This week’s blawg features the Patterson v. Six Flags court decision that confirms a disabled person’s right to reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids to ensure effective communication. Judge Kimberly Mueller of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California found that Six Flags violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. My colleague Andrew Rozynski of Eisenberg and Baum argued this national impact case. You can read the opinion here.
Factual Background
Mr. Melvin Patterson, his wife (who is also deaf) and their children enjoy theme parks such as Disneyland, Knots Berry Farm, Legoland and Six Flags. Generally, the theme parks accommodated his requests, including provision of an American Sign Language interpreter, so they could better enjoy the shows and receive important safety and other notifications. Mr. Patterson repeatedly requested Six Flags to provide an ASL interpreter during his planned visits to the park. Mr. Patterson made extensive contact with Six Flags, in person, via phone and email, seeking both accommodations, and then cancelation of his membership passes. He got a variety of confusing responses, and after almost three months was told an interpreter would be available on seven days advance notice. When he followed that procedure, he was then told Six Flag’s couldn’t provide an interpreter. Over three months the defendants ignored Patterson’s emails, gave him three different policies and contradictory instructions, and never provided an interpreter or other communication assistance. The court also found that Six Flags’ staff training at both the park and call center were inadequate.
Findings of Law
The court ruled that Six Flags refusal to provide an ASL interpreter, and its policies, injured Mr. Patterson and impeded his ability to enjoy the park, communicate and participate in activities. Those policies would also impede him in the future and deter him from returning to the park. Mr. Patterson’s requests were denied on nine occasions, and he suffered humiliation and anguish. The court was not persuaded by Six Flags’ attempts to blame Mr. Patterson. Six Flags must prove a request is an “undue burden,” but offered no such evidence at trial. Intent is not an element of an ADA claim, and Six Flags has the obligation of training its employees.
Relief
Pursuant to the Unruh Act, the court awarded actual damages for economic loss and pain and suffering, plus statutory damages, and attorneys fees and costs. Punitive damages were not awarded because no proof was presented that an officer, director or managing agent engaged in conscious disregard of Mr. Patterson’s rights. Pursuant to the ADA and the Unruh Act, the court granted injunctive relief requiring Six Flags to have contracts with ASL services in order to provide interpreters on request, undertake comprehensive staff training, empower knowledgeable staff to make accommodations and institute compliance audits, all with court supervision. The relief applies to deaf and hard of hearing guests, not just Mr. Patterson. In light of the damages and injunctive relief, the court determined granting additional declaratory relief would serve no useful purpose.
Commentary
The policy goals of the ADA, the Unruh Act and other disability laws and regulations are to address “prejudice, antiquated attitudes, and the failure to remove societal and institutional barriers” so the disabled can “fully participate in all aspects of society.” This decision is well reasoned, and rests on a firm legislative, regulatory and judicial foundation. It affirms that disability access applies to more than just employment or basic needs such as shelter and health care.
The disabled should not be deterred from seeking reasonable accommodations. Public places are encouraged to follow the court’s guidelines: regular ADA training, engage in an interactive process, empower front line personnel to grant requests, and don’t delay. Mr. Patterson’s individual efforts benefit the entire deaf and hard of hearing community. Thanks to him, Judge Mueller, Mr. Rozynski and all others involved in obtaining this important precedent.
Copyright John Drinkwater 2024 All Rights Reserved Turn Up the Quiet TM
Disclaimer: This content is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in all jurisdictions. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. Readers should consult their own advisor for legal or other advice.