Deaf sue movie theaters

Great Debates
21

milroyj said

And in this case, the government didn’t. But let’s be clear: what drove this company into the ground was inflexible management, not losing the business of a few blind people.

The unfortunate(?) fact is that blind people (or deaf people, or people with orthopedic disabilities) don’t make up enough of the population to have economic influence with companies. If they had more clout, lawsuits like the one in the OP would be unnecessary.

I don’t know enough about The Way Things Should Work to comment on that :), so I will just say that this isn’t always the way things do work. Here’s two examples.

Both the American Federation of the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind have been trying for years to get Microsoft to make an accessible version of Windows. Microsoft has indicated a willingness to make some small concessions, but in the end, there are too few blind people for Microsoft to target that market.

The practical result was that hundreds of blind people lost their jobs when their companies started using Windows. (Ironically, Microsoft is one of the best places in the Seattle area for a disabled person to work, from the standpoint of accessibility.)

I have a deaf friend who wanted to go to graduate school and had to sue under ADA to get the college—a state school—to provide an interpreter for her classes. The school argued that it wasn’t cost-effective for them to do so. They lost. Without ADA, she couldn’t have gotten a graduate degree.

22

This is another instance of industry mining.

Some opportunistic miners have found another ore (the ADA is a veritable Mother Lode of precious metals), and are in the process of securing mineral rights.

A handful of prospectors (the attorney types) stand to reap in HUGE profits from securing those mineral rights (first to jump in with a lawsuit).

Breast implants, Norplant, tobacco, guns–the pattern is the same: Find an industry and find some way to mine some money out of it under the guise of claiming a settlement for all the unfortunate souls “disadvantaged” by that industry.

And it’s only the beginning. . . .

23

Dumb Ox,

I’m sorry that your friend is deaf, but please explain why I (through ADA lawsuits) should pay for an interpreter for her?

24

because obviously she didnt want to go to a college that did have one.

The only people that win in a lawsuit are the lawyers.

Microsoft screws everyone, not just the blind.

25

milroyj

Don’t be. She certainly isn’t.

Two answers. First, as a nation, through our elected officials, we have decided that while life may be unfair, our laws shouldn’t be. That’s why we have that whole “equal protection under the law” thing in our constitution.

The more cynical response is that you’ll pay one way or another. It’s cheaper to pay for two years of part-time interpreters than for 50 years of SSI, which would be a very real possibility if ADA didn’t require higher education to be accessible. It’s really a question of long-term interests versus short-term interests.

So let me ask you—why do you think she should pay?

26

Mjollnir,

As DSYoungEsq already pointed out, a disabled person can’t sue for punitive or even compensatory damages under ADA. They can only ask for reasonable accommodation. So there’s no possibility of an outrageous settlement.

In 1992, Sears commissioned a study of ADA’s impact on Sears from 1978 to 1992 nationwide. Of 436 reasonable accommodations that Sears made during that time (all voluntary, I believe) 69% cost nothing. Nothing. Of the remaining 31%, only 3% cost more than $1000. All of which is tax-deductible, by the way. So the ADA isn’t “a veritable Mother Lode” of anything for the plaintiff.

27

Asmodean

Tell me the names of some colleges you think would have interpreters if ADA were repealed.

The friend I spoke about in my earlier post would disagree with you.

28

Then it’s a bad law. You still haven’t answered the question. Why should I have to pay for your friend’s handicap?

29

The problem with the ADA is that it distributes costs unevenly. It’s like declaring that we want to provide medical care for poor kids, so we’re going to raise taxes for everyone born in December.

If we as a society have decided to try to help the disabled overcome their disabilities, let’s shoulder the burden together. Instead of forcing the theater to foot the bill for new technologies, let’s fund them with government grants. Instead of forcing the college to provide an interpreter, let’s make them available through government aid.

If we are not willing to enforce this unless someone else foots the bill, then let’s rethink the ADA altogether.

30

milroyj

I’m not sure what this is a response to. You have to back it up with facts and an argument.

Umm… Actually, I did answer the question. Twice.

But I can answer it again if you like. The fact is that you’re not paying for anyone’s handicap. You’re paying for the nondisabled professors’ appalling lack of sign language skills. After all, it’s his job to teach his students. *He’s[i/] the one who needs the interpreter.

So I’ll ask again… Why do you think she should pay?

31

Hmm… it is appalling for the professor to be ignorant of ASL, but not of Chinese, Korean, Arabic or any of the other languages used by students in his class? (Yes, I understand that the ADA does not protect them, but I believe the rationale of the ADA was called into question here.)

As an aside, I don’t understand why we don’t spend more energy teaching sign language to the masses. It would be tremendously useful if we could all communicate without speaking. I know some grade schools have initated programs for it, but it’s never really caught on in the mainstream.

32

meara

You’re right. I fully support your proposal. It would be clearly superior to ADA. However, the choice presented on this board seems to be ADA or nothing; in that case, ADA wins hands down. Without ADA, the distribution of costs is even more uneven—the burden falls foursquare on the shoulders of people with disabilities.

For example, I am a grad student right now. If I had to pay for an interpreter for my classes out of my own pocket (I don’t, because I am hearing) it would cost me around $1400 a month. Keep in mind that I’ve already paid tuition to the college for my education, just like everyone else.

