Release Date: 9/3/96
Earlier this summer, the NAD Law Center filed a complaint against Walt Disney World on behalf of Emily Harrison, a deaf child, and her parents, alleging that Disney's refusal to provide sign language interpreter services to enable Emily to enjoy the various attractions at the Magic Kingdom, Epcot, and Disney-MGM Studios was a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (See story in the July/August issue of The NAD Broadcaster for more information.) Because Title III of the ADA does not permit awards of compensatory or punitive damages, we later added another claim to the Harrisons' complaint: an allegation that Disney's actions also violated the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). Unlike Title III of the ADA, the FCRA appears to authorize both compensatory and punitive damages when individuals are able to demonstrate that their civil rights have been violated.
The third week of August, we received Disney's Answer to the Harrisons' complaint. An "Answer" is the legal mechanism that the defendant uses to literally "answer" the claims that a plaintiff has made in her complaint. In its Answer, Disney offered sixteen defenses to the Harrisons' claim that Disney is obligated under the ADA and the FCRA to provide interpreter services to ensure that Emily could "participate in and benefit from" the attractions at Disney World.
Perhaps the most troubling of Disney's defenses is its assertion that any accommodations (such as interpreters) that it did not provide are not required by the ADA, because such accommodations would "fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations" at Disney World, or would result in an "undue burden" for Disney. This is significant, because Title III of the ADA requires private entities, such as Disney, to provide auxiliary aids and services such as interpreters only if to do so would not fundamentally alter an entity's program or activity, or cause an undue financial or administrative burden on the entity. The gist of Disney's defense here is that providing interpreters would either somehow radically change its attractions, or that it would be too expensive for them.
The next phase of the case is known as "discovery," which is the process by which each side gathers information about the other through written questions, requests for documents, and depositions (sworn interviews). This process will begin in September and should last several months. Also in August, the NAD Law Center filed a second lawsuit against Disney World, on behalf of Rita and Ryan Barrett, who are deaf, and their son Ryan who is hard of hearing. The Barretts went to Disney World in July, and, like the Harrisons, had asked Disney to provide interpreter services for various rides, shows and attractions. Disney refused. In terms of the legal issues involved, the Barrett and Harrison cases are quite similar. Nevertheless, the NAD Law Center decided to pursue the Barrett case, "in part to let Disney know that what happened to the Harrisons is continuing to happen to many other deaf people across the country, and that this treatment is unacceptable," stated Marc Charmatz, Director of the NAD Law Center. "Since we filed the Harrison suit, we have received a staggering number of complaints from deaf people who have been subjected to similar discriminatory treatment," said Charmatz. "Hopefully these lawsuits can be a vehicle to end this kind of treatment."