Has the power of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) gone to far with this ruling

[Utinil]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel...e-interpreters

In McGann v. Cinemark, the court dealt with a complaint by Paul Richard McGann, a deaf and blind individual, who wanted to enjoy a movie (specifically, “Gone Girl”) being shown in a Cinemark theater. McGann is able to communicate through a tactile version of American Sign Language. He requested that Cinemark provide a tactile interpreter for him. When Cinemark declined to do so, he filed suit alleging that the company had violated the ADA by refusing to accommodate his disability.

The case went to trial in federal district court and the judge who heard it ruled that Cinemark was not required to offer such a service to deaf and blind patrons. McGann appealed to the Third Circuit and drew a very favorable panel, including Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo.


The court sided with McGann. Judge Restrepo wrote the opinion, declaring that ”tactile interpretation of a movie does not require any changes to the video or audio content of the movie, the auditorium screens or sound systems, or the physical environment—including the lighting—in or around the theater.“

The article goes on for over two more pages, but is mostly opinion so chose to just use this excerpt.

I understand the need for the ADA and believe that it has done a lot of good, but at what point do we say that a disability situation is to rare and to costly to be reasonable? In the case above the court ruled that a tactile interpreter must be provided at Cinemark's expense. It would cost Cinemark substantially more than the price of the ticket to meet this demand and unlike things such as wheelchair ramps this loss could not ever be mitigated by how many people use it or how often. It would in fact get worse with each person because for this type of sign language you must have one interpreter per individual.

[Stop Pretending]

They should have said they'd get one, then come back later and just tell the man they couldn't find anyone to accommodate his needs.

[Deleted]

I am disabled and find his request absurd... Why can't he bring his own interpreter

[NM 156]

Yeah, I think that this is a step too far. It's such a specific and rare need that I think it should be up to him. Also, why would a blind and deaf person go to a movie?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes, they have gone too far, I am less angry with the person asking or the ADA, as I am those saying going along with this.

[Aeula]

Definitely a step too far, that man was taking the piss.

[Mistame]

This is just stupid. It isn't even about the situation being "rare". A movie, especially in a theater, is pure sight and sound. If you can't see or hear, you've really no business being in a theater unless you bring your own accommodations. Hell, if you can't speak English, you don't get to go to a theater and demand a translator for a movie in English.

[Deleted]

What's a tactile interpreter is it something like this?

[Cosmic Janitor]

Just laughably stupid.. I mean seriously, is there any size requirements to the cinema in the ADA itself for this? Because no way in hell can some backwater cinema run by mom and pop affort to have someone on staff all the time. It should be upon the affected person to make sure that they can "see" the film. Do cinemas now need to stock glasses as well in case I forget to bring mine? Do they need a crane a hole in the wall in case some 300kg blobfish decides to show up? Either the judge is a moron or the law was piss poorly written (well probably both), because there certainly should be some focus on reasonable accomodation, depending on size and location.

[Zeerus]

Basically, a blind and deaf person figures out whats going on by holding the hand of a seeing person and that person will finger spell out what's going on. That's what a tactile interpreter is. That sounds like a HORRIBLE way to see a movie.

[zoefschildpad]

I am disabled and find his request absurd... Why can't he bring his own interpreter

I doubt he can afford to bring one wherever he goes. These kinds of interpreters are pretty rare and it would make going anywhere outside prohibitively expensive. Not sure if a movie theatre is the best example, but asking a venue to very occasionally accommodate someone like him seems much more reasonable than telling a blind and deaf man on whatever the government gives him to hire an interpreter for himself, which I doubt he can afford, or just sit at home and be lonely forever.

It's not a very good solution, granted, but man, can you imagine how lonely that must be?

[Jinpachi]

blind and deaf at a movie theater. That's fucking hilarious!!!!! Seriously, this shit was a setup from the get go. NOBODY has that fucking gear and he knows it. Fuck that guy.

[Shelly]

I'd like to know what accommodations they offered to make.

Seems to me offering a free movie ticket for an interpreter he supplies should be enough as in this case the interpreter could be considered a piece of specialized equipment.

[TehTemplar]

So I'm nearsighted, can I sue a movie theater for not providing me with prescription glasses so I can enjoy the movie?

[Tiwack]

Am I the only one stuck on the fact that a blind and deaf man wants to go to see a movie?

Well disabled people use their other senses to explore the world as we do... But if you're blind and deaf you probably don't go out much in the first place... Making them all the more interested at taking part in the pleasures normal people would. No matter the compromises and everything else they miss out on. They just want the story and experience to go along with it to feel like a normal person. Easier to just do disabled events and have them go with their own helpers so business accommodation is minimal and non-disruptive.

[zoefschildpad]

blind and deaf at a movie theater. That's fucking hilarious!!!!! Seriously, this shit was a setup from the get go. NOBODY has that fucking gear and he knows it. Fuck that guy.

What gear are you talking about? He needs a person to tranlate the movie for him. A person. According to http://www.linksinterpreting.com/pages/Rates.html they cost $99 per hour. That makes his trip to the movies over 300 bucks.

[Collegeguy]

Boy, that guy is scum.

Just facepalm worthy considering a movie theater would be no different for him than a book.

[zoefschildpad]

Well disabled people use their other senses to explore the world as we do... But if you're blind and deaf you probably don't go out much in the first place... Making them all the more interested at taking part in the pleasures normal people would. No matter the compromises and everything else they miss out on. They just want the story and experience to go along with it to feel like a normal person. Easier to just do disabled events and have them go with their own helpers so business accommodation is minimal and non-disruptive.

What helpers? Not everyone has a bunch of people willing to learn a new language around them, and it must be impossible for him to make new sighted friends

- - - Updated - - -

Boy, that guy is scum.

Just facepalm worthy considering a movie theater would be no different for him than a book.

I expect it's very different. He can read books in braille (assuming he can do that) or be interpreted to in tactile American sign language. The difference would be like the difference between listening to an audiobook or reading a book in a different language. The latter is a lot more work

[Kaleredar]

What helpers? Not everyone has a bunch of people willing to learn a new language around them, and it must be impossible for him to make new sighted friends

Yeah, especially if he's knocking over theaters for easy money.

[Z-Man]

Am I the only one stuck on the fact that a blind and deaf man wants to go to see a movie?

And how would he know that the theater didn't just stick him a broom closet for a couple hours? They could have a dipping bird tap his hand every so often to tell him about the exciting parts.