One thing that nondisabled people generally don’t understand is how expensive it is to be disabled. Deaf people, for example, even with ADA, get no government support for things like hearing aids, TTYs, closed caption machines, interpreters for private functions, flashing lights to indicate environmental sound in the home, and visual alarm clocks and smoke detectors. Excluding the interpreting, that’s over $1500 worth of stuff, not including the inevitable repairs. So the costs already are disproportionately borne by those with disabilities.

The reasoning behind ADA is that, as a business, the movie theater benefits from government services (roads, fire and police protection, governmental enforcement of contract law, etc.) paid for, in part, by taxes from disabled citizens. So how is it fair that the theater can just decide that it won’t make it’s services available to these people?

There are some people, including some in Congress, who have the attitude, “Well, if you’re disabled, too bad. Suck it up. Just don’t inconvenience me in any way.” That’s fine, but I would suggest that these people shouldn’t be making public policy decisions for the rest of us.

33

yeah, even though life is unfair, the laws should correct that so… I have always wanted to sleep with Sandra Bullock (or someone like her) but I don’t stand a chance just because I am short, and bald and not rich, none of which is my fault. So the government should give me enough money to compensate for my “disabilities” so I can buy the woman I want instead of having to put up with fat, ugly broads who are the only ones that would want me.

Oh, and one last thing, I also want enough Viagra to keep me going until I expire and go to heaven (and the government should pay for that as well, it’s not my fault that I need it!)

34

meara said

Yeah, I was kidding here (I know, I should have used the smilies :)). You’re right, of course—it’s eminently impractical for the entire population to learn sign language. My point was that the sign language interpreter is not there exclusively for the benefit of the deaf person. She is there, in part, because others in the class cannot sign.

Think of it this way. A disability is an actual physical condition that can’t be changed. A handicap, on the other hand, is purely a social problem that exists only because we let it. If everyone used sign language, being deaf would not be an issue. Hearing people bear some responsibility here. In reality, it isn’t the deafness that causes the problem, it’s the minority status of the language.

I agree with you about the teaching of sign language. And it is starting to catch on more and more, although it still doesn’t get nearly the representation it deserves in school language programs, considering that it is the third most commonly used language in America. (My response to your statement about Korean, Chinese, etc. would be that these are not American languages; ASL is.) But some people still have a hard time accepting that it is a “real” language that should be taught in school. Regardless, these efforts still would not eliminate the need for ADA.

Oh, and sailor, I admire your ingenuity. :slight_smile: Unfortunately for both of us, Sandra Bullock is not a public accommodation. And thanks for sharing that Viagra thing, too. A lot of insurance companies pay for that now, you know. It’s too bad that you won’t be able to take advantage of it, seeing as how you’re so opposed to people sharing unequal financial risks.

35

ya know, the rationale behind the ADA and other anti-discrimination legislation is not “life isn’t fair.” The rationale is “People in America are entitled to equal protection of the laws.” Don’t like it? Then get busy with your drive to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment.

36

That’s a flawed argument. This lawsuit is not about discrimination. Nobody is stopping the deaf person from walking into a movie theater and watching the movie with everyone else. He just happens to not be able to completely experience it. Discrimination would be keeping him out, sitting him in the back, charging him more, or in some way treating him differently than every other movie-goer there.

In other words, this is not about “equal protection”, but rather “special accomodation”. Society has decided that deaf people got a bum deal and we’d like to chip in to make their lives as normal as possible. However, it remains to be decided whether movie subtitles are a reasonable accomodation.

37

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 provides that the deaf have interpreters for classes. My college said ‘No.’ Heh, I went through UCSD with notetakers for only about 45% of the classes. Not something anyone should attempt. But I forced them to get the money for it anyway, & they did, $3000 for deaf & visually impaired. But mobility impaired got a whopping $400,000 average per year.

I went to my UCSD Homecoming in 1998. I called them & said who I was & could I have an interpreter? They said ‘Sure!’ Anytime you need one just let us know. They gave me one for anything! Wow. I was impressed. But you see, that’s me, the great trailblazer.

Is it reasonable for theatres to provide access for the deaf? First, some theatres already do provide open captioned first time films, from the open captioning company, TripodLA. They cost about $300 per showing.

The deaf person suing the theatre simply could have asked their theatre to order from them.

But I just bring my interpreter, they let her get in free. Its a bitch to watch her & the film at the same time though.

38

The cost of being disabled is disproportionately borne by the disabled? The mind boggles. Exactly who SHOULD the cost be borne by?

39

I wasn’t saying that I disagree with this arrangement. I was saying that people seem to think that since ADA became law, everyone now foots the bill for disability accommodation except the disabled. Not so. All the things I mentioned above are the private business of the citizen who has a disability. That is as it should be.

However, when it comes to public life, the burden shifts. We all have an interest in including as many people in the public square as we can “reasonably accommodate.” It will be more expensive to accommodate some than others. That’s life. The only way to eliminate these expenses is to systematically exclude all disabled people from public life. But I submit that the most fair way to deal with these expenses (or, more accurately, investments) is for everyone who participates in a specific public venue to share the costs.

Public accommodations are supposed to be public. That’s why they call them that. And, as Arnold Winkelried mentioned, after the accommodation is made, other people often derive benefit even though they’re not disabled. That’s right. Some people use curb cuts even though they themselves didn’t actually pay for them out of their own pocket. Where’s the outrage?!? :slight_smile: [Note the use of smilie indicating humor. I’m a fast learner.]

40

I was not speaking of this lawsuit in particular. I was speaking of what I perceive to be a widespread mindset about anti-discrimination laws in general.