blind she has a service animal that accompanies or wherever she goes she went to breath buy a ticket on catalina the facts are pretty undisputed here i think i want you since you don't have a lot of time just jump to your issues i don't think that time that you can provide segregated or different facilities or accommodations and actually segregate persons with disabilities if there isn't actually a direct threat to the health and safety of other people it's a very high burden the code of federal regulations talks about it  business tax confronted with this situation i think it's time disputed that they had had a complaint from a regular about a dam their problem now we don't know how bad the allergic reaction is or whatever but on the spot they have to make a determination they at that moment for them to say ok i don't know how bad this person's situation is i can't really take that chance to have someone go into an eclectic shock or whatever will put you in the best place that we can put you and then two weeks later they change it i mean why why isn't that a reasonable response at that time well here's the problem you have listed is a conflict my client shows up she's of a service animal she wants to sit in the first class area they have allergic response we don't know well unknown so there are the duration extra it just seems to me that the person with the civil rights backing her entire statute back in there should trump if there's a concierge actually people that can go into i mean an flecked shock i mean they could die i don't think that there would be a lawsuit about that if you know so you're asking to make it right there and they do make a favorable determination two weeks later why isn't that a reasonable response to take him a little time to look into it they have no it i'm warning that if the facts were well first of all that the question this presented to them long before my client showed the evidence in the record is that there is a question individual they took it to a committee they discus thought about it and they decided this was a this is a thoughtful process they decided to take the entire first class action the entire commodore lounge and exclude any any animals whatsoever of any other now but yes to requests for the gander freeway back they don't know earlier that day that they're going to have this conflict right but that someone might show up with a service animal right right i mean obviously that's they testify the one the two occasions per year some will stop at the service animal and be on the board they don't know that on that day my client's going to show up that's true it's just that the policy itself saying that you know so you're saying that my client shows up and also only present her with a problem the problem is that they're never going to know no one pre book sleeze things they shop when they buy a ticket you're never going to know what some of the service animal shows up and when you have a policy in place a says never i mean you will not be allowed to ride first class that is then i guess it's an accommodation sort of a dialogue in terms of because you can never anticipate every situation that comes up while i might agree with you that there obviously was the way that they could accommodate these people and they figured out how to do that two weeks later but is is is everyone going to be required to make the right spot decision without being able to further look into that or they face a lawsuit i mean it pretty much works where someone presents themselves and want to participate in the goods or services or accommodations and they say well you have a policy that would exclude me from there then they make a request and if we were to and it seems pretty clear that when they make a request they are on the spot they have to make a decision do we honor this request we accommodate this person with a disability or not and we know in this case they did change their policy two weeks later that's all it was remove the policy that it rearranges about it all and never had a problem again and so our issue was on the summary judgment standard where the judge ruled against us said there is no legitimate jury that could have no reasonable jury to return a verdict in our favor under this direct threat to fans under the reasonable accommodation these are usually tribal issues and the judge took this case away from us and said it's uncontroverted that there was a direct safety threat to other people we know the standard very person she really does have a risk threat if there's a dog that comes on board but this type of evidence which gets amassed you know put before trial in fact there's nothing in the record we don't even know the name of this passenger who possibly showed up or the nature which you have policy that said no service animals even if accompanied by a bio even an animal company a person with a disability none of them has access to the first class lounge that was the way they dealt with this concern about dander that was an inappropriate way to deal with it it was a decision was made before hand they created the circumstances where they have someone showing up and they go what do we do now we have a policy that's totally against persons with disabilities we take an entire class first class and we remove it from the record from from any with company by an animal and then they have a situation where yeah they've created a situation where it's on the spot decision where they never should have done that it seems to me counsel that you go out on your side that your client was denied peanuts a leather se drink versus someone who has vines them apparently you challenge this but it's the record maintains that this person had a dander reaction which was a serious medical injury isn't that what we're balancing at that time well the first thing is that that's actually not going to be a fact a serious medical threat or anything like that just a sensitivity to allergies that's it that's only thing on the record so we're balancing this thing you're right there's the first class section which has the leather seats there this is an hour trip they have leather seats