Steering from the Bench
March 02, 2005
The Supreme Court of the United States has before them a case that could deeply affect the cruise industry and much more. In the case, Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, three disabled passengers of NCL, two of whom are in wheelchairs, are suing the company over what they consider discrimination.
Their contention is that while they paid higher premiums for special attention from the crew, what they received instead was inadequately configured restaurants, swimming pools, elevators, and public bathrooms. Their hope is that the Supreme Court will require all ships, foreign flagged or otherwise, to meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations when they dock at a U.S. port.
It's not as if a foreign flagged ship can simply dock in a U.S. port without adhering to any U.S. laws or customs. The Center for Disease Control's Vessel Sanitation Program and the U.S. Coast Guard Safety Drills require all ships, no matter what their registry, to adhere to specific laws and meet certain standards when they pull into a U.S. port. So what's the difference in this situation?
Like examining foreign cargo as it comes into our country to make sure it meets certain standards and safety regulations, it only makes sense that all cruise ships reaching our borders and docking in our ports must meet certain safety and sanitation standards. Those CDC and Coast Guard requirements take effect when the ship drops anchor at a U.S. port. Likewise, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the ADA regulations, the ruling (in theory) would only adhere to those ships that are docked in U.S. ports.
However, it all practical purposes, such a ruling would mean that a foreign flagged cruise ship that would be traveling to the U.S. would be required to be designed and built to meet U.S. specifications before it could sail anywhere. In that regard, foreign flagged cruise ships would have to follow the guidelines of a U.S. law, even if sailing in international waters.
If that occurs, more than cruise lines are affected. The ruling would come very close to blurring---if not stepping over completely---the line that divides country from country. It would affect nothing less than national sovereignty. At best, it would muddy the waters of ocean regulations that are already complicated; at worst, it could set a precedence that could redefine the power international law has over countries and individuals.
Now, that is not to say that the lawsuit is without all merit. Those of us without disabilities take for granted what can be, to a person with disabilities, a difficult task---like entering a doorway. There is simply no question that people with disabilities should be able to receive the same level of service and accommodations on a cruise ship as anyone else.
In the United States, about 1 out of every 5 Americans has a disability; about 1 out of every 10 has what would be considered a severe disability, that is a person who is unable to perform one or more activities, uses an assistive device to get around, or needs assistance from another person to perform basic activities.
According to CLIA, "studies have also shown that 12 percent of people with disabilities have taken a cruise in the last five years." In hard numbers, that constitutes about 7,000,000 people. "[Once] they have taken a cruise, 59 percent join the millions of satisfied travelers who would do it again." That means approximately 4 million disabled people had experiences that would encourage them to cruise again---that's not only a huge market, but a satisfied market as well.
So, it is obvious that the cruise lines are doing a lot of things right. And in fact, disabled people are an important aspect to the cruise industry. So, the fact that cruise lines are already making sure their ships accommodate disabled peoples' needs shouldn't be a surprise. The industry totally recognizes the fact that there is no economic downside---nor moral downside, for that matter---to designing their ships to be more ADA compliant, even if ADA regulations do not apply.
For instance, NCL contends that their newer ships are being constructed as if the ADA did apply. It should also be noted that the ships on which the people behind the suit sailed were two of the NCL's oldest vessels, one of which has been decommissioned and one of which will be decommissioned in the summer.
The fact is the cruise industry does just as much---or more---to accommodate disabled people as any restaurant, hotel, or resort. Dining areas, public bathrooms, and private accommodations are designed with disabled peoples' needs in mind. Besides the high number of cruise ships that can currently accommodate people with special needs, there are no cruise ships being constructed now that won't meet and probably surpass those needs as well, just as cruise ships' service usually surpasses all passengers' expectations. Clearly, the cruise ships are headed in the right direction.
Sometimes it is good to shake things up a bit to remind others that there are things that need to improve or change. Throughout the years, the courts have set down laws that have greatly improved the lives of many people who had felt the pain of discrimination. Yet it is clear that the cruise lines recognize the needs of disabled passengers; it doesn't make sense for them not to. Before enacting a law that could drastically affect international sovereignty, the courts should recognize the fact that the cruise lines are already more than happy to provide great service to disabled passengers. Otherwise, the judges could steer a course towards troubled waters.
By Michael Gloss Jr.Book your cruise online
