Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Regal's Unit Loses Appeal on Seating

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Regal's Unit Loses Appeal on Seating (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Regal's Unit Loses Appeal on Seating

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 07-02-2004 12:57 AM

Regal's Unit Loses Appeal on Seating

quote:
Tuesday June 29, 2004 Los Angeles Times

From Bloomberg News

A Regal Entertainment Group unit Monday lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal of a ruling that stadium-style seating in movie theaters violated a disability-rights law when people in wheelchairs must sit near the front row.

Regal Cinemas, part of the world's largest movie-theater company, said in court papers that the lower court ruling would impose "devastating" costs on companies that have built thousands of theaters in which most seats must be reached by climbing stairs. AMC Entertainment Inc. and Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corp., the second- and third-largest chains, supported Regal's appeal.

The lower court ruling means thousands of movie theaters "must now be destroyed or expensively retrofitted," lawyers for Regal said in court papers.

The court also refused to hear a separate appeal by closely held Cinemark USA Inc., which was sued by the Justice Department over stadium-style seating at its theaters. The Cincinnati-based U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Plano, Texas-based Cinemark.

The National Assn. of Theatre Owners said in a brief supporting Regal that refitting movie theaters probably would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The brief by AMC and Loews said the federal government "stood by silently" during the recent boom for building stadium-style theaters.

The Bush administration urged the court to deny review in both cases. Government lawyers said the rulings against Regal and Cinemark were correct and that the Supreme Court appeals were premature because the lower courts haven't decided on a remedy.

The U.S. said its lawyers told a judge in the Cinemark case they would seek a "reasonable approach" and wouldn't argue "that the entire interior of the theater be gutted or torn down."

The government said its regulation "ensures that theater designs do not leave customers in wheelchairs on the sidelines."

[ 07-07-2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

| IP: Logged

Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-02-2004 01:10 AM

Although I am not a fan of either Regal or Cineplex, I think they might be getting the shaft on this one. I can't comment on AMC because I don't know that much about their upper circles.

However, when Regal and Cineplex built their theaters, I presume they did it in a manner where it met local and state codes. If they were not up to those codes, I don't see how they were issued an occupancy permit unless they paid someone off. I don't think either chain was or is stupid enough to intentionally pull a "fast one" like that.

Now if they did indeed pull a "fast one" with the intent to deceive, then they should be nailed! Period!

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 07-02-2004 01:23 AM

Wasn't the original intention of this requirement geared towards theaters that had a capacity of over 300 seats in the auditorium and the theater had to provide an elevator to get to the upper handicap spaces. I don't think there was ever a clear designation as to where the handicap seating had to be. Otherwise these theaters would fail to meet that criteria

| IP: Logged

Ken Layton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1452
From: Olympia, Wash. USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-02-2004 01:28 AM

All the more reason that conventional sloped floors are the best at accomodating everyone.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 07-02-2004 01:32 AM

Even in sloped theaters that I have been familure with. You either got placed in the very back or three or four rows from the front.

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-02-2004 06:42 AM

ADA The Americans with Disabilities Act is a Federal law which is in defense of the right to equal service by those with physical challenges. A structure which is in violation of this act will be dealt with at the Federal level.

Not only are the mobility challenged persons to be accommodated but also those with vision and hearing challenges as well. One of the children's theatre groups who present plays in our theatre provides a signer for the hearing impaired children who are seated in a special section house left and down front. The signer is in the orchestra pit and is in the line of sight to the stage so the children can both see and understand the play. The signer is neither visible nor distracting to the rest of the audience.

This is not a new concern in public spaces and every seating company is aware of the requirements and can counsel a customer on compliance.

Local non-profit arts venues have made expensive modifications to their buildings to serve the needs of the challenged patrons. It is difficult to imagine that a new construction would not simply include these spaces as part of the basic design like aisle space, walk lighting, ramps and proper railings.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-02-2004 07:26 AM

My (limited) understanding of the ADA is that it only applies to new construction and remodeling of existing buildings. Already-built structures are grandfathered until they are modified. Is my understanding of this not correct?

I agree that theatres should provide "reasonable" handicapped seating, although I don't think that those "seats" (or, rather, lack of seats) need to necessarily be in the ideal viewing locations. As long as they aren't in the very front or very back rows or on the extreme edges of the auditorium, I don't see the problem.

And, yes, I agree with Ken that sloped floors are preferable for everyone.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-02-2004 07:52 AM

Sounds to me like the companies (AMC, Regal & Cinemark) are simply playing a game. You build a theater that you know is out of compliance with ADA rules then, when you get sued, you claim that it would be too expensive and destructive to put things the way they SHOULD HAVE been in the first place.

I think the court's decision was right. Otherwise, any company who wanted to skirt the ADA rules could simply build anything they wanted then get off the hook by saying, "Oops! Sorry, I can't fix it because it's too expensive to tear up my building."

I was recently involved in putting all new seats in one of the three venues where I work. Assuming you have an "average" sloped-floor ground plan in your theater it's not that hard to ensure reasonable handicap access. Simply remove one seat from the end of a row and leave a blank space where the seat would have been. Then put a "Transfer arm" on the seat that has become the new "End Cap". Do this in three or four rows (whatever the percentage of H.P. seats is supposed to be) throughout the hall and you have it. The only thing left is to ensure that the aisles and doorways are wide enough.

We just did this very thing in an old 180-seat hall with broken down chairs. We put in brand new seats and narrowed the aisles by about 6 inches. They were already extra wide. We simply "took back" the extra space.

