Originally Posted by jennstv1

<snipped>I am a little more irritated than normal since AA has not bothered to refund me the difference in fare class after over 10 separate requests, nor acknowledged my request at all. Delta has treated me very well in regards to making sure my needs are met when I note it on the reservation. So they will be my new airline from here on out. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond!

Originally Posted by mvoight

..... I have had bad experiences with all of the major carriers, so I am sure DL will eventually fail you

Originally Posted by mvoight

I agree. They missed their connection and were put onto a new flight which had no biz seats remaining when they arrived,.
They were given the option of sitting in the available seating (not together) or taking a later flight.
As they DID agree to sit apart, then I assume there was no REAL requirement for them to sit together due to the disability. That said, why should AA force other people to switch to a middle seat so they could sit together, or force upgraded customers, who were on time, to downgrade. After the cut off time for being at the gate, I don't see why there would be a DOT complaint for the seating they agreed to. If the disability REQUIRED they sit together, then starting a vacation late should not be part of their decision to get on the flight,
That is why I assumed there was DESIRE to sit together, but not a NEED to do so due to a hearing disability. I have an ex-girlfriend, who after knowing a cruise line did NOT permit emotional support animals, decided she didn't need to bring it........ So, that would seem to indicate the emotional support animal was not a requirement for her.

Originally Posted by Dave Noble

To the best of my knowledge those with profound deafness are not required to fly with a person to assist them

Originally Posted by SamOF

You keep saying this, but I don't know why. The law requires an individualized assessment. The question is not whether law or policy requires deaf people to fly with an interpreter. It's whether this particular deaf person requires that accommodation. Given how incredibly easy it is, I can't imagine the argument that walking on board and moving 15A to 16B isn't required under the ADA.

Originally Posted by Dave Noble

It doesn't matter why you were late - you were late
By your statement following, there is no requirement that a deaf person travels with another person , so that seems to make it clear that there is no reason for the agent to mess others around to accommodate a late rebooking
You were prepared to chance it, by virtue of fact that you did

Originally Posted by Dave Noble

It seems fairly clear from the persons posts that it was possible for him to travel alone and the person did travel alone

if it wasnt possible, then the passenger should have been booked onto a flight where boarding had not commneced and accommodation could be made

Originally Posted by mvoight

I agree. They missed their connection and were put onto a new flight which had no biz seats remaining when they arrived,.
They were given the option of sitting in the available seating (not together) or taking a later flight.
As they DID agree to sit apart, then I assume there was no REAL requirement for them to sit together due to the disability. That said, why should AA force other people to switch to a middle seat so they could sit together, or force upgraded customers, who were on time, to downgrade. After the cut off time for being at the gate, I don't see why there would be a DOT complaint for the seating they agreed to. If the disability REQUIRED they sit together, then starting a vacation late should not be part of their decision to get on the flight,
That is why I assumed there was DESIRE to sit together, but not a NEED to do so due to a hearing disability. I have an ex-girlfriend, who after knowing a cruise line did NOT permit emotional support animals, decided she didn't need to bring it........ So, that would seem to indicate the emotional support animal was not a requirement for her.

Originally Posted by SamOF

It's whether this particular deaf person requires that accommodation.

Originally Posted by SamOF

The fact that a person with a disability managed (or even chose, given bad alternatives) to do something without a reasonable accommodation does not mean that the reasonable accommodation is not required.

Originally Posted by justhere

Maybe I'm missing something but they didn't miss their connection. To sum up the OP, LAX-CLT was a series of mechanical delays. OP was told they would miss CLT-MBJ and told they had seats on the next flight. OP arrived CLT and found out they didn't have seats on the next flight but that their original CLT-MBJ was also delayed. Most people would be happy that they made their connection but OP is told, "sorry, we gave away your seats".

And people here are saying that's ok?? I get that they weren't at the gate for CLT-MBJ at the original boarding time but that wasn't their fault. So either the gate agent for that second leg knew that their first leg was on the ground and gave away their seats anyway or the gate agent had nothing to do with their seats being given away because someone else at AA screwed up (at LAX??). How else do you explain not having seats on their original flight or the flight they were supposedly booked on?

Again, if I misunderstood, my apologies but otherwise I don't see how anyone would be happy with how AA handled this.

Originally Posted by garykung

It DOES mean that.

Contrary to your belief, Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) was not a case law that dealt with ADA. Instead, it examined the Congress's power under the 14th Amendment rather than the interpretation of the ADA.

To avoid liabilities, the ADA does not require an actor to identify the need of a person with disability. Instead, the ADA placed a burden to the person with disability to request the needed accommodation. In that case, the actor can then determine if it is reasonable and achievable and act accordingly.

So yes - if a person with disability managed to do something without the accommodation, it does mean that the person does not require accommodation. An ADA violation will not occur until the actor denied the accommodation that is both reasonable and achievable.

Originally Posted by SamOF

Tripe. Look up Tennessee v. Lane, one of the more important Supreme Court cases on the ADA: Editorial Observer; Can Disabled People Be Forced to Crawl Up the Courthouse Steps? - The New York Times

George Lane had a crushed hip and pelvis, and was forced to pull himself up the stairs of a Polk County courthouse and drag himself to the hearing room while the judge laughed. When he refused to do it a second time, he was arrested.

Under your logic, the fact that he managed to do it the first time proved that he was able to do it, so there was no need to make the courthouse accessible, right? Disability law is not triggered by metaphysical impossibility. The fact that a person with a disability managed (or even chose, given bad alternatives) to do something without a reasonable accommodation does not mean that the reasonable accommodation is not required.

Originally Posted by garykung

It DOES mean that.

Contrary to your belief, Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) was not a case law that dealt with ADA. Instead, it examined the Congress's power under the 14th Amendment rather than the interpretation of the ADA.

To avoid liabilities, the ADA does not require an actor to identify the need of a person with disability. Instead, the ADA placed a burden to the person with disability to request the needed accommodation. In that case, the actor can then determine if it is reasonable and achievable and act accordingly.

So yes - if a person with disability managed to do something without the accommodation, it does mean that the person does not require accommodation. An ADA violation will not occur until the actor denied the accommodation that is both reasonable and achievable.

Originally Posted by SamOF

What? If what happened to George Lane wasn't an ADA violation, then the question of congruence and proportionality wouldn't be reached. He did manage climb up the courthouse steps despite asking for an accommodation, and despite that, the courts held that there was a violation.

I said nothing about the burden of idenitfying the disability, because OP did clearly identify both the disability and the accomondation. Multiple times.

I'm honestly really confused by your argument here. The paragraph beginning "To avoid liabilties" is completely correct. But "if a person with disability managed to do something without the accommodation, it does mean that the person does not require accommodation"—see what happened to George Lane—does not follow from your first point, and is completely incorrect.