EQUAL ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED SOUGHT ON AIRLINES
On June 27, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was not applicable to commercial air carriers who were not direct recipients of federal financial assistance, Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 54 U.S.L.W. 4~54, June 27, 1986 (No. 85-289). The Court held that Section 504's scope is limited to those who actually receive federal monies and does not cover airlines because "it is clear that the airlines do not actually receive the aid; they only benefit from the airports use of the aid." Justice Thurgood Marshall in the dissenting opinion wrote:
The appropriate question is ... not whether commercial airlines 'receive' federal financial assistance. Rather, it is whether commercial airlines are in a position to 'exclud[e handicapped persons] from the participation in .... den[y them] the benefits of, or ... subjec[t them] to discrimination under' a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance or conducted by an Executive agency. I believe they are, and I therefore dissent.
The case was initiated to prevent practices by some airlines such as requiring the blind to sit on blankets in case they are incontinent or requiring the signing of waiver's of liability for the transport of wheelchairs.
The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, sponsored by Senator Robert Dole (R-KAN) and Representatives John Paul Hammerschmidt (R-ARK) and Norman Mineta (D-CA), and introduced in response to the decision, would amend Section 404(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations ensuring "nondiscriminatory treatment of qualified handicapped persons consistent with the safe transportation of all passengers" (Gordon H. Mansfield, Paralyzed Veterans of America, July 31, 1986 letter to Ralph Neas, Executive Director, LCCR).
Background
In 1983 the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the American Coalition of Citizens With Disabilities, and the American Council of the Blind challenged the Civil Aeronautics Board's (CAB) regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Specifically, they challenged CAB's reasoning that Section 504 provided jurisdiction only over those carriers that receive funds under a program that subsidizes airlines for serving small communities.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with the challengers that Section 504 gave the CAB jurisdiction over all air carriers due to federal funding of airport and airway construction, and federal support through air traffic controllers. The Supreme Court, however, found the appellate court's reasoning "overbroad and unpersuasive" and reversed and remanded the case.
The Paralyzed Veterans of America has stated that passage of the legislation "will provide the opportunity to secure proper protection for disabled air travelers and a clear enunciation of air carriers' responsibility":
During the promulgation of regulations, PVA, along with other representatives of major disability rights organizations hopes to encourage,
- comprehensive coverage of the rule to all commercial air carriers;
- a definition of qualified handicapped individuals to include an interpretation consistent with the letter and spirit of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended;
- provision for airline personnel and equipment to assist in enplaning and deplaning;
- prohibition of unreasonable requirements (i.e. sitting on blankets, signing waivers of liability for the transport of wheelchairs);
- requiring that handicapped persons be accompanied by an attendant;
- encourage the use of onÓboard aisle chairs, and other aids wherever feasible;
- making reasonable accommodations for 'the storage of battery powered wheelchairs; and
- distinguishing handicapped persons from those who are sick.
For additional information, contact the PVA at (202) 872-1300, 301 1113th" Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
