FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread
Old Aug 26, 2006 | 3:44 pm
  #385  
bethster
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38
Smile Whatever

Originally Posted by Katja
I'd be interested in seeing your citation for this "clear violation".

If you're going to sue, you might want to get your statutes straight.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Title I is about employment and covers employers with 15 or more employees. Enforcement is effected by filing complaints with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

ADA Title II covers public transportation, but not air travel. Complaints go to the Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ADA Title III covers businesses and nonprofit service providers that are public accommodations, including restaurants, retail stores, hotels, movie theaters, private schools, convention centers, doctors' offices, homeless shelters, transportation depots, zoos, funeral homes, day care centers, and recreation facilities including sports stadiums and fitness clubs. So this includes airports but not airplanes. Title III complaints are filed with the Department of Justice.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has no provisions of any kind regarding water, hydration, or nourishment. Here is the full text of the Act.

Airlines are covered by the Air Carrier Access Act (14 C.F.R. Part 382), which is not a part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It doesn't talk about nourishment or hydration either, as its function is to provide equal access. It talks about things like boarding, lavatories, equal access to information, seating accomodations, and attendents. Here is the text of the Act.

ETA: I do not post this because I support the TSA ban on liquids, but because I get very tired of people citing the ADA and ACAA when they clearly are unfamiliar with either act. It makes it more difficult for those who need the protections of these acts to even get what the act provides.
A bunch of citations that handily win this ridiculous "argument" snipped.

If any of you would like an eyeful of legal reasons why this stuff is fifty shades of wrong, write to me privately.

Last edited by bethster; Aug 26, 2006 at 4:21 pm
bethster is offline