded evidence and exceeded the permitted number of witnesses.
Because of this procedural failure, the court struck Dr. Kimel from the list of witnesses and issued a show-cause order regarding potential sanctions. With the expert excluded, A.L. was unable to present professional testimony to support his claims about the insufficiency of Disney’s accommodations.
The district court ultimately ruled in favor of Disney, and the Eleventh Circuit upheld the decision on appeal, emphasizing the plaintiff’s procedural failures and lack of admissible expert support. Without expert testimony, the court found that A.L. had not provided sufficient evidence to show that Disney’s policies violated ADA standards or that individualized accommodations were required.
Legal Significance
This case is a significant reminder of both the value and vulnerability of expert testimony in ADA litigation. A Disabled Access Expert Witness can be instrumental in bridging the gap between legal standards and the lived experience of individuals with disabilities. However, as seen here, the failure to properly disclose and qualify an expert in compliance with procedural rules can eliminate that advantage entirely.
Courts rely on expert testimony to understand whether a public accommodation policy reasonably meets ADA requirements, particularly when the issues involve nuanced behavioral or cognitive conditions. The procedural exclusion of a qualified expert can derail a plaintiff’s case—even if the substance of the argument may have merit.
Conclusion
A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. demonstrates the dual importance of expert analysis and adherence to procedural rules in disability access litigation. While a Disabled Access Expert Witness may provide compelling evidence regarding policy shortcomings, that testimony must be timely and properly submitted. The case stands as a cautionary tale for litigants and counsel about the high stakes of litigation readiness and rule compliance in ADA-related cases.