Has HAL decided yet? Will they require vaccinations?

[ChutChut]

5 hours ago, cscurlock said:

The chance of serious illness is like 0% with vaccination and if there was a situation like that they can handle 1 person. Its handling a large group of seriously ill people that is the problem.  If the vaccinations prevent that then the cruise lines should be fine.  

What does "like 0% mean?" Never heard of that in my Statistics class.

[ChutChut]

23 hours ago, rucrazy said:

I vote for only one protocol FULL VACCINATION period!

For those that choose not to VAX or can't, I am sorry 

maybe we will see you in a few years when things calm down..

You will still have some beaches available to you enjoy your summers.

Cruise ships that stop at US ports are governed by the ADA (they are public accommodations). As such, cruise lines MUST make reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities who can't be vaccinated (masks, negative test).

Edited May 7, 2021 by ChutChut

[MTAK]

11 minutes ago, ChutChut said:

Cruise ships that stop at US ports are governed by the ADA (they are public accommodations). As such, cruise lines MUST make reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities who can't be vaccinated (masks, negative test).

Based on other's explanations of ADA, it's my understanding that vaccination status is not a protected class, so ADA would not apply.

[rucrazy]

9 minutes ago, ChutChut said:

Cruise ships that stop at US ports are governed by the ADA (they are public accommodations). As such, cruise lines MUST make reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities who can't be vaccinated (masks, negative test).

I am not an expert on ADA although I used to teach the class, I respectfully disagree with your analysis It is my position that a cruise line has the capability to dictate who can and cannot board their ships for the well being of the majority. 

and as Spock has noted “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

[ChutChut]

43 minutes ago, rucrazy said:

I am not an expert on ADA although I used to teach the class, I respectfully disagree with your analysis It is my position that a cruise line has the capability to dictate who can and cannot board their ships for the well being of the majority. 

and as Spock has noted “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

I say this respectfully - you are incorrect. SCOTUS (2005, I think) concluded foreign-flagged cruise ships ARE governed by the ADA when docked at US ports. It's a badly written decision and does more to muddy the "waters" with respect to what is a reasonable accommodation but it's the law of the land. If I remember correctly the case was Spector. (law school was ions ago).

[rucrazy]

12 minutes ago, ChutChut said:

I say this respectfully - you are incorrect. SCOTUS (2005, I think) concluded foreign-flagged cruise ships ARE governed by the ADA when docked at US ports. It's a badly written decision and does more to muddy the "waters" with respect to what is a reasonable accommodation but it's the law of the land. If I remember correctly the case was Spector. (law school was ions ago).

You may be right.... SCOTUS at the end of the day may readdress this one part of the issue 

[ChutChut]

14 minutes ago, rucrazy said:

You may be right.... SCOTUS at the end of the day may readdress this one part of the issue 

Yep. It was a confusing, splintered mess of an opinion and it should be revisited if the right case comes along.

[Horizon chaser 1957]

45 minutes ago, ChutChut said:

I say this respectfully - you are incorrect. SCOTUS (2005, I think) concluded foreign-flagged cruise ships ARE governed by the ADA when docked at US ports. It's a badly written decision and does more to muddy the "waters" with respect to what is a reasonable accommodation but it's the law of the land. If I remember correctly the case was Spector. (law school was ions ago).

On the other hand, reasonable accommodation does not mean those who are legally blind can drive because their disability prevents them from passing a road test. ADA is to insure equality, not the right to endanger the lives and wellbeing of yourself and others. As our travel doctor once told me regarding Yellow Fever, there is no law that forces a disease to recognize a medical exemption certificate.

[ChutChut]

15 minutes ago, Horizon chaser 1957 said:

On the other hand, reasonable accommodation does not mean those who are legally blind can drive because their disability prevents them from passing a road test. ADA is to insure equality, not the right to endanger the lives and wellbeing of yourself and others. As our travel doctor once told me regarding Yellow Fever, there is no law that forces a disease to recognize a medical exemption certificate.

