Are there limits to accommodations required for persons with disabilities?

An article in Tuesday's AJC set me to thinking about the question of our society's requirement, put into law by the "Americans With Disabilities Act," that public accommodations furnish "auxiliary aids and services" to persons with certain kinds of disabilities.

We're familiar with the entrance ramps and elevators for people who can't do stairs, and the wider doors to allow wheelchair access.  And then there are the interpreters at speaking events who stand off to the side "translating" the words into American Sign Language for the hard of hearing in the audience.

But how do you accommodate someone who is both deaf and blind?   And how far is the venue required to go in trying to make their event possible for anyone who wants to experience it?

A federal appeals court decision has given a preliminary answer to that.   A man who is both deaf and blind wanted to attend a showing of the film "Gone Girl," and he requested that the Pittsburgh Cinemark theater provide him with a "tactile interpreter."

Yes, that was new to me, too.  Tactile interpretation, I learned, involves the use of sign language;  but instead of a deaf person visually reading the hand signing, he uses touch to "read" it by placing his hands over the hands of an interpreter, who uses sign language to describe the movie's action, dialogue, and even the audience's reaction (such as laughter).

I imagine this is a pretty specialized ability.   The ASL interpreters I've seen don't just move their hands;  there's a lot of arms moving around, touching the face, etc.  So it would have to be modified to use only the hands in a fairly small space.   The point is that not every theater is going to have access to such a service.

And that raises the question:   how far do public facilities have to go to accommodate people with disabilities?    I'm very much in favor of trying to give everyone a chance to experience life as fully as they are able.   But reality will impose some limits.  And who pays for the extra accommodations when it's such a one-person kind of thing?

Well, it turns out that the theater turned down the request, saying they were not able to provide the tactile interpreter.   So the Pennsylvania Disability Rights group sued on behalf of the man.  The case went all the way to a federal appeals court, which has ruled that tactile interpretation is included under the Disabilities Act requirements to provide "auxiliary aids and services."

However, the court also ruled that the theater can still appeal the case under a claim of undue burden, an exception to the disability law that takes into account the cost to the theater and its ability to pay for it.   The appeals court sent the case back to a lower federal court to consider this argument.

So that's where it stands.   That seems sensible to me.   The law recognizes the need for such assistance, but it also recognizes the practicalities and has a provision for making exceptions.

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the man who wanted to "see" the movie "Gone Girls."   I myself have sometimes thought about the possibility of losing my hearing and never again being able to hear a Mahler symphony.   I don't think even a tactile interpreter could convey the range of Mahler's music that makes it both so sublime and so shattering.   Some things just can't be fixed.   Thankfully, I can still hear.

Ralph