When we were done we ended up with over 200 seats in the room AND we still had 4 H.P. spaces! (Yes! The original layout was THAT bad! One more reason we replaced the seats!)

Here's the kicker: When we have no wheelchair people sitting in those spaces, able-bodied people like to sit in the seats right behind because they get extra leg room! In fact, those have become some of the prime seats in the house!

I agree that, in certain situations, H.P. seating can impose extra costs but I ALSO think that there is no H.P. situation that can't be solved by the application of a few brain cells.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-02-2004 08:18 AM

quote: Paul Mayer
The lower court ruling means thousands of movie theaters "must now be destroyed or expensively retrofitted," lawyers for Regal said in court papers.

Now, if they can only rebuild those booths.

[ 04-16-2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Tim Reed ]

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 07-02-2004 08:43 AM

The disabilities act is getting out of hand. What is wrong with the seats in the back rows -whether stadium or non stadium? I have sat in those seats a few times which were designated for handicapped(of course, I would get up if I saw a handicapped person). Those are not bad seats.
Do they have to have access to the best seats in the house? I think reasonable should be the key word here and the back row is reasonable even in the floor level of stadium seatings halls. Obviously there are a few where there is hardly a couple of rows at the floor level and those may need to be modified unless there is elevator access to the top tier of the stadium. I think as a handicapped you should be more concerned with several multiplexes having bad sound and underlit projection. A well projected movie viewed from the back row is preferable to a bad projected movie from the best seat in the house.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-02-2004 09:17 AM

Scott,

You are incorrect...the ADA does apply to existing structures. The method of compliance is different. On new construction, buildings must be made accessable. Existing structures are evaluated as to the "reasonable cost" of the change in structure. For instance...adding an elevator tower would be considered unreasonable to an old theatre with a balcony. However, an old theatre with bathrooms only on the mezzanine level will find they need to come up with a handycapped bathroom on the ground level or a level that can be reached by wheelchair.

As an oddity...I know of a theatre that had to put in regulation handycapped doors (wider). The theatre had four sets of double doors. Now it has to double doors and two handycapped doors. The total exit space was actually reduced...thereby increasing the liklihood of people being trampled in the case of a fire. A better solution would have been to make the double doors automatic since there was no septum to impeed the wheelchair.

It is no secret that I am not a big fan of entitlement acts...ADA included since one of the games of such acts is to make money off them in the name of suing...not that good intentions are not behind those acts. Here is a case where theatre owners in the wrong.

If you are going to build a stadium seating theatre, then the entrance of the theatre should be in the middle. This places your handicapped seats in the middle (no complaints there) and people need to walk up and down stairs less, which is safer and also places everyone near the middle until the late comers arrive.

The theatres that are coming under fire are the stupid ones where one has to walk down a hallway all of the way to the front, turn around and then climb the stairs to the middle and back. This leaves the ADA people stuck in the front row with an awful view and everyone else tripping up the steps. To add insult to injury...all late comers arrive at the bottom corner of the screen and all people that must leave the theatre mid show to also present themselves at the bottom corner of the screen.

This is a case of a interpreted law teaching theatre owners and architects how to build better theatres.

Note another advantage to the center-load theatre is the hybrid theatre...sloped floor in the front, stadium in the back and again ADA people near the middle (or closer to the screen, if desired)...most everyone can have it their way. Makes for smoother exits too.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 07-02-2004 09:17 AM

I think this is a stupid ruling. If competent authorities reviewed and approved the plans for these theatres then the owner should be immune from suit. Let the plaintiffs take it up with whatever authority approved them.

The most common theatre designs involve a one level building with the front of each auditorium on ground level and access from the back of the house which is level to the rear of the small sloping floor area at the front and the rest of the room in stadium rows to the rear.

If seating in the area to the front of the stadium section or rear of the slope section is ruled inadequate then what options exist for the owner? Spend a fortune to redesign the entire booth level for public access to the tops of the auditoria? What if they then rule that the top of the house isn't good enough either?

| IP: Logged

Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 07-02-2004 09:22 AM

I think what may be at issue is those theatres that are completely stadium-ie they are not half slope, half stadium. In that situation lacking an elevator the only place the wheelchair bound patrons can sit is in the very front row.

If I understand things correctly the half slope half stadium design which allows handicap seating in the middle of the auditorium (back of the sloped seating area) is not in violation.

| IP: Logged

Ray Kaufman
Film Handler

Posts: 16
From: San Pedro, CA, USA
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 07-02-2004 09:37 AM

To be sure, it’s an on-going problem, but I must agree with a prior post pointing out that it’s become more than just a test of the law. A few points:

A quick search shows the portion of the ADA law covering “reasonable accommodation” with regard to public places, came into existence in January, 1992.

Even with sloped floors, merely removing the aisle seat to allow wheelchair access, poses a whole different problem when it come to building safety and fire regs, allowing people to get out of a row, in case of emergency, (not to mention, once out of the row, everyone being able to move to the nearest egress, to outdoors, and in a timely manner.)

And then I’m told, some advocates are insisting on making the entire house accessible, not segregated to a particular area and allowing everyone an equal choice.

For certain, it’s a mess and not one to go away or even be easily resolved, anytime soon.

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 07-02-2004 09:53 AM

Wouldn't it be just cheaper to have two or three staffmembers lift the handicapped guy and place him whereever he wants? [evil]

On a semi serious note:
But oh, that would ruin his dignity and be patronizing to him. He needs to wheel that chair himself. As if that is any different from the theater having to design an auditorium for his needs. As long as the theater can get the guy to the place he wants, the guy shouldn't complain.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.