[Blindtlk] [nfb-talk] {Disarmed} Federal law preempts blind flyers'claims over airport kiosks

[Brian Miller]

I agree that this is a set-back, and I do hope we continue to press the
issue.  However, I have to confess that as annoying as these kiosks are,
their presence has yet to keep me off a plane or prevent me from checking
in.  I just insist on getting assistance from a human being and I always get
it.  It's when we can't check in at all, or when there are no longer any
human beings at the counter at all that we are in trouble.  Another scenario
could be that checking in at kiosks earns passengers special privileges,
such as better selection of seating, or discounted baggage fess.  I don't
believe this is the case yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is on the
horizon.  When that day comes, we are in real trouble, and I believe we will
have an even stronger case of discrimination to make. 

I think also it has to be noted that it appears this judge didn't rule on
the merits of the case, or whether or not there was a violation of state law
-- just that state law didn't apply in this case due to the overriding
precedence of the Air Carrier Act.  In other words, if I understand this
correctly, the court in California wasn't saying we didn't have standing at
all, just that we didn't have standing in that court -- or at the state
level, and that we need to address the issue at the federal level.  

Brian Miller


-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Nusbaum
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:58 PM
To: NABS list; Blind Talk list; NFBMD list
Subject: [Blindtlk] [nfb-talk] {Disarmed} Federal law preempts blind
flyers'claims over airport kiosks

And back to court we go...  just to be dismissed! Hope they appeal!

 Chris

"A loss of sight, never a loss of vision!" (Camp Abilities motto)

--- Sent from my BrailleNote

 ---- Original Message ------
From: "Sherri" <flmom2006 at gmail.com
Subject: [nfb-talk] {Disarmed} Federal law preempts blind flyers' 
claims over airport kiosks
Date sent: Tue, 24 May 2011 02:22:38 -0400

I'm sure we'll think of some other way to solve this problem.

Sherri


Westlaw Journal Aviation
Federal law preempts blind flyers' claims over airport kiosks
5/23/2011 COMMENTS (0)


May 23 (Westlaw Journals) - Federal law preempts a class action brought by
the National Federation of the Blind and several visually impaired people
over the accessibility of airport ticketing kiosks, a California federal
judge has ruled.

U.S.  District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California
dismissed the NFB's lawsuit, finding the claims preempted by the Air Carrier
Access Act and the Airline Deregulation Act.

The NFB and other plaintiffs alleged United Airlines violates California
disability law by failing to make airport ticketing kiosks accessible to the
blind.

According to the complaint, the kiosks employ a visual computer screen with
prompts and touch-screen navigation but do not offer an audio output or
other medium to make the kiosks accessible to the blind.

The plaintiffs brought their class action on behalf of all legally blind
people in the United States who have flown on United from a California
airport and have been unable to use the airline's kiosks.

United moved for dismissal, arguing that the Airline Deregulation Act and
the Air Carrier Access Act preempt the plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Alsup agreed.

The claims are field-preempted under the ACAA because the Department of
Transportation pervasively regulates airport kiosk accessibility, he said.

In addition, the Airline Deregulation Act expressly preempts the claims
because they defendants provide an airline "service" as defined in the
statute.

Finally, the judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Airline
Deregulation Act was meant to target airline deregulation rather than
discrimination.

"The Airline Deregulation Act unequivocally declares that no state may enact
a law related to airline service," the Judge Alsup said.  
"Congress could
have drawn the preemption provision more narrowly.  It did not."

National Federation of the Blind et al.  v.  United Airlines Inc., No.  C
10-04816 WHA, 2011 WL 1544524 (N.D.  Cal.  Apr.  25, 2011).

(Reporting by Jennifer Long, Westlaw Journal Aviation)



-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

Register or log in to comment.
C 2011 Thomson Reuters

  a..  Co
Have you visited my personal page at
http://www.raceforindependence.org/goto/Sherri.Brun
If so, Thank you for changing what it means to be blind.
If not, please go there now!
Thank you.
flmom2006 at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/dotkid.
nusbaum%40gmail.com


_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/brian-r-miller%40u
iowa.edu