On February 16, 2016 two California organizations—the California Council of the Blind and the Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired—and four individuals with visual impairments filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs ...
read more >
On February 16, 2016 two California organizations—the California Council of the Blind and the Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired—and four individuals with visual impairments filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that AMC Entertainment violated Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.) by not providing the proper headsets to accommodate its blind patrons. Some plaintiffs claimed they had been denied access to any audio description equipment. Other plaintiffs claimed that when they were provided audio description equipment, the equipment would fail during the movie, preventing the plaintiffs from enjoying the film. Represented by Disability Rights Advocates and Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction requiring the defendants to provide properly functioning audio description equipment and services for individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
The case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Lapotre. On May 31, 2016 the case was reassigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the rest of the proceedings.
Starting on May 11, 2016 a mediator led settlement discussions between the parties out of court. They reached a settlement in April 2017 and filed a motion to dismiss the case. Judge Rogers granted the order on April 27, 2017.
The settlement required that the defendant make reasonable and diligent efforts to maintain Descriptive Narration Equipment in its theaters and replace any malfunctioning equipment. The defendants were also required to train employees on availability of Descriptive Narration Equipment, including step by step guidelines for setting up the equipment and instruction to test the equipment weekly. The plaintiffs were also awarded attorneys' fees and costs.
The court continued to monitor the terms of the agreement until April 21, 2019. The case is now closed.
Amanda Stephens - 06/08/2020
compress summary