Ada Does Not Apply To Foreign Flag Vessels
DOUGLAS SPECTOR, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., doing business as Norwegian Cruise Line,Defendant-Appellee. DOUGLAS SPECTOR, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, versusNORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., doing business as Norwegian Cruise Line,Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-21154, 03-20056
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
356 F.3d 641; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 340
January 12, 2004, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, disabled travelers and their companions, sued appellee cruise line and alleged that they were discriminated against in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12181 et seq. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the travelers' claim concerning removal of physical barriers, and certified the matter for interlocutory appeal.
OVERVIEW: The question presented on appeal was whether Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12181 et seq., applied to foreign-flagged cruise ships. The cruise line challenged the district court's conclusion that Title III of the ADA applied to foreign-flagged cruise ships, and asserted that there was no evidence that Congress intended Title III to apply to foreign-flagged vessels or that it even considered the issue. The court found that there was no indication, either in the statutory text or in the ADA's extensive legislative history, that Congress intended Title III to apply to foreign-flagged cruise ships. If Congress had so intended, it would have addressed the subject of conflicts with foreign laws and procedures. Congress's silence could not be read to express an intent to legislate where issues touching on other nations' sovereignty are involved. Extraterritorial application of any statute was impermissible absent the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed. Congress, in enacting Title III of the ADA, failed to express any intention to subject foreign-flagged cruise ships to its dictates. Thus, application of Title III to foreign-flagged cruise ships was impermissible.
OUTCOME: The district court's dismissal of the travelers' barrier removal claims was sustained. However, the judgment of the district court was reversed to the extent that any Title III ADA claims remained, including those of the non-disabled travelers, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
