Clint Eastwood and ADA

June 2000

Editor: I used to be a big Clint Eastwood fan.

Now I learn that he is one of the defendants in a suit alleging ADA violations. Apparently his Mission Ranch Hotel in Carmel, CA does not provide wheelchair access. It also appears that he has chosen to seek legislation to weaken the ADA rather than comply with its provisions.

KRON TV (Channel 4 in the Bay Area) recently covered this story and provided what some thought was one-sided information. Sue Hodges, chairman of the Mayor's Commission on Persons with Disabilities in Oakland, contacted KRON, explained the perspectives that she felt were not presented in the KRON coverage, and offered her assistance in presenting the other side of the story. Our thanks to Sue for the wonderful article and for her permission to share it with you.

This article refers to another in a series of recent assaults on the ADA. Sue does a great job of explaining the issues, and I urge you all to read her explanations until you understand the issues at a very basic level. And then find a way to do something about it! Discrimination against people with disabilities continues rampant. Can you imagine how it will be if the ADA is weakened or repealed?

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

Subject: Channel Four Coverage of "Clint Eastwood" Americans with Disability Act

Dear Ms. Owens:

On behalf of the Mayor's Commission on Persons with Disabilities in Oakland, I would like to address some of the issues presented in Channel Four's coverage of the ADA story and express our concerns about some of the impressions viewers were left with.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted to lift barriers to access and to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities. Ten years have passed since then, a long time for those who have responsibilities under this law to become familiar with them and to comply with its provisions.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1978, and California State Laws, including Health and Safety Code, Building Code Title 24, clearly set forth accessibility requirements. These laws, in force for nearly 30 years, are the precursors to the ADA and provide much of its foundation.

Ignorance of the law is no defense for failure to comply with its provisions. It is the responsibility of contractors, building owners, business owners and others to be familiar with building codes, business codes and other codes and to comply with them. They could never pass a building inspection or gain a permit to operate a business without knowing and fulfilling their responsibilities. Can you imagine a restaurant owner with dirty and unsanitary conditions in his food preparation being allowed to run his business this way? Would he be permitted to endanger the health and safety of his customers with impunity because he alleged he wasn't aware of the laws mandating cleanliness?

It is a patently disingenuous argument to insist that clear violations of access laws must be brought to their attention by a person whose civil rights are being violated, that the disabled person must provide them notice of their violation and that they be given "more time" to comply. It's like saying, "Officer, I didn't know I was speeding. Please don't give me a ticket."

Clint Eastwood is shown avowing that he "loves the Americans with Disabilities Act," but he just doesn't want lawyers collecting money for bringing lawsuits. He says the poor disabled people should get the money instead. This kind of statement is also disingenuous. If attorneys were discouraged from taking access discrimination lawsuits, people with disabilities would be denied the ability to seek redress for discrimination. It would be far simpler to be able to tell Mr. Eastwood, "I can't go to the bathroom in your resort," and have him fix it than it is to have to be involved in bringing a lawsuit to achieve the same outcome. As reported on Bay TV's more comprehensive coverage, Mr. Eastwood has had three more years' time to fix this restroom and he still apparently hasn't done it. How much more time does he need to do the right thing?

This behavior by a highly visible and influential person demonstrates flagrant disregard of the civil rights of disabled people to not do something so basic as to fix a bathroom and to provide an appropriate model for himself and others to obey the law.

The reporter says there is no way to enforce the ADA. There is, and the answer to that is shockingly absent from his story. Further, Title III of the ADA does allow disabled people to collect damages. Both Eastwood and the reporter are mistaken in what they say.

The story gives the impression that access is optional, that it can be included if people feel like it, but they shouldn't be compelled to obey the law, that the law is unfair. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Do we want people obeying the speed limit on days when they feel like it and ignoring it on days when they don't or when it is just too inconvenient to stop for a red light or to allow a pedestrian to cross the street?

The restaurant owner in Oakland who was interviewed clearly stated he knew it was his responsibility to remove the step in front of his establishment and he just didn't do it. Now he says he feels better that he has done it. How do the disabled people who could never have the choice of eating at this restaurant feel about being denied that opportunity? Why were their voices not covered in this story?

The story did not cover any aspects of the cost of discrimination, of the impact of people with disabilities being denied equal access to goods and services available to those who do not face accessibility challenges. Discrimination is against the law. The law must remain strong to prevent discrimination.

It is important to note in this story that disability can happen to anyone at any time. The ADA and other laws do not protect a special interest group. They protect every person in America now and in the future.

This story should be told again, from all the viewpoints that deserve to be heard in the interest of fair and unbiased reporting. A remedy is clearly needed, one that is quick and accurate. To leave viewers with the impression it did by the tenor of the reporting is unfair. Voices of leading Bay Area people with disabilities should be heard.

In this regard, I am asking you and Bay TV to schedule the next "Take Issue" segment to provide a fair and accurate public airing of the issues raised both in the story and by your coverage of the story. We would be happy to assist you in locating participants. I will also be happy to make myself available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.