Agreed - but no one suggested allowing the blind to drive oneself is a reasonable accommodation. In this case, I predict a reasonable accommodation is mask usage and a Covid test before embarking etc. I'm not suggesting someone who currently has Covid should be allowed on a cruise ship. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by ChutChut

[albingirl]

21 minutes ago, ChutChut said:

Agreed - but no one suggested allowing the blind to drive oneself is a reasonable accommodation. In this case, I predict a reasonable accommodation is mask usage and a Covid test before embarking etc. I'm not suggesting someone who currently has Covid should be allowed on a cruise ship. 

However,  a person who boards who has not had a vaccination puts others at risk.  Period.  Not to mention people who are in the ports to be visited.  I think your argument is weak and without merit.

[MTAK]

The question becomes whether an accommodation puts oneself or others at unreasonable risk.  Ordinarily a disability accommodation does not induce risk.

 

In an employment scenario one has to consider health and safety of everyone, and it seems logical the same would apply here.

[Horizon chaser 1957]

4 hours ago, ChutChut said:

Agreed - but no one suggested allowing the blind to drive oneself is a reasonable accommodation. In this case, I predict a reasonable accommodation is mask usage and a Covid test before embarking etc. I'm not suggesting someone who currently has Covid should be allowed on a cruise ship. 

If, unlike vaccinated passengers, you are prone to becoming seriously ill or dying from the virus, allowing you on board would be a breach of due diligence. That does not qualify as reasonable accommodation. 

[CI66774]

5 hours ago, albingirl said:

However,  a person who boards who has not had a vaccination puts others at risk.  Period.  Not to mention people who are in the ports to be visited.  I think your argument is weak and without merit.

I believe the ADA is governing law - not an “argument....”

[CI66774]

5 hours ago, MTAK said:

The question becomes whether an accommodation puts oneself or others at unreasonable risk.  Ordinarily a disability accommodation does not induce risk.

 

In an employment scenario one has to consider health and safety of everyone, and it seems logical the same would apply here.

Reasonable accommodation might involve having the person take a COVID test every few days and wearing a mask everywhere, etc. if the person doesn’t have COVID and continually tests negative, they’re not a risk to anyone.

[CI66774]

1 hour ago, Horizon chaser 1957 said:

If, unlike vaccinated passengers, you are prone to becoming seriously ill or dying from the virus, allowing you on board would be a breach of due diligence. That does not qualify as reasonable accommodation. 

No one is saying the person would be prone to dying, etc. they may have a condition that reacts negatively to the elements of the vaccine, etc. Regardless, the ADA governs as long as that ship has even one port in the US. If the ship doesn’t, then the ADA doesn’t apply. However, they may be laws of other countries where the ship docks that could apply.

[PoolSlider]

18 minutes ago, CI66774 said:

Reasonable accommodation might involve having the person take a COVID test every few days and wearing a mask everywhere, etc. if the person doesn’t have COVID and continually tests negative, they’re not a risk to anyone.

How do you "police" this on a cruise ship? Do we assume non-vaccinated people will comply with mask wearing and be diligent in their interactions on and off the ship? I can tell you the answer to that. 

 

It is far more straightforward to make the minimum safety standard to be fully vaccinated. 

[Tampa Girl]

12 hours ago, CI66774 said:

I believe the ADA is governing law - not an “argument....”

Fortunately, most "law" involves "argument" when attempting to apply it to a particular situation.

[CI66774]

58 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

Fortunately, most "law" involves "argument" when attempting to apply it to a particular situation.

No, argument precedes established law. There is no argument the ADA 

governs foreign-flagged vessels while at US ports. Now, there will be argument as to whether mask wearing, etc. is a reasonable accommodation for those who have a disability and can’t be vaccinated, or whether it’s an undue burden....

[Tampa Girl]

9 minutes ago, CI66774 said:

No, argument precedes established law. There is no argument the ADA 

governs foreign-flagged vessels while at US ports. Now, there will be argument as to whether mask wearing, etc. is a reasonable accommodation for those who have a disability and can’t be vaccinated, or whether it’s an undue burden....

 

Yes, but there is argument both before "established law" and upon later consideration as to whether such law applied to a particular factual situation.  That is why we have appellate courts because "established law" in construed differently depending on the facts of the case.  Rarely is a case on "all fours."