reclining seats people pay more for it they have prepared a ten dollars i mean the whole tick is not expensive so it's like a fifty percent or seventy five percent upgrade from the original ticket we're not talking big dollars anyways but i mean this is an hour trip both ways and people pay for that they have private boarding priority to do that i want to know how they're going to balance this i mean it seems to me that to you can gauge in the kind of balancing that you're talking about that they should maybe they need an opportunity to do that yeah i think what they did after my client complaint is how they do it and it shows that that that policy was not necessary there's a move that the animals are allowed on there now there's a they don't have any policy that restricts service animals or animals from first class at all and at the time the deposition was taken at the time of the record was created it had been thirteen months of the new policy and a single complaint not even from that frequent passenger and so it just shows that there was no necessity to have that policy in place it was not necessary for to protect the health and safety of another passenger they had a policy in place it was unfortunate policy that tended to exclude an entire class of persons from the entire first class seating area and that's the thing the a b a i understand sometimes the tough decision how do we weigh the rights of a person who might have an allergy response against a person who is seriously disabled and is company by service animal but the eighty says you cannot create segregated accommodations or facilities it's illegal to say this entire class of people will not be allowed on the first class teaching area this is not under the idiom of the plain language which you can see if it was noun that someone had in an just complain to them about a specific problem the best and only thing that they can do to accommodate this frequent traveler who has complained about her allergy to pet dander is to segregate the this area from paths that is the only thing they can do of vessels of very limited space i don't and you can't simply do whatever you want this is all they could do now they're in a skipping ahead to a lawsuit where in hindsight someone has come when called upon to judge the conduct of these people that sell tickets we get to rule in favor of the plaintiff an appellate here would require in a fact a service such as catalina channel expressed to do a complete medical analysis in balance the interests of a person who's complained of analogy versus assessment what they did is judged the entire array of services that could be provided and i believe that the difference between a commodore lounge and the regular passenger area was of not business owner's awareness of the need to accommodate passengers with disabilities so your client knew that it was going to be excluding all service animals and is that too much to ask at that point that you indeed in this balancing act which apparently you did afterwards in to reach an accommodation that seems to be working that's true in a high state that's true but but to place the burden on them to determine the nature of the person's allergic response to sensually asked for their medical records will speak with their doctor to determine on the iraqi of possible responses whether sniffles as they say could have occurred versus shark used is placing a burden on people that are completely all of this and they and they they took a blanket policy that no service down a ml's in the commodore lounge knowing that probably at some point you know there would be someone that would come on with the service family and so they when they were deliberating on the process they didn't come to the same conclusion that they came to two weeks later so what you know why squeaky wheel gets the grease i think is is really what it comes down to they were doing their best to respond to the complaints of people that were presented to them at the time and you're obviously we're dealing with a situation that underscores our point that they're doing wonderful don she nevertheless calls them up two weeks later and raises a stink about the whole thing that i think you just took part seventy accommodations were pretty close which you agreed that the public areas it is that is a lesser area the commodore no in all honesty no i mean truly this commodore lounge is affectively the only difference between them there is a larger passenger area which has perfectly comfortable seats obviously the same view back but what about if you are disabled you know getting knocked and having you know work your way around that you know and have to go buy it have to carry it than have to go sit back down i mean that can be hard on someone and you know people who have service animals i don't know all the reasons that people happened but she had a vision issue right so limited vision but you know but when you can't see very well you know getting up and having to wander around i can assure you that the stewardesses stewards come to you and take that into consideration even in the regular passenger area and bring you coffee or whatever you need that's the real world and that's the situation that existed  and so the really what my point is with respect to the accommodations they are substantially identical they really are and i think the catalunya expressed took that into consideration in judging whether it was appropriate to accommodate the competing interests in favor of the woman with allergies who was a frequent traveler living  just briefly the one of the problems here of course is that the catalina chalice presses in in one instance are speaking out of both sides of their mouth they're bragging on their website about this great upgrade they're charging more they're calling a first class they are offering different accommodations the testimony of their corporate representative doing cap and it's in the record he calls it advantages the judge called the special features into something different but the bottom line of course is that you know this separate but equal argument was rejected with brown versus board of education i