Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co. (2012)

By Matthew Chin

Overview

Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co. (2012) is an appellate case that examines the scope of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and what people with disabilities are entitled to. Tina Baughman sued Disney under the ADA, specifically under Title III section 302 [42 U.S.C 12182] that prevents discrimination on the basis of disability, ensuring the full and equal enjoyment of any public accommodation. She claimed that because Disney refused to let her use a Segway to get around their parks, it violated her rights guaranteed to her by the ADA.

Summary

Baughman suffers from limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, which causes a gradual weakening of large muscles such as those in her arms and legs. This makes it difficult for her to get around, as well as difficult for her to do things from a seated position. Despite this, she wanted to take her daughter to Disneyland, as it was her eighth birthday wish. She called Disney in April of 2006 to explain her condition and requested permission to use a Segway. Segways allowed Baughman to move about from a standing position compared to wheelchairs that force her into a seated position. Disney, per their policy, allowed the use of motorized wheelchairs and scooters but prohibited the use of “two-wheeled vehicles or devices,” which includes Segways. Baughman would proceed to write two follow-up letters to Disney in May and June of 2006, explaining her situation as well as once again requesting that Disney make an exception for her. Disney refused, and in August of 2007, Baughman sued Disney in the Orange County Superior Court for violating her rights to enjoyment of the park under the ADA, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the DPA (Disabled Persons Act), and that Disney was negligent. 

Soon after the lawsuit, Disney had the ADA cause of action removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, as the ADA was under federal jurisdiction. Disney also filed for a motion for summary judgment on the remaining causes of action. With this motion, Disney brought in Gregory Hale, who was Disney’s chief safety officer at the time, and was also a personal friend of the inventor of the Segway. With that, he has a lot of experience with Segways and claims to have ridden them in multiple instances. Hale describes a Segway as “a battery-powered, self balancing, two-wheeled device with multiple gyroscopes and acceleration sensors, all controlled by on-board computers.” He also points out that Segways have powerful twin motors that allow them to reach up to 12.5 mph with no steering wheel, brakes, or acceleration pedals. Hale compares Segways to a unicycle in which the rider must remain in constant motion to balance upon it. Due to these facts, Disney saw that unsupervised and unrestricted use of Segways in the park posed an inherently unsafe and unacceptable risk of injury to guests. 

Baughman's argument claimed that she had over 600 hours of ride time without an accident and stated that she had difficulty standing from a seated position, in which her daughter was in no position to help her with this. She also points out that Disney has said in the past that they are a larger purchaser of Segways, which are used by employees in the back lots and on tours of California Adventure, before it opens. Her arguments were not enough, as the use of Segways by employees in the back lots did not pose an inherent risk of injury to guests, as the public was not allowed back there, and the Segways used on tours were on a pre determined route and were constantly supervised, which shows that Disney had taken steps to prevent injury using Segways in these scenarios. Also, the district court believed that Baughman’s case lacked standing because under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, one must purchase a business’s services or products in order to have standing when suing for alleged discriminatory practices. This would be reaffirmed later on.

There was also the issue of the district court judicially stopping Baughman from claiming that she cannot use a motorized wheelchair. In other words, it prevents a party (in this case, Baughman) from taking a different position from the previous proceedings. Before this case, Baughman had filed three prior lawsuits in which she claimed that her physical impairment forced her to rely on a power scooter or wheelchair for mobility. Based on the precedent set by New Hampshire v. Maine (2001), “[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interest has changed, assume a contrary position…”. When Baughman appealed this case in 2012, the appellate court looked into the district court's judicial estoppel to determine if it had abused its power, as it looked at several factors, specifically whether she changed her later position from her earlier position, misled one of the two courts, and had changed her position to gain an unfair advantage against the opposing party. They found that the judicial estoppel was justified; however, they reversed and remanded the ADA claim.

In their decision, they pointed out two major problems with the initial ruling. The first is the narrow interpretation of the word “necessary” held by Disney, which they understand as “can’t do without”. In understanding the word like this, the ADA would not require much, if any, accommodations, which is not its intended purpose. By focusing on the word necessary alone, they ignore the rest of the statute, which guarantees “full and equal enjoyment of the public accommodation”. While Baughman may not necessarily need a Segway, it would ensure that she enjoys Disneyland to its fullest. The other issue is that Disney did not attempt to physically prove their claims that Segways are inherently unsafe. With technology continuing to advance, the court stated that Disney needs to be one of the leaders in using new technology to make their parks more accessible and welcoming to guests like Baughman. Despite being sent back, the decision was reaffirmed, and Disney was granted its summary judgment.

Impact

Despite Baughman ultimately losing the case, it highlights the important fact that Title III, Section 302 of the ADA requires accommodations to ensure that all their guests have “full and equal enjoyment” of their services, not just what is deemed necessary to experience them. Disney already has what is necessary for disabled people to experience the park, but in Baughman’s case, while she can experience the park, it is highly unlikely she will enjoy it, as she has difficulty standing from a seated position, denying her the right to full and equal enjoyment.

It also highlights that public accommodations need to keep up with the latest technology. While Disney prohibited the use of Segways in their park, they did not attempt to integrate them into their policy alongside motorized wheelchairs and scooters. It is a good reminder that technology is constantly evolving, making it easier for disabled people to live more joyous lives, and it is the responsibility of these public accommodations, like Disney, to evolve with these new technologies. 

Court Documents

Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., No. G046470 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, filed July 18, 2013), Justia, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2013/g046470.html 

Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131. 9th Cir. 2012. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2012/07/20/baughmanopinion.pdf 

Citations

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C § 12101 (1990). Accessed September 7, 2025, https://ferc.gov/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fferc.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2021-04%2FAmericans-with-Disabilities-Act-of-1990-ADA.pdf 

Westlaw Practical Law. “Judicial Estoppel.” Accessed September 7, 2025. https://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I0f9fbff5ef0811e28578f7ccc38dcbee?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)