Court Ruling....ADA (Americans w/ Disabilities)

[BigDoug]

This may sound like a silly question, but I'll ask anyway...

 

How can the US Supreme court be allowed to make a ruling for foreign-flag ships?

 

This is from the Reuters article:

WASHINGTON, June 6 (Reuters) - Foreign cruise ships that sail in U.S. waters can be sued under a federal civil-rights law for discriminating against disabled passengers, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

 

The high court clarified the reach of a key part of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in a case that has pitted disability rights advocates against the cruise industry. The law applied to foreign-flagged cruise ships in U.S. waters, but cannot regulate a vessel's internal affairs, it said.

 

The justices overturned a lower-court ruling that the foreign ships were not covered by the law barring discrimination at places of public accommodation and in public transportation services.

This is from Straylight.law.cornell.edu:

Justice Kennedy delivered an opinion concluding that except insofar as Title III regulates a vessel’s internal affairs, the statute is applicable to foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. waters. Parts II—A—1 and II—B—2 of that opinion held for the Court:

 

(a) Although Title III’s “public accommodation” and “specified public transportation” definitions, §§12181(7)(A),(B)(I),(L), 12181(10), do not expressly mention cruise ships, there is no doubt that the NCL ships in question fall within both definitions under conventional principles of interpretation. The Fifth Circuit nevertheless held Title III inapplicable because the statute has no clear statement or explicit text mandating coverage for foreign-flag ships in U. S waters. This Court’s cases, particularly Benz and McCulloch, do hold, in some circumstances, that a general statute will not apply to certain aspects of the internal operations of foreign vessels temporarily in U.S. waters, absent a clear statement. The broad clear statement rule adopted by the Court of Appeals, however, would apply to every facet of the business and operations of foreign-flag ships. That formulation is inconsistent with the Court’s case law and with sound principles of statutory interpretation. Pp. 5—6.

[DesrtDrmr]

If the cruise lines were to relocate their "home" offices to some other country, and the ships that sail the Caribbean embark from foreign islands, there should be no issue with ADA accessibility. The West Coast cruises could disembark from Vancouver with routes to Russia and the Far East. That would certainly keep your costs down, Doug, and you would not have to consider the disabled access issue. It might keep those attorneys to their appointed tasks of suing McDonalds for hot coffee, etc.

 

(of course, that would keep a lot of folks from cruising, but there would not be USA based law suits)

 

Never having sued anyone, but being mobility impaired, I would hate to see that happen, but it would solve the problem.

[BigDoug]

If the cruise lines were to relocate their "home" offices to some other country, and the ships that sail the Caribbean embark from foreign islands, there should be no issue with ADA accessibility. The West Coast cruises could disembark from Vancouver with routes to Russia and the Far East. That would certainly keep your costs down, Doug, and you would not have to consider the disabled access issue. It might keep those attorneys to their appointed tasks of suing McDonalds for hot coffee, etc.

 

(of course, that would keep a lot of folks from cruising, but there would not be USA based law suits)

 

Never having sued anyone, but being mobility impaired, I would hate to see that happen, but it would solve the problem.

 

I would certainly hate to see the cruise lines start embarking from foreign ports. The closer to my home state of Maryland, the better. However, the legal system could drive some of the lines to start embarking their older ships from the Bahamas, Jamaica, Mexico and Canada. The cruise lines could easily stop visiting San Juan and St. Thomas. This decision could have far reaching implications for future cruise destinations. Many of the smaller cruise lines could determine that it is economically unfeasable to operate in US waters. We, the cruise passenger, could be faced with far fewer choices for cruising. These types of decisions are the primary reason (along with the unions) that the US maritime industry virtually no longer exists. If you read any of the articles I referenced, you will notice that the vast majority of the ADA suits are for monetary damages and were primarily filed in California. Few of the suits had any validity and were for technical violations of the ADA law. Why do you think the lawyers would treat the cruise industry any differently than any other segment of the hospitality industry?

[Hondu]

This is a good ruling especially for those of us who are disabled but not in wheelchairs. I'm extremely hard of hearing and can never enjoy the shows or other entertainment because the ships do not have Assistive Listening Systems. The new regulations will require them and also fire and safety alarms with flashing lights. This stuff is relatively inexpensive.

 

Most lawyers are not interested in ADA litigation because the fines are so small and you cannot collect damages - the best that will happen is that the fault is corrected.

 

Very true Whiterose. There are too many chicken lickens who think of the worse and the sky is always falling. There is no money for lawyers to make because there are no damages to collect.

 

Notice that when disabled or handicapped is mentioned most people can only think of wheelchairs. But there are other types of disabilities and the cost for accessibility is minimal.