NAD Position on Movie Access

Editor: Those of you who have been reading this newsletter for awhile know that the issue of movie access is really heating up. Two lawsuits in the past few months have demanded improved access to movies for people with hearing loss.

Two weeks ago, we published excerpts from the statement by the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) regarding the lawsuits. Today we have the statement from the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), which, in part, responds to the NATO position.

Additional information on the NAD is provided on the NAD Page in our Resource Directory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SILVER SPRING, MD -- In recent months, deaf individuals have filed two class action lawsuits in Oregon and the District of Columbia against movie theaters. Many have wondered what the NAD position is regarding these complaints. It is time to set the record straight on this issue. The NAD supports the Legal rights of all individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing to put an end to discrimination. This includes the failure for the most part by movie studios and movie theaters to make and show movies that are accessible to deaf and hard of hearing patrons.

Let's look at the specifics of each case. In Oregon, eight deaf individuals sued the Regal Cinemas, Inc., Century Theaters, Inc., Carmike Cinemas, Inc., and Cinemark USA, Inc. movie chains, which operate theaters all over the United States. The lawsuit states that "Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs because they fail to make their movies accessible to millions of deaf individuals by refusing to install the 'Rear Window' closed captioning system or any other auxiliary aid in their movie theaters," and that ":without an auxiliary aid, deaf people cannot enjoy going to the movies."

In the D.C. case, three deaf individuals sued two other movie chains, AMC Entertainment, Inc., and Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corporation. The lawsuit states that the theaters failed to make "reasonable modification" in their practices, and failed to take necessary steps to ensure that deaf people are not excluded from or denied first run movies, in violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The lawsuit states that cost-efficient technology exists to allow deaf persons to attend first run movies without fundamentally altering the nature of movies or resulting in an undue burden upon theaters. The technology referred to in the complaint is called "captioning and interpretative aids," including (a) open captioning devices and (b) closed captioning devices, such as rear window captioning. John Fithian, President of the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) strongly opposes these lawsuits. Fithian stated: "The lawsuits are contrary to the position of leading national disability rights organizations, counterproductive to the needs of the lawyers' clients, and wholly lacking of legal merit. The nation's movie theatre owners are proud of our efforts to bring the magic of movies to our disabled patrons, and view these law suits as unfounded on a cooperative industry." The NATO press release states: "Leading National Disability Rights Organizations Do Not Support the Law Suits and Oppose any Legal Mandate of the Technologies Specified in the Suits." In particular, the NATO press release states: "The National Association of the Deaf (NAD), through its Movie Access Coalition, has endorsed open captioning as the preferred technology for the deaf community, not the rear window technology demanded by the law suits."

There are errors in the NATO press release. So, where exactly does the NAD stand?

First, the NAD supports the right of deaf individuals and hard of hearing individuals to bring lawsuits to improve access to neighborhood theaters and to end discrimination.

Second, neither lawsuit is seeking 'Rear Window' captioning alone. The NAD calls upon the plaintiffs and their legal counsels in both cases to make this point perfectly clear: rear window captioning is not the only option. Many deaf and hard of hearing individuals prefer open captioning, and more new technologies are likely to emerge in the near future.

Third, contrary to the NATO press release, the Movie Access Coalition is not a part of the NAD. The Coalition for Movie Captioning (CMC, as it is now called) is made up of national member organizations. The NAD serves equally with other members of the Coalition. The NAD recognizes and respects the right of each deaf and hard of hearing individual and each organization representing deaf and hard of hearing individuals to express their opinions on this key movie access issue. The NAD will not work against lawsuits that are aimed at improving movie access.

Fourth, the NATO press release states the "nation's movie theatre owners are proud" of their efforts to provide greater access to the deaf and hard of hearing community. According to the NATO release, only six theaters have dedicated screens for open caption films seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, and only 70 different theatres throughout the country have presented open captioned films at least monthly or twice monthly. The NAD asks this question to NATO and their legal counsel: What does NATO and the movie studios with whom they do business plan to do about ensuring movie access and when do NATO and the movie studios plan to do it? Six theaters in six different cities with dedicated screens for open captions are not acceptable; 70 theatres captioning monthly or bi-monthly is not acceptable particularly with tens of thousands of daily movie showings nationwide.