BrandNewRock05
08/18/03, 02:38 PM
Notice the spin in the article...the Oregonian is a very liberal paper...I just wanted to point that out. Also, this was a FRONT PAGE STORY....on the day of that huge blackout... priorities? Read this and tell me your thoughts....mine are at the bottom.
"For Kathy Stewmon, "Titanic" was the last straw.
The Forest Grove woman, who has multiple sclerosis, had gone to see the blockbuster movie at a Regal Cinemas theater in the Portland area. She parked her wheelchair in the aisle because the space designated for wheelchairs was so close to the screen that she couldn't enjoy the movie
The incident happened five years ago, on her 50th birthday, but the memory rankles. Today, she is one of three Oregon women who successfully brought suit against the theater chain, claiming that their rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act were violated.
"I was so displeased we were going to have to sit four rows back from the screen," she remembered. Being so close, she would have had to lean her head back and turn from side to side to follow the action. Friends carried here and her wheelchair up several steps to another aisle, where she could see better.
"I know I was a fire hazard, but people were really nice," she said.
When the film ended, she complained to the manager about the lack of accommodations for her people with disabilities. He told her he had heard such complaints many times, she said.
Stewmon was disappointed. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a degenerative nerve disease, in 1970 and had used a wheelchair since she was 40. Movies are one of her few pleasures, she said.
Stewmon, 55, and the two other plaintiffs want to force the theater chain to become more wheelchair-friendly. On Wednesday, a federal appeals panel rulded in favor of the disabled women, ordering Regal Entertainment, the world's largest movie theater chain, to improve lines of sight for those in wheelchairs.
On Thursday, a Regal official implied that the company will appeal the ruling.
In a written statement, Dick Westerling, senior vice president of marketing and advertising for Regal Entertainment Group of Knoxville, Tenn., said the theater designs were approved by the state local and federal officials before they were built.
"It is fundamentally unfair to create a new construction standard and apply it to already existing buildings," he said.
The ruling, by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, "creates the opportunity for this issue to be resolved once and for all by the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.
Russ Nunley, Regal marketing director, said he could not elaborate on the statement.
Kathleen L. Wilde, attourney for the Oregon Advocacy Center, which represented the women, said the ruling is important because of Regal's huge presence in the United States. According to Regal's web site, the group operates 6,119 screens in 562 locations in 39 states.
"People in wheelchairs have very limited recreational activities," Wilde said. "This (case) means they're actually going to be able to go to the movies in comfort."
Wilde, said a second plaintiff, Tina Argenstinger, whose name appears as Ina Smith on the complaint, suffers from a degenerative bone disease and must use a wheelchair. She was unavailable for comment Thursday.
A third plaintiff, Kathleen Braddy of Toledo, welcomed the ruling.
Braddy, 63, was a March of Dimes poster child in 1945 when she became ill with polio at age 6. After years of therapy, she regained her ability to walk.
But at age 38, her muscles began cramping, and she suffered from "exhaustion that came out of nowhere." The difficulty was post-polio syndrome, a revisitation of symptoms of the disease. The former school teacher can walk but needs a wheel chair when she is tired.
She recalls a visit about two years ago to a Regal theater in Portland.
"You come in and you're underneath the screen," she said, "In order to see, you literally have to lean your head back. The screen was basically a blur.
When she ran into the same problem at another Regal theater in Willsonville, "it really ticked me off," she said.
"What I'd like to see is that all theaters now are sensitive to people, (including) the elderly who can't climb some of these places.""
I think its bullshit. The plans were accepted prior to building, why should they be changed now. I have been to both the Willsonville theater as well as the Portland theater in question. I had to sit in row number 1 during Titanic because it was too full everywhere else. Not a great seat, but I managed to watch the movie, and I didnt sue. The seat the handicapped get is fourth row center...not the best seat in the house, but better than what I had during Titanic. You cannot hand out the best seats in the house to wheelchaired....its just bad business, and its the truth. Per person in a movie theater, how many people are in wheel chairs? Exactly, you cannot give over the best seats to a huge minority of customers with special needs, its just stupid, unfortunante, but stupid. There are some things that certain people cannot do, and they need to accept that. I can no longer bowl unless I want to purchase my own shoes, because the bowling alleys near me do not carry my size. Am I suing? Of course not, because I understand that a bowling alley cannot carry every imaginable size...we cannot always bend over backwards to please everyone...and it seems that people think that a wheelchair means free sympathy/suit ticket. I mean, who gets the great parking? Who gets loaded on and off the plane first? Now I understand that that is neccesary for them, and I accept that, but seats in a movie theater, everybody has the same line of sight. It doesnt matter if you are in a chair or a wheelchair. If you move the handicapped into another seat, you are pushing others into the not so great seats...and it sucks for them, to have to live life like that, but you have to accept it. You cannot go around suing everyone who doesnt open up a door for you. Its not fair to sue someone who followed the plans that were already okay-ed by the state or whatever. Thats kinda wrong, really wrong.
