Spector, Douglas, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (06/06/2005)

Question presented: Whether and to what extent Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to companies that operate foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters?

BY RAFE BARTHOLOMEW, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

When Douglas Spector boarded a Norwegian Cruise Line ship in Houston in 1998, he quickly learned his five-day cruise would be anything but an ideal trip.

Spector, who rides a motorized scooter because a tumor on his spine makes walking impossible, said the ship was ill-equipped to deal with disabled passengers.

Steps in front of entrances that were meant to seal water out of the ship's interiors also managed to seal Spector out of restaurants, swimming pools and public restrooms. The ship had lifeboats, but did not have ramps to provide Spector access to them. Finally, Spector and a non-disabled companion said Norwegian Cruise Line, the ship's operating company, charged them extra for handicapped-accessible cabins.

Two years later, Spector and four other plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Norwegian Cruise Line, whose ships sail under the Bahamian flag, for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title III bans discrimination against disabled individuals in "any place of public accommodation."

The plaintiffs asked for injunctive relief that would force the cruise line to remove barriers that prohibit disabled passengers' movement on its ships.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that Title III applies to foreign ships within U.S. territorial waters.

In January 2004 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed, saying Title III does not apply to foreign ships because there is no evidence that Congress intended the law to affect these ships.

"Congress's silence cannot be read to express an intent to legislate where issues touching on other nations' sovereignty are involved," wrote Judge Edith H. Jones.

Title III's barrier removal requirements would affect the internal management of ships' foreign crews and could possibly conflict with standards of maritime construction set out in the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, Jones wrote.

Although the alleged discrimination occurred within U.S. territory, Jones acknowledged that cruise ships travel extensively in international waters, outside the reach of domestic legislation.

"Many of the structural changes required to comply with Title III would be permanent, investing the statute with extraterritorial application as soon as the cruise ships leave domestic waters," she wrote.

Due to "potential conflicts with transnational law," a narrow interpretation of Title III was necessary "to avoid international discord," Jones concluded.

The 5th circuit's decision conflicts with the 11th circuit, which decided per curiam in 2000 that Title III did apply to foreign-flagged cruise ships. "Congress did intend that the [Americans with Disabilities Act] have a broad reach," the 11th said in Tammy Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc. "A foreign-flagged ship sailing in United States waters is not extraterritorial," the court added, so domestic laws could apply.

The circuit split has resulted in more than just legal wrangling.

More than two-thirds of the cruises departing from the United States leave from ports within the jurisdictions of the 5th and 11th circuits, according to the U.S. Maritime Administration. The divergent rulings have generated confusion among cruise lines and disabled passengers.

Ships leaving from Texan ports in the 5th Circuit are uncertain if they begin violating Title III once they cross into 11th Circuit territory off the Florida coast. Disabled people in the 5th circuit are concerned that they don't receive the same protection against discrimination as those in the 11th.

Both parties in the Spector case asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve these issues and set a national standard for the application of Title III to foreign ships.

Spector's brief argued that disabled Americans are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act when they take cruises that leave from U.S. ports.

Norwegian Cruise Line's discrimination occurred in "areas that are unquestionably within the United States' sovereign territory," according to Spector's brief. Protecting disabled Americans in their own country does not constitute an "impermissible extraterritorial application of United States law," it said.

Spector's brief also suggested that barrier removal requirements are flexible and will not force cruise lines to violate international law. Removal is required "only where it is readily achievable," according to the brief. "It is unlikely that barrier removal would be readily achievable where it would conflict with [the Safety of Life at Sea convention]."

"Readily achievable" improvements are cheap and easy, the brief states – for instance, unscrewing and reversing the hinges on a bathroom stall so the door opens outward to allow wheelchair access.

In response to Spector's brief, Norwegian Cruise Line urged the Court to overrule the 11th Circuit's decision in Stevens.

"In deference to Congress, courts do not apply U.S. law to foreign ships unless Congress has specifically expressed its intent that the statute apply to such ships," said the cruise line's brief. "This well-established principle of maritime and international law prevents unintended clashes between port states and flag states."

Because nearly every cruise line operating in the United States registers its ships under foreign flags, a ruling against Spector could give the entire cruise industry "license to discriminate against passengers with disabilities," according to Spector's brief.

On the contrary, if the Court decides that Title III applies to foreign ships, it would subject cruise lines to "liability without the guidance from Congress that would have, and should have, been provided had the statute been intended to regulate foreign ships," according to Norwegian Cruise Line's brief.

The Paralyzed Veterans of America filed an amicus brief on behalf of Spector and the International Council of Cruise Lines filed one in favor of Norwegian Cruise Line.

On Tues., Sept. 28, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case, and on June 6, 2005, a divided Court reversed, holding 5-4 that foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. waters do need to make reasonable accommodations for disabled passengers under federal law. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the Court's lead majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented.