Supreme Court Holds That the ADA is Applicable to Foreign Vessels
April, 2005
by Kimbley A. Kearney and
In Douglas Spector, et al v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd., 125 S.Ct. 2169 (2005), the Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and held that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et. seq., is applicable to foreign flag cruise ships operating in U.S. waters.
Facts
Plaintiffs, mostly U.S. residents, are disabled individuals and their companions who purchased tickets from Norwegian Cruise Lines (“NCL”) in 1998 or 1999 for roundtrip cruises on either the Norwegian Sea or Norwegian Star. Both of NCL's cruise ships are foreign-flag vessels, which, plaintiffs contended, had physical barriers aboard ship which violated Title III of the ADA. Title III prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation and public transportation services, and requires covered entities to make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures to accommodate disabled individuals… and requires removal of architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature where such removal is readily achievable.”
The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' Title III claims, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that the ADA is inapplicable to foreign vessels because it found no indication, either in the statutory text or in the ADA's extensive legislative history, that Congress specifically intended Title III to apply to foreign-flagged cruise ships.
Analysis
The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that “[a]lthough the [ADA's] definitions of “public accommodation” and “specified public transportation” do not expressly mention cruise ships, there can be no serious doubt that the NCL cruise ships fall within both definitions under conventional principles of interpretation.” As a general rule of statutory interpretation, United States statutes apply to foreign-flag ships in United States territories. This rule is subject to a narrow exception: “Absent a clear statement of congressional intent, general statutes may not apply to foreign-flag vessels insofar as they regulate matters that involve only the internal order and discipline of the vessel.” The Court stated that it is reasonable to presume that Congress does not intend to interfere with matters that are of concern only to a foreign ship and to the foreign state in which it is registered. However, the Court also stated that it is reasonable to presume that Congress does intend its statutes to apply to entities that are in United States territory that:
serve, employ, or otherwise affect American citizens, or that affect the peace and tranquility of the United States, even if those entities happen to be foreign-flag ships . . . To hold there is no Title III protection for disabled persons who seek to use the amenities of foreign cruise ships would be a harsh and unexpected interpretation of a statute designed to provide broad protection for the disabled.
The Court did not attempt to define the “internal affairs” of a cruise ship with precision, stating that “the guiding principles in determining whether the clear statement rule is triggered are the desire for international comity and the presumed lack of interest by the territorial sovereign in matters that bear no substantial relation to the peace and tranquility of the port.” While noting that Title III has its own limitations and qualifications on the extent to which permanent and substantial changes in a ship's architecture and design could be required, the Court held that Title III is applicable to foreign ships in United States waters to the same extent that it is applicable to American ships in those waters.
Learning Point:
Title III of the ADA is applicable to foreign-flag ships in United States waters unless any of Title III's requirements would interfere with the internal affairs of the ship. The majority acknowledged that “significant alteration of a physical feature of the ship” might fall into this category. To the extent that a foreign vessel owner is called upon to make a significant structural alteration to a vessel to comply with Title III, the disruption to the ship's internal affairs should be considered as a defense. Otherwise, foreign flag ships serving the American public must be brought into compliance with the ADA •
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2005v2) 2005 Volume 2 Table of Contents