"For Kathy Stewmon, "Titanic" was the last straw.
The Forest Grove woman, who has multiple sclerosis, had gone to see the blockbuster movie at a Regal Cinemas theater in the Portland area. She parked her wheelchair in the aisle because the space designated for wheelchairs was so close to the screen that she couldn't enjoy the movie
The incident happened five years ago, on her 50th birthday, but the memory rankles. Today, she is one of three Oregon women who successfully brought suit against the theater chain, claiming that their rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act were violated.
"I was so displeased we were going to have to sit four rows back from the screen," she remembered. Being so close, she would have had to lean her head back and turn from side to side to follow the action. Friends carried here and her wheelchair up several steps to another aisle, where she could see better.
"I know I was a fire hazard, but people were really nice," she said.
When the film ended, she complained to the manager about the lack of accommodations for her people with disabilities. He told her he had heard such complaints many times, she said.
Stewmon was disappointed. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a degenerative nerve disease, in 1970 and had used a wheelchair since she was 40. Movies are one of her few pleasures, she said.
Stewmon, 55, and the two other plaintiffs want to force the theater chain to become more wheelchair-friendly. On Wednesday, a federal appeals panel rulded in favor of the disabled women, ordering Regal Entertainment, the world's largest movie theater chain, to improve lines of sight for those in wheelchairs.
On Thursday, a Regal official implied that the company will appeal the ruling.
In a written statement, Dick Westerling, senior vice president of marketing and advertising for Regal Entertainment Group of Knoxville, Tenn., said the theater designs were approved by the state local and federal officials before they were built.
"It is fundamentally unfair to create a new construction standard and apply it to already existing buildings," he said.
The ruling, by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, "creates the opportunity for this issue to be resolved once and for all by the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.
Russ Nunley, Regal marketing director, said he could not elaborate on the statement.
Kathleen L. Wilde, attourney for the Oregon Advocacy Center, which represented the women, said the ruling is important because of Regal's huge presence in the United States. According to Regal's web site, the group operates 6,119 screens in 562 locations in 39 states.
"People in wheelchairs have very limited recreational activities," Wilde said. "This (case) means they're actually going to be able to go to the movies in comfort."
Wilde, said a second plaintiff, Tina Argenstinger, whose name appears as Ina Smith on the complaint, suffers from a degenerative bone disease and must use a wheelchair. She was unavailable for comment Thursday.
A third plaintiff, Kathleen Braddy of Toledo, welcomed the ruling.
Braddy, 63, was a March of Dimes poster child in 1945 when she became ill with polio at age 6. After years of therapy, she regained her ability to walk.
But at age 38, her muscles began cramping, and she suffered from "exhaustion that came out of nowhere." The difficulty was post-polio syndrome, a revisitation of symptoms of the disease. The former school teacher can walk but needs a wheel chair when she is tired.
She recalls a visit about two years ago to a Regal theater in Portland.
"You come in and you're underneath the screen," she said, "In order to see, you literally have to lean your head back. The screen was basically a blur.
When she ran into the same problem at another Regal theater in Willsonville, "it really ticked me off," she said.
"What I'd like to see is that all theaters now are sensitive to people, (including) the elderly who can't climb some of these places.""
I think its bullshit. The plans were accepted prior to building, why should they be changed now. I have been to both the Willsonville theater as well as the Portland theater in question. I had to sit in row number 1 during Titanic because it was too full everywhere else. Not a great seat, but I managed to watch the movie, and I didnt sue. The seat the handicapped get is fourth row center...not the best seat in the house, but better than what I had during Titanic. You cannot hand out the best seats in the house to wheelchaired....its just bad business, and its the truth. Per person in a movie theater, how many people are in wheel chairs? Exactly, you cannot give over the best seats to a huge minority of customers with special needs, its just stupid, unfortunante, but stupid. There are some things that certain people cannot do, and they need to accept that. I can no longer bowl unless I want to purchase my own shoes, because the bowling alleys near me do not carry my size. Am I suing? Of course not, because I understand that a bowling alley cannot carry every imaginable size...we cannot always bend over backwards to please everyone...and it seems that people think that a wheelchair means free sympathy/suit ticket. I mean, who gets the great parking? Who gets loaded on and off the plane first? Now I understand that that is neccesary for them, and I accept that, but seats in a movie theater, everybody has the same line of sight. It doesnt matter if you are in a chair or a wheelchair. If you move the handicapped into another seat, you are pushing others into the not so great seats...and it sucks for them, to have to live life like that, but you have to accept it. You cannot go around suing everyone who doesnt open up a door for you. Its not fair to sue someone who followed the plans that were already okay-ed by the state or whatever. Thats kinda wrong, really wrong.