Title Iii of the Americans With Disabilities Act Applies to Foreign Cruise Ships; but What Exactly Is Required? - Samantha Allison Dipolito
| Citation | Vol. 57 No. 3 |
| Publication year | 2006 |
Casenote
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act Applies to Foreign Cruise Ships; But What Exactly Is Required?
In Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line,1 the United States Supreme Court held that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act2 (the "ADA") applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in American waters insofar as the requirements of Title III do not interfere with the internal order of the cruise ships.3 Additionally, the Court held that the provision of the ADA requiring barrier removal, which is "readily achievable" does not apply if the removal would bring a ship into noncompliance with international legal obligations.4 The dissenting opinion argues that Title III of the ADA does not apply to foreign cruise ships because the requirements of Title III unquestionably interfere with the internal affairs of a ship.5
I. Factual Background
Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. ("NCL") operates multiple cruise ships that depart from, and arrive at, ports in the United States. NCL's cruises are managed by a company in the United States and serve predominantly United States residents. Despite the fact that these cruises are in most respects United States-centered ventures, NCL's ships are registered in other countries and fly foreign flags of convenience. The Norwegian Star and the Norwegian Sea, the two ships at issue in this case, are both registered in the Bahamas. Douglas Spector is a member of a class of individuals with disabilities and their companions who took round-trip cruises that departed from Houston, Texas on the Norwegian Sea or Star in 1998 or 1999.6 Spector filed a class action against NCL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA.7
The ADA was enacted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.8 Title III of the ADA contains provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in areas including places of "public accommodation"9 and in "specified public transportation services."10 Spector argued that both of these provisions apply to NCL's cruise ships.11 Each provision requires that covered entities make "reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures"12 in order to accommodate individuals with disabilities. In addition, each provision requires removal of"architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature" where such removal is "readily achievable."13
Spector alleged that NCL violated its duty under these provisions in numerous ways, including: passengers with disabilities were required to pay higher rates and special surcharges; evacuation equipment and programs were placed in locations not accessible to passengers with disabilities; passengers with disabilities were required to travel with a companion and to waive any potential medical liability; and finally, NCL reserved the right to remove any passenger with a disability from the ship whose presence endangered the "comfort" of other passengers.14 Accordingly, Spector also alleged that NCL "failed to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures" necessary for individuals with disabilities to have full enjoyment of the services offered.15 In addition, most of the cabins on the ships were not accessible to individuals with mobility impairments who must use mobility devices.16
The District Court had held that Title III of the ADA does apply to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters.17 However, the court found that Spector's claims regarding physical barriers to access must be dismissed.18 The court reasoned that the agencies that promulgate structural guidelines for ADA compliance had not done so for cruise ships.19 Thus, the barrier-removal claims had to be dismissed because it was unclear what modifications NCL would be required to make.20 Therefore, the District Court granted NCL's motion to dismiss the barrier-removal claims, but denied the dismissal of all of the other claims.21
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.22 The court reasoned that it was established precedent that general statutes do not apply to foreign-flag vessels in United States territory if Congress has not clearly stated its intention for the general statute to apply.23 Because Title III does not contain a provision specifying its application to foreign-flag vessels, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the barrier-removal claims on this alternative ground and reversed the other Title III claims, holding that the ADA did not apply to foreign cruise ships.24 This decision created a circuit split with the Eleventh Circuit. In contrast to the Fifth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit had held that the ADA does apply to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States territory.25
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this conflict.26 In a plurality decision, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, concluding that foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters were covered entities under Title III because the ships were places of public accommodation and specified public transportation.27 However, the Court held that the provision requiring barrier removal that is readily achievable did not apply to the ships if the removal would bring the ships into noncompliance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea or any other international legal obligation.28
II. Legal Background
A. Overview of the ADA
"Civil rights laws embody the promise of equal opportunity, which is rooted in the Declaration of Independence's assertion that 'all men are created equal,' and in the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of 'equal protection of the laws.'"29 The ADA generally prohibits public entities from discriminating against persons with disabilities.30 Advocates for persons with disabilities made multiple attempts in the 1970s and 1980s to amend the Civil Rights Act of 196431 to include the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability.32 In the mid-1980s, advocates changed direction and began to endorse a separate statute that would prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities.33 In 1990, Congress acknowledged this requested prohibition and enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act.34 The ADA was enacted to remedy the obstacles people with disabilities face relating to access to public facilities, employment, and transportation services.35
B. Title III of the ADA in General: Places of Public Accommodation
Title III of the ADA, which this Article will discuss, proscribes discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation.36 Specifically, Title III prohibits discrimination "on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation."37 The most prominent effects of the ADA have been improvements in accessibility.38 Because of the ADA, people with disabilities are now able to travel, find accessible hotel rooms, enter stores and restaurants, and simply move more freely about their own communities.39 Despite these improvements in the quality of life of citizens with disabilities, the ADA has triggered a tremendous amount of litigation.40 This litigation, combined with the rather general language of the ADA, has resulted in much disparity among jurisdictions.41 Therefore, more ADA cases are now being heard by the Supreme Court than ever before.42
Congress enacted the ADA with the intention that it would have a broad reach.43 Consequently, the Supreme Court and some circuit courts have held that the ADA should be applied in contexts that Congress may not have envisioned upon enactment of the statute.44 For instance, in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey,45 the Supreme Court held that the ADA applied to state prison systems.46 Also, in Florida Paraplegic Ass'n v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida,47 the Eleventh Circuit emphasized the breadth of Title III and held that Title III applied to Indian Reservations.48 Thus, the number and types of entities to which Title III of the ADA applies is expanding.
C. Title III's Specific Applicability to Cruise Ships
The Eleventh Circuit was the first court of appeals to address the issue of Title III's applicability to cruise ships.49 In contrast to the instant case, the Eleventh circuit held, in Stevens v. Premier Cruises,50 that Title III is applicable to the parts of a cruise ship which are enumerated in the statute as places of public accommodation.51 Furthermore, the court held that Title III not only applied to domestic cruise ships, but that it also applied to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters.52 The court recognized that Title III could not impose a duty on the internal affairs of a foreign ship.53 However, the court held that the ship's internal affairs were not implicated in the plaintiff's allegations.54 Rather, the court reasoned that the case was about "whether Title III requires a foreign-flag cruise ship reasonably to accommodate a disabled, fare-paying, American passenger while . . . sailing in American waters."55
III. Court's Rationale
A. Narrow Exception to the Applicability of United States Statutes to Foreign Cruise Ships
In Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line,56 the Court addressed the issue of whether Title III of the ADA applies to foreign cruise ships that regularly sail into United States waters.57 The Court rendered a particularly fractured opinion, in which few of the Justices were able to reach the same conclusion or even concur as to similar lines of reasoning. Relying on Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon58 and Uravic v. F. Jarka Co. ,59 Justice Kennedy, writing for the Plurality and joined by Justices Stevens and Souter, reasoned that, as a general rule, United States statutes apply to foreign cruise...
To continue reading
Request your trial