Oregon Plaintiff

Dot Johnson, President of the Oregon Association of the Deaf, is one of the plaintiffs in the Oregon suit. Here are her thoughts on the subject.

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

On February 3, 2000, eight deaf Oregonians filed a national class action against three of the nation's largest movie theater chains in an effort to enforce provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit seeks to provide deaf individuals with equal access to the services of movie theaters.

The primary issue in this lawsuit is: choice vs. control. Under the ADA, Deaf and hard of hearing people should have the right to choose when and how a service or program is enjoyed. Currently, very few movie theaters across the country provide any type of captioning. Some have the Rear Window Caption System, while others have open captions. But, most theaters are not accessible at all to individuals with hearing loss. The class action lawsuit seeks to change that. As it stands today, deaf people are subject to the whim of movie theaters - it's the theaters who decide when and how deaf and hard of hearing people can watch movies with captions.

The ADA did not intend for movie theaters to have that kind of control. The ADA requires public accommodations to give equal access to their services. Movie theaters do not provide equal access to deaf people. Without some form of captioning, these individuals cannot fully enjoy the movies. Unfortunately, the ADA does not require movie theaters or studios to provide open captioning. While most agree that open captioning is easy for deaf and hard of hearing people to read, it is not currently a viable option. Because of the specific provisions of the ADA, the movie theaters and studios cannot be forced to supply and show open captioned films. In fact, if the lawsuit demanded open captions, the case would be dismissed.

The other viable technology is the Rear Window Caption (RWC) System. It is in use in over 40 theaters and many hearing impaired people love it. The RWC is considered a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and movie theaters may be required to install this technology. It's important to be realistic: open captioned films are shown infrequently and primarily in large cities. You have to go to a particular showing, on a particular day, and you may have to travel quite a way to get to the theater. Also, many hearing people object to open captions. They say it interferes with their enjoyment of the movie. The ADA does not require placing burdens on others. The movie theaters must provide access to their services without denying others the full enjoyment of the same services.

RWC accomplishes this. For now, it is the only viable compromise. The purpose of this lawsuit is to make the movie theaters realize that they are required under the law to provide equal access to their services. Once it is settled that the theaters must do something for the hearing impaired population, then a plan can be implemented to decide what type of system works best. It may start with RWC and later evolve into something completely different. There may be enhancements to RWC or there may be some new technology. The lawsuit and the amended complaint that was filed on February 10, 2000 ask for RWC or some other form of aid that will provide effective communication. The point is that the movie theaters must be made to understand that accessibility and freedom are the key issues.

The lawsuit doesn't ask for any money - only equal access. Some have mentioned that RWC is very expensive. Today it costs $8,000 per screen to install RWC. But, if we win the lawsuit, and with over seven thousand screens that may be subject to the outcome, the cost of RWC will surely drop. Even if the cost remains the same, it is a one-time expense for the theaters. Once installed, millions of hearing impaired people can start going to the movies. This means that the theaters will earn millions of dollars in ticket sales, popcorn and candy sales, and other refreshments. The outcome of this lawsuit is a win-win situation for everyone.

Hearing people can go to the movies whenever they want. They don't have to plan for special showings. Deaf and hard of hearing people have a right to go to the movies and enjoy them, too, at any time and at any theater. Right now, one of the only ways to do that is with RWC. But, the lawsuit does not specifically require RWC. The lawsuit asks the court to force the theaters to have a plan to provide equal access to their services.