As matter of first impression,
Fifth Circuit holds that anti-discrimination provisions of Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) do not apply to passengers on foreign-flagged cruise
ships
The plaintiffs in the present
case are U.S. citizens who have been passengers aboard cruise ships of the
Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) sailing to foreign destinations. They brought an
action alleging that NCL has discriminated against them in violation of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [42 U.S.C. Section 12182].
Their companies also claimed that they had been discriminated against based on
their association with disabled guests.
In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that physical barriers on the ships denied them access (1) to the emergency evacuation equipment, (2) to certain facilities such as swimming pools and restaurants, and (3) to cabins with a balcony or a window.
Although the district court ruled that foreign-flagged cruise ships are subject to Title III of ADA, it dismissed plaintiffs’ claim about physical barriers for lack of federal regulation. On the other hand, the court found that the companies had stated a claim for “associational discrimination.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part.
Title III of ADA provides in 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(a) (2000) that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” In 42 U.S.C. Section 12184(a) (2000), the ADA also bans discrimination against disabled persons in public transportation. The question before this Court is whether these provisions apply to foreign-flagged ships.
According to the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Section 502 cmt. a (1987), international law generally empowers the flag state alone to adopt and enforce laws to protect the welfare of crews and passengers while aboard its ships. Thus, the risk of breaching international law mandates that U.S. courts construe American statutes narrowly to avoid global discord. Further, the above ADA provisions probably clash with the standards of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) [32 U.S.T. 47; T.I.A.S. 9700, in force, May 25, 1980]. In fact, a recent report of the governmental Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee has identified certain conflicts between ADA Title III on barrier removal and SOLAS.
The Supreme Court has recognized these principles. “Together [Benz v. Hidalgo, S.A., 353 U.S. 138 (1957)] and [McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10 (1963)] prohibit United States courts from applying domestic statutes to foreign-flagged ships without specific evidence of congressional intent. Under the Supreme Court’s framework, Congress may enact legislation that governs foreign-flagged cruise ships operating within United States waters, but it must clearly indicate its intention to do so. ...”
“There is no indication, either in the statutory text or in the ADA’s extensive legislative history, that Congress intended Title III to apply to foreign-flagged cruise ships. If Congress had so intended, ‘it would have addressed the subject of conflicts with foreign laws and procedures.’ ... Congress’s silence cannot be read to express an intent to legislate where issues touching on other nations’ sovereignty are involved.” [Slip op. 12]
Citation: Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd., 2004 WL 49707 (5th Cir. Jan. 12).
