regulations seek to ensure accessibility within the technology constraints presented at the locations serviced by airlines. For instance, airlines must make text telephone (TTY) systems available for reservation and information services supplied to the general public. Similarly, websites that market air transportation in the United States must meet specific “Success Criteria” and “Conformance Requirements” from the “World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendation 11 December 2008, Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 for Level AA” by December 12, 2015. In the airport, the ACAA charges carriers with the responsibility to ensure passengers with visual or hearing impairments have “prompt access to the same information provided to other passengers at each gate, ticketing area, and customer service desk” that the carrier “owns, leases or controls.” If these areas remain under the effective control of the airport where the carrier operates, the ACAA makes the carrier and the airport “jointly responsible for compliance.” The ACAA contains specific guidelines for the provision of accessible, automated kiosks provided at U.S. airports. At airports with at least ten thousand (10,000) enplanements per year, any automated kiosk installed after December 12, 2016 must meet the DOT’s design and accessibility criteria until at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all kiosks at each location in the airport meet the requirements. Regardless of the rate at which new kiosks are installed after this date, the airlines must ensure at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the kiosks at each location in the airports meet the design criteria by December 12, 2022. These deadlines apply whether the kiosk is solely owned, leased, used, or controlled by the airline, or are shared with the airport or any other entity.
and convenience. Reviewing the facts presented, the Court denied the carriers’ summary judgment motion, noting that if Mr. Price was removed due to his appearance or involuntary behavior that offended, annoyed, or inconvenienced the passengers or crew, then the carrier violated the Air Carrier Access Act. Requiring a medical certificate to be presented by an individual with obvious or disclosed medical conditions can be a tricky situation. The regulations allow a carrier to require a medical certificate if there is “reasonable doubt” as to whether the passenger can complete the flight safely. But in doing so the airline had best base its decision on more than just the presence of the condition itself. In Newman v. American Airlines, Inc., the plaintiff, a blind woman with cancer and heart conditions, was removed from a flight when she could not provide a medical certificate demonstrating her fitness to fly. In a pre-Sandoval decision, the Court assumed that the plaintiff’s claims for violations of the ACAA were actionable. The court disagreed with the carrier’s argument that the passenger was removed for safety reasons – namely a question of whether the passenger herself could safely complete the flight. The passenger had disclosed the conditions at the time of the purchase of her ticket and had not been asked to bring a medical certificate; the passenger had flown the first half of her trip without incident; and at the time of boarding the passenger did not present with any discernable distress, pain, or anxiety. The Court opined instead that the carrier’s “refusal to transport Newman may constitute exactly the type of discrimination prohibited by the ACAA.” With the evaluation of medical equipment, it appears the Courts may be a bit more sympathetic to the airline’s requests for a medical certificate or other assurance of safe use. In Compass Airlines, LLC v. Montana Department of Labor & Industry, the underlying issue involved the initial refusal to transport a passenger who possessed a medical device – a ventilator