Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Southwest Airlines | Rapid Rewards
Reload this Page >

Southwest Airlines refused to help disabled Oregon passenger to restroom for hours...

Southwest Airlines refused to help disabled Oregon passenger to restroom for hours...

Reply

Old May 30, 19, 3:54 pm
  #31  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 80,361
Originally Posted by LegalTender View Post
Subpart 39 of the DOT regulations provides that carriers shall ensure that individuals with a disability are to be provided with assistance in enplaning, deplaning, and assistance to and from the lavatory. 14 CFR 382.39.
To/from the lav, not in the lavatory.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 19, 4:13 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,144
Originally Posted by Troopers View Post
Except that the plaintiff is not claiming SWA's CoC was not honored. She is claiming ACA violations. As for the turbulence, if others used the restroom or drinks were served, I think SWA's got a problem.
A trained Flight Attendant moving during turbulence or even a able bodied passenger is not the same as assisting a partially paralyzed passenger who could be be seriously injured or injure another person during turbulence.
rsteinmetz70112 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 19, 4:14 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 2,653
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
To/from the lav, not in the lavatory.
I don't think she's claiming denied assistance in the lavatory.
Troopers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 19, 4:25 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 2,653
Originally Posted by rsteinmetz70112 View Post
A trained Flight Attendant moving during turbulence or even a able bodied passenger is not the same as assisting a partially paralyzed passenger who could be be seriously injured or injure another person during turbulence.
Agree. The FA claim they were unable to provide assistance due to turbulence. Severity of turbulence is unknown and difficult to quantify but services provided by FA will provide insight. Was the seatbelt sign on for the entirety of the ~4 hr flight? If not, she's got a legit case.
Troopers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 3:55 pm
  #35  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 20,564
Originally Posted by NextTrip View Post
Wow! That is truly amazing that they weren't already ADA compliant!
Because ADA compliance is a shifting target. It's all centered around "reasonable accommodation" and is enforced primarily by people suing businesses that they feel aren't providing "reasonable accommodation."

The courts' interpretation of "reasonable accommodation" has also shifted over time.

Nowhere in the ADA will you find specifications on what actually constitutes a handicapped-accessible bathroom.
DenverBrian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 5:08 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 4,236
Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
Nowhere in the ADA will you find specifications on what actually constitutes a handicapped-accessible bathroom.
Ridiculous.

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADA...AStandards.pdf
LegalTender is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 5:55 pm
  #37  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 41,336
The ADA does not apply. Look to the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 and its rules. A given that WN already has careful statements from the FA's and flight deck noting the turbulence and their professional judgment that it was too risky to assist the pax to the lav.

Shakedown.
Often1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 7:26 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 4,236
Originally Posted by Often1 View Post
A given that WN already has careful statements from the FA's and flight deck noting the turbulence and their professional judgment that it was too risky to assist the pax to the lav.
Also a "given" that the plaintiff will offer statements from fellow passengers.

"Plaintiff was sobbing because she was in so much agony. The passenger next to her was rubbing her back and telling her it would be okay."
LegalTender is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 10:49 pm
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 20,564
Originally Posted by LegalTender View Post
Standards, not the ADA itself. And if these standards are expensive to retrofit, you run up against the hazy definition of "reasonable accommodation." <shrugs>
DenverBrian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 19, 12:26 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,144
Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
Standards, not the ADA itself. And if these standards are expensive to retrofit, you run up against the hazy definition of "reasonable accommodation." <shrugs>
The standard for disproportionate cost is 20% of the current project and 20% of all subsequent projects that affect the area.

The Guidelines require:

(2) Alterations to an Area Containing a Primary Function: In addition to the requirements of 4.1.6(1), an alteration that affects or could affect the usability of or access to an area containing a primary function shall be made so as to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the restrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless such alterations are disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope (as determined under criteria established by the Attorney General).
The Guidelines are for the most part mandatory miniums, compliance with them generally provides a safe harbor but since the ADA is not a building code (it is a Civil Rights Act). Any allegations of discrimination will be hashed in Federal Court. There have been lawsuits brought and won where the facility complies with the guidelines.

The ADA does require continuous removal of Architectural Barriers and sine the ADA has been in force since somewhere around 1996 (the act was passed in 1990, the inevitable question is what have you been doing for the last 20 or so years.
rsteinmetz70112 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread