Americans With Disabilities Act

• Author: International Law Group

The respondent (defendant below) is the Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (NCL), a Bermuda Corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. It operates cruise ships that regularly set sail for foreign ports from, and return to, U.S. ports. Basically sea- going resorts, the ships supply passengers with staterooms or cabins, food, and entertainment. Most of NCL's passengers are U.S. residents. As stated on the tickets, U.S. law applies to any controversies arising between passengers and NCL. NCL also depends upon far-reaching advertising in the U.S. to publicize its cruises and to enlarge its revenues.

Despite these close ties to the U.S., NCL registers almost all of its cruise ships in other countries, flying so-called "flags of convenience." The respondent, for instance, has registered the two NCL cruise ships involved in the present litigation, the Norwegian Sea (Sea) and the Norwegian Star (Star), in the Bahamas.

The petitioners are disabled individuals and their companions who bought tickets in 1998 or 1999 for round-trip cruises on the Sea or the Star, operating out of Houston, Texas. Naming NCL as the defendant, the petitioners filed a class action in a Texas federal court on behalf of all persons similarly situated. They asked for declaratory and injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 et seq.

The petitioners alleged that cruise ships come within both Title III's ban on discrimination in places of "public accommodation," Section 12182(a), and its bar to discrimination in "specified public transportation services," Section 12184(a). Both sections demand that covered entities (1) make "reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures" adaptable to disabled individuals, and (2) remove "architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature" where such removal is "readily achievable."

Though the district court found Title III generally applicable, it concluded that the petitioners' claims dealing with physical barriers to access could not go forward because the federal departments that develop ADA architectural and structural guidelines had not done so for cruise ships. The court dismissed the barrier-removal claims, but denied NCL's motion to dismiss the petitioners' other claims.

The Fifth Circuit held that Title III does not apply to foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. waters. The presumption is that, absent clear...