[Tampa Girl]

21 hours ago, ChutChut said:

I say this respectfully - you are incorrect. SCOTUS (2005, I think) concluded foreign-flagged cruise ships ARE governed by the ADA when docked at US ports. It's a badly written decision and does more to muddy the "waters" with respect to what is a reasonable accommodation but it's the law of the land. If I remember correctly the case was Spector. (law school was ions ago).

 

You raised a good question.  Tracking down Spector (Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines), flagged in the Bahamas, I found the following case discussion informative.  I don't see that the ADA has any direct effect on the issue of whether or not a foreign-flagged cruise line can impose greater health restrictions on its passengers than does U.S. law.  As quoted:  "Title III's own limitations and qualifications prevent the statute from imposing requirements that would conflict with international obligations or threaten shipboard safety."

 

 In Spector, the plaintiffs were a group of disabled passengers who were contending that they were being discriminated against for several reasons:  They were being charged more for their cabins; their cabins had a raised coaming around the doors (apparently making it difficult for wheelchair mobility), etc.  Spector did not involve physical health and vaccination requirements.  It was concerned with whether Title III could require a foreign cruise line to make structural modifications to accommodate disabled passengers and whether such modifications would "interfere with the internal affairs of any cruise ship, foreign flag or domestic or pose any real threat to the safety of the crew or other passengers.” 

 

 Bottom line, under Spector, the ADA does not appear to automatically apply to a cruise line's vaccination requirements.  Still, it is a confusing case and will or, perhaps, has been construed more definitively since 2005.

[MTAK]

14 hours ago, CI66774 said:

Reasonable accommodation might involve having the person take a COVID test every few days and wearing a mask everywhere, etc. if the person doesn’t have COVID and continually tests negative, they’re not a risk to anyone.

Everyone else may be a risk to that passenger because that passenger is at higher risk due to not being vaccinated.  A company isn't going to put someone in a position of greater health and safety risk, period.  There is no law or argument getting around that fact.

[drowelf]

In my opinion, a lot of this discussion around the ADA is probably moot. A cruise ship generally takes on passengers at port A and visits ports, B, C, D, E during the cruise. These ports are going to be in multiple countries, with differing laws and regulations. Its going to be the most restrictive port requirements that are going to drive the cruise ships requirements. If just one of the ports says, you can only stop here if all your passenger and crew are vaccinated, then I would expect the line to require that all passengers and crew be vaccinated. 

[Hlitner]

The ADA is certainly moot since no Ocean cruise can embark. disembark or call at any USA port as long as the CDC keeps digging in its heels and promulgates guidelines that are not reasonable.  So we are currently in a situation where some folks "hope" for cruises that embark from US ports, but those of us who live in reality simply deal with a cruise industry that only offers cruises that do not involve any US ports.  Those cruises are not, in any way, obligated to follow any ADA requirements nor are they obligated to give the time of day to the CDC.  

 

If and when ships are permitted to use US Ports (if this ever happens in the next few years) then the ADA certainly becomes worthy of discussion.  But by that time there will likely be at least one vaccine that will have received full FDA approval.  The ADA only requires "reasonable" accommodations and a cruise line could easily argue that a 100% vaccination policy is both reasonable and necessary (especially if it is a requirement to visit one or more ports).  

 

Folks who think they can travel, internationally, without a COVID vaccine may be forced to face some realities.  We can already see the trend where some countries will accept vaccinated folks without restriction, but require those who are not vaccinated to quarantine (at their own cost) for up to 2 weeks and pay for 1 or more PCR tests during that quarantine.  As to cruising, we have two cruises booked (July and Oct) on a cruise line that requires everyone to have been fully vaccinated with absolutely no exceptions!  That is reality.  Those that do not want to comply with that requirement will not be able to take those cruises.   

 

Hank

 

[conwakr]

Yes and this is all somewhat short term....if suddenly we find we all need boosters in the fall that just adds a whole new can of worms to the situation. 

[happygrammy100]

I am awaiting Hal's decision. I will only book if ALL are vaccinated. Let's hope they do the right thing