Supreme Court Affirms That the ADA Applies to Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships
In a closely-watched interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the U.S. Supreme Court, on June 6th, reversed a Fifth Circuit Court decision that Title III of the ADA does not apply to foreign-flagged cruise ships without clear Congressional intent. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained, “To hold there is no Title III protection for disabled persons who seek to use the amenities of foreign cruise ships would be a harsh and unexpected interpretation of a statute designed to provide broad protection for the disabled.”
United Spinal Association, along with numerous other disability rights organizations, filed an amicus brief (friend of the court) in support of the petitioners.
Assessing the decision, General Counsel James Weisman noted, “The Court realized that just flying a foreign flag doesn’t give the cruise lines license to discriminate when they leave from, and return to, the U.S. Two thirds of their passengers are American; they use our ports, advertise in our media, and contract with customers and travel agents in the U.S. However, the ships must only make changes that are ‘readily achievable’ and don’t involve the internal affairs of the ship or huge expense for structural modifications.”
The case, Spector, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (No. 03-1388), began as a civil suit filed in 2000 by five individuals in U.S. District Court in Houston alleging that Norwegian Cruise Line charged a premium for rooms set aside for people with disabilities; restaurants, public bathrooms, swimming pools, and elevators were not uniformly accessible; and there was no provision for people with disabilities to take part in lifeboat drills. The Houston court ruled that, since the government had not yet issued specific regulations concerning barrier removal on cruise ships, the plaintiffs could not pursue their claims for structural changes in the ships. Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, which ruled that, since Congress had not clearly stated whether the ADA applied to ships under foreign registry, the law could not be enforced and dismissed the suit against NCL.
But the Supreme Court concluded that this “clear statement” of Congress’ intent regarding whether the ADA applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships operates only when a ship’s “internal affairs” are affected. By internal affairs, the court means such things as permanent and substantial structural modifications which would bring a vessel into non-compliance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea or any other international legal obligation.
“Except insofar as Title III regulates a vessel’s internal affairs—a category that is not always well defined and that may require further judicial elaboration—the statute is applicable to foreign ships in United States waters to the same extent that it is applicable to American ships in those waters,” Kennedy wrote.
Dissenting were Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Writing for the dissent, Justice Scalia noted that “The plurality correctly recognizes that Congress must clearly express its intent to apply its laws to foreign-flag ships when those laws interfere with the ship’s internal order. Its attempt to place Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 outside this rule through creative statutory interpretations and piecemeal application of its provisions is unsupported by our case law. Title III plainly affects the internal order of foreign-flag cruise ships, subjecting them to the possibility of conflicting international obligations. I would hold that, since there is no clear statement of coverage, Title III does not apply to foreign-flag cruise ships.”
Historic Settlement in Nationwide Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
One of the biggest residential apartment developers in the country signed a Consent Decree June 8 with the Washington, D.C.based Equal Rights Center, United Spinal Association, and the American Association of People With Disabilities in the largest settlement to date of a case challenging defects in the design and construction of multi-family housing under the Fair Housing Act and the ADA.
The suit, filed December 20, 2004 in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Englewood, Colorado-based Archstone-Smith Trust, charged the firm with continuous and systematic violations of the civil rights of disabled people in the design and construction of apartment complexes in 18 states and the District of Columbia.
The three plaintiffs were represented by the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and the Washington, D.C.based law firm, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC.
The settlement requires the survey of 71 apartment complexes representing approximately 36,000 apartment units developed by Archstone-Smith Trust, about 12,000 of which are potentially covered by the settlement, and to retrofit features of the complexes, at Archstone’s expense, that operated as barriers to the full use and enjoyment of these facilities by people with disabilities. Although surveys of the properties have not concluded, the cost of remediation is estimated to exceed $20 million. Archstone will also pay $1.4 million in damages and attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
The Consent Decree provides that alterations at the various apartment complexes will be tailored to the deficiencies detected at each facility. Such remedies may include removal of steps at building entrances, widening interior doors, expansion of floor space in kitchens and bathrooms, and relocation of switches, controls and electrical outlets to accessible locations as well as retrofitting leasing offices, club houses, parking lots, and sidewalks in order to bring them into compliance with federal law.
The Consent Decree also requires, for the period it is in effect, that Archstone-Smith Trust will certify that its future construction of apartment complexes will comply with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the ADA and to educate its personnel on the design and construction requirements of those laws.
Gerard M. Kelly, Executive Director of United Spinal Association said, “We applaud Archstone-Smith for acknowledging its responsibilities to people with disabilities and we are gratified that these issues have been resolved without further litigation. As one of the largest residential developers in the United States, Archstone-Smith’s leadership in correcting accessibility shortcomings at its properties will not only burnish its reputation in the industry, but it will serve to alert developers nationwide that the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act will be strictly enforced.”
