Let the Music Play

Imagine sitting in a football game, not being able to tell what penalty had just occurred or understand an emergency announcement over the loudspeaker.  This is exactly what hearing-impaired Redskins season ticket holders endured before a recent court decision. In a March 2011 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals per curiam opinion entitled Feldman v. Pro Football Players and  WFI Stadium the court held that providing auxiliary aids to the hearing-impaired fans as proposed by the Redskins was not enough to provide them equal access to the game.  The court ruled that deaf individuals have the right to engage in the fan experience just as much as individuals who are not hearing impaired.  Simply put, because WFI Stadium is a place of public accommodation, i.e. a public place providing a good and or service, they are required to follow rules set forth under the ADA allowing everyone equal access to their goods and services, in this case, full enjoyment of the football game. The Court of Appeals stated in their opinion that they agree with the District Court’s decision that the music played over the public address system during Redskins home games is part of the football game experience that Pro Football Players and WFI Stadium provide as a good or service, and that the ADA requires full and equal access to the music lyrics. 

In affirming the lower court's ruling, the Appeals Court acknowledged that the Redskins had worked with the plaintiff season-ticket holders since 2007 to come up with a fair compromise.  These compromises included providing handheld devices to be distributed to each fan who requested such a device.  In analyzing whether the devices were an appropriate accommodation the court was persuaded by the fact that the hearing-impaired individual would have to look down at the device in order to read the words on the screen and then look back up and thus miss the action of the game.  The Redskins had originally proposed this idea because they felt that captioning on the main screen as proposed by the plaintiffs would take away from the video board.  The court held that providing such captioning was not an undue burden for the defendants. Judge Beaty dissented in part arguing that the ruling is too broad and could affect other sports facilities negatively.

New Law Mandates Increased Access to Services for those with Autism

Massachusetts became the 23^rd state to pass legislation expanding health insurance coverage to children and adults with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The law which was approved by the Governor on August 3, 2010, went into effect on January 1, 2011. With students returning to schools across the Commonwealth, it is important to explain what is and is not covered by the new law, and what schools’ obligations continue to be under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

ARICA (An Act Relative to Insurance Coverage for Autism) mandates specific private health insurance providers to cover an expanded range of services for those on the Autism Spectrum. In particular, the law requires these insurance companies to cover “medically necessary” care including: habilitative or rehabilitative care, pharmacy care, psychiatric care, psychological care and therapeutic care.  

ARICA is only applicable in Massachusetts, so it only affects Massachusetts residents who have ASD and are enrolled in private health insurance plans. It applies to most private health insurance policies but does not apply to policyholders with MassHealth /CommonHealth. You should check with your individual insurance provider to verify the effect of the new law on coverage.

While this law is a huge victory for families who have loved ones with Autism, it does not diminish a school’s need to provide a free and appropriate public education. For example if a student now receives occupational therapy outside of school due to the reduced cost, but the IEP states that the student should receive occupational therapy during the school day to meet the student’s needs, the school cannot eliminate the therapy during school hours just because the student is now receiving therapy outside of school. The school must take into account what the student’s needs are in order to succeed in school and receive a free appropriate public education. The new law does not mandate reimbursement to schools and school districts for providing these services.

Hopefully the new law will lead to students receiving increased services outside of school allowing them to be more successful as they progress through their educations.