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

Wed May 25 18:09:06 UTC 2011

Dear All,

I thought that the NFB was suing the airport in Las Vegas, not California.

I thought the dismissal was for a suit in California State court and not 
federal court.
Please clarify?

I feel that the purpose of the suit is just and we will need have to find 
the right path to follow to get there.
If the law is the problem, then we will need to get the law rewritten and 
then see that it is enforced.
If we run into opposition, we may need to picket or sit in at the airports 
to draw attention to the unfairness of the issue.
We have identified the problem and now we must work on correcting it.
Does anyone sense that this might need to be an issue for the next 
Washington Seminar?

David Evans, NFBF and GD Jack.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Mc Gee" <mmcatitude at gmail.com>
To: "'Blind Talk Mailing List'" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] [nfb-talk] {Disarmed} Federal law 
preemptsblindflyers'claims over airport kiosks

> Hi, All;
> I believe the judge made the right decision.  It may not seem right,
> but it's the law.  If you want to prevail in a lawsuit, you must find the
> right statute, governing law, on which to sue, when you have a statutory
> issue.  When you sue on an inapplicable statute, the court will throw the
> case out every time.  Any idea why the attorney didn't identify the
> applicable statute before filing the cause of action? Standard legal
> practice involves the ability to find the applicable law for the facts in
> the problem.
> Mary L. McGee
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Miller
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:34 PM
> To: 'Blind Talk Mailing List'; 'NABS list'; 'NFBMD list'
> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] [nfb-talk] {Disarmed} Federal law preempts
> blindflyers'claims over airport kiosks
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mmcatitude%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/drevans%40bellsouth.net 