A Moral Dilemma
by Steven John Fellman
NATO Washington Counsel
Theatre owners have always
operated with the belief that they had an obligation
to make sure that, when patrons
visited their theatres, they could enjoy the movies without
disruption in a pleasant environment. The industry has
spent millions of dollars to provide moviegoers with stadium-style
seating, the highest-quality sound, rocker chairs with
cupholders, clean auditoria, novel concession items and,
as always, great popcorn.
In areas
where unruly behavior may exist, theatre operators provide
added security
services to make sure patrons can
enjoy the movies without disruption. As cell phones became
commonplace, theatre owners took steps to make sure that
patrons turned off their cell phones when they entered
the auditorium. Theatre staffs have been trained to monitor
behavior in the auditorium and patrons whose behavior disrupts
the viewing experience of others are asked to quiet down
and if they don’t, they are asked to leave.
Recently a situation
arose in a theatre that raises a moral dilemma. Looking
at the situation from the best viewpoint
of both the patron and the theatre operator, here are the
facts.
In the preamble to the ADA regulations, the Department
of Justice specifically recognizes that
disabled persons are not entitled to engage in behavior
that is disruptive of a performance. |
The patron family has
a child who has a significant disability. The disability
causes the child to react to certain events
in an abnormal manner. When he sees something that he
thinks is funny he may overreact. He laughs and makes
loud noises
long after the funny event occurs. The child loves to
go to the movies. For his birthday his parents decided
to
take him to a Saturday matinee of a “kids” movie.
He loved the movie and could not stop making loud noises
and laughing. His behavior was disturbing to the other
patrons in the audience.
The theatre management
observed the disruptive behavior and asked the parents
if they could calm the child so that
his behavior did not take away the enjoyment of the other
patrons. The parents explained that the child has a disability,
which causes him to react as he has, and that he really
is enjoying the movie. They claim that he has a right to
watch the film. Other patrons complain that the child’s
behavior is detracting from their ability to enjoy the
film. They claim that the theatre is obligated to tell
the parents to control their child or leave. No theatre
wants to deny a child with a disability the opportunity
to enjoy a movie. However, if you require other parents
to control their children, can you apply a lesser standard
to a child with a disability?
Under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA), the operator of a public facility
such as a theatre must make reasonable
accommodations to enable persons with disabilities to have
access to the services offered by the facility. Movie theatres
regularly provide wheelchair seating, assistive listening
systems, accessible restrooms, lowered counters on concession
areas, special parking spaces, etc., all of which enable
persons with disabilities to enjoy the movies. However,
in the preamble to the ADA regulations, the Department
of Justice specifically recognizes that disabled persons
are not entitled to engage in behavior that is disruptive
of a performance. According to the Department of Justice,
with regard to the question of disruption, the law does
not require the theatre operator to have a separate standard
for a person with a disability.
The case discussed above
raises the issue of when is the behavior of a patron
with a disability sufficiently disruptive
to justify expulsion from the theatre. Certainly one has
to take into account the age of the patron, the behavior
of the other patrons, and the question of whether the objectionable
behavior is causing a significant problem for other patrons.
The theatre operator must recognize that it may be difficult
to permit a disabled person to engage in a pattern of behavior
and refuse to permit a non-disabled person to engage in
similar conduct.
In certain states, such
as California, students with disabilities are mainstreamed
in the classroom even though they may
need a special aide to assist them and even though their
conduct may be disruptive to other students. The California
school system determined that non-disabled students, as
part of their daily educational experience, must learn
to deal with disabled students. There has been no such
determination under the ADA.
In the case that we described
above, the parents of the disabled child would contend
that inherent in their child’s
right to enjoy the movie is the need for other patrons
to accept his behavior as long as it does not cause them
physical harm and as long as it is within some reasonable
boundaries.
By contrast, other patrons
might argue that they have a right to watch the movie
in peace and quiet and the theatre
operator is required to eject a child whose behavior is
disruptive, regardless of whether the child has a disability.
In the case in question, the theatre management asked the
parents to take the child out of the theatre when they
could not control his behavior. The parents received a
refund of their ticket price. Some family members were
incensed and claimed that the theatre operator acted unreasonably
and had no sensitivity to the rights of a child with a
severe disability who was truly enjoying the movie. They
brought their case to the attention of the press and the
press report was very negative for the theatre operator.
Other family members recognized that the theatre management
acted appropriately. This was not reported in the press.
Theatre operators should
train their employees to recognize that these situations
may arise, and that there is a need
to be very sensitive in dealing with children with disabilities.
Each company must provide guidance to assist managers in
the most appropriate way of dealing with this type of problem.
There will be circumstances where you will have to ask
a parent to take a child with a disability out of the theatre
because the child’s conduct is disruptive. In such
circumstances, we all face the moral dilemma. There is
no easy solution. 
