On November 15, a federal court in California decided that Six Flags Theme Parks Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California civil rights state law by not providing an ASL interpreter to Melvin Patterson, a customer of Six Flags who is deaf and the plaintiff in this case. The court awarded Patterson $54,000.00 plus attorneys’ fees as a result of his being unable to fully participate when he visited Six Flags Discovery Kingdom for his daughter’s birthday.
Judge Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decided that even though the ADA has been the law for almost 35 years, Six Flags still did not understand their legal obligations to deaf customers of their park:
“The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was passed nearly thirty-five years ago to ensure people with disabilities have “equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7). Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., Six Flags Entertainment Corp., and Park Management Corp. (collectively, defendants) seem not to have understood their obligations under the ADA, even after all these years. Melvin Patterson, a person who is deaf, brought this action because defendants did not provide him with an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter when he visited with his family.
Reacting to the Court’s decision, Patterson told Deaf News:
“I must emphasize the importance of accessibility. With no accessibility, it means there is no innovation, no ingenuity, no development of emotional intelligence. You just show up and ride the rides. If accessibility is provided, there is so much to take in. These people are who we will rely on to become our leaders, great advocates, and the list goes on.”
The Court recounted:
“Patterson proved at trial he was excluded from fully enjoying Six Flags Discovery Kingdom because defendants twice in June [2021] did not provide auxiliary services, whether an interpreter or handheld auxiliary device. Patterson testified he could not enjoy the shows at Six Flags when he visited for his daughter’s birthday on June 6. He did not feel fully included while he was there. And he could not hear any announcements made over the park’s loudspeaker system. Further, in September, Six Flags provided him incorrect information about how to obtain an interpreter for his upcoming visits.”
In his lawsuit, Patterson alleged violations of ADA Title III and California’s Unruh Act. The ADA does not allow money damages in cases like this one but the Unruh Act does. The Unruh Act enabled the Court’s $54,000.00 damages award. Many states have civil rights laws similar to California’s. These laws may also permit monetary awards where federal law does not.
In her opinion, Judge Mueller described the factual background behind this case, including Patterson’s disappointment at not being able to fully participate in his daughter’s birthday party.
“Before visiting, Patterson learned accommodations were unavailable. He called Six Flags several times on June 4, 2021, and left messages asking for accommodations for his upcoming visit with his family. Six Flags never called him back. While at the park, Patterson inquired again with guest relations about accommodations. Once again, he was denied accommodations. Guest relations told Patterson to call Six Flags for requests for accommodations.
Patterson and his family decided to remain at the park on June 6 because his daughter could not contain her excitement about the trip. He did not enjoy the day. He was frustrated he could not understand the announcements Six Flags was making over the loudspeakers and did not get to enjoy the shows being put on at the park.
Several days later, Patterson began a long and frustrating march through defendants’ customer service operations. On June 9, he contacted defendants at their guest relations account to complain about his lack of accommodations and to request a refund of his memberships. He received an automated response that told him his case was numbered 02871479. On June 11, he tried again with the same result. He received an automated email that gave him a new case number: 11 02882815. Patterson then heard nothing from Six Flags until July 31, 2021. Internally, Six Flags’ only action during this lag time was to combine Patterson’s cases together into one. On June 11, 2021, Patterson was so frustrated that he sought a refund from Six Flags by contesting his purchase through his credit card company. The credit card company declined his request on July 16…
Patterson’s attempts to reach Six Flags by phone [after attempts by email] were even less successful. After he attempted to follow up on [an] email via phone, [a Six Flags’ employee] hung up on him. On another occasion, he was put on hold for over an hour before the line was disconnected. Patterson testified to his frustration as a result of all of his experiences with Six Flags’ support staff. Patterson became so frustrated that, by at least August 28, he had retained legal counsel and sought to make a formal complaint…
[Eventually,} Patterson spoke to a staff member by phone. After Patterson challenged [her] on whether she knew Six Flags’ policy on providing interpreters, Wilson told him, “[S]omeone more senior will call you back.” [Her] response, that Six Flags would not provide an ASL interpreter, but only provide a ticket for one, did not accurately reflect Six Flags’ policy. Rather, her advice reflected information regarding a different accessibility program, i.e., Six Flags’ Personal Care Attendant Program, not its ASL interpreter policy. No one with Six Flags corrected [her] mistake.”
To remedy the problems with Six Flags treatment of Patterson, the Court further ordered the parties to propose terms for a Court injunction or order directing Six Flags to change its procedures and enact various measures to prevent future ADA discrimination.
The Court directed that the following be included in an injunction, which the Court will likely order early next year:
“Provisions to require that defendants “[u]pon request make good faith efforts to provide ASL interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing guests.”
The language must define “good faith” and specify how defendants will implement the new policy.
Provisions to require comprehensive staff training on ADA compliance and handling of ASL interpreter requests
Provisions to “empower[] staff from both local and national customer service offices to forward requests for interpreters to appropriate staff members to secure sign language interpreter services.”
Provisions to “[e]stablish contracts with ASL interpretation services to ensure timely provision of interpreters.
Provisions to “[c]onduct regular internal audits [for] ADA compliance and accommodation practices.
The injunction and its required policy changes will ensure that the Patterson family and other deaf customers do not experience disability discrimination and Melvin Patterson’s disappointment from missing out on his daughter’s birthday party.
© Bruce L. Adelson 2024. All Rights Reserved The material herein is educational and informational only. No legal advice is intended or conveyed.
Bruce L. Adelson, Esq., is nationally recognized for his compliance expertise. Mr. Adelson is a former U.S Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Senior Trial Attorney. Mr. Adelson is a faculty member at the Georgetown University School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh School of Law where he teaches organizational culture, implicit bias, cultural and civil rights awareness.
Mr. Adelson’s blogs are a Bromberg & Associates exclusive.