VICTORY IN THE CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES LITIGATION 
                            by Donald C. Capps 

In the August, 1989, issue of the Braille Monitor we printed 
an article entitled "Litigation Filed Against Carnival Cruise 
Lines." It recounted the problems that Joe Urbanek had when he 
tried to take a vacation on a Carnival Cruise Line ship. The National 
Federation of the Blind assisted Joe Urbanek with a lawsuit against 
Carnival, and the February edition of the Palmetto Blind, the 
publication of the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina, 
reports the outcome. Here is the story as it appeared in the Palmetto 
Blind. It is one more answer to the question: Why the National 
Federation of the Blind?  
 
In February, 1989, the National Federation of the Blind sponsored 
litigation against Carnival Cruise Lines on behalf of Joe Urbanek 
of Walterboro, South Carolina. In order for Mr. Urbanek to take the 
cruise, Carnival Cruise Lines required that a special release be executed 
by Mr. Urbanek which would have relieved Carnival Cruise Lines of 
any and all liability arising out of his cruise. Mr. Urbanek's blindness 
was the sole cause of Carnival Cruise Line's insisting upon the special 
release being executed. Mr. Urbanek appropriately resisted and sought 
the assistance of the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina 
and the National Federation of the Blind to fight the discriminatory 
policies of Carnival Cruise Lines. 

Upon the filing of the litigation, Carnival Cruise Lines took the 
position that they were not doing business in South Carolina and filed 
for a dismissal of the litigation on the grounds that South Carolina 
lacked jurisdiction. The court held otherwise. Carnival Cruise Lines 
appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Meanwhile, 
it obviously became increasingly clear to Carnival Cruise Lines that 
their discriminatory policies against the blind and the handicapped 
would not be upheld by the courts. Thus, the strong position held 
by the Federation, coupled with the fears of Carnival Cruise Lines that
they would not win this litigation, ultimately resulted in their 
abandoning their policy of requiring blind persons to sign any special 
release. On December 21, 1989, a Consent Decree filed in the Richland 
County Court of Common Pleas was executed, ending the Carnival Cruise 
Lines policy of discriminating against the blind. 

Mr. Clifford O. Koon, Jr. (member of the law firm, Rogers, Thomas, 
Cleveland, Koon, Waters, and Tally, which represents the NFB of South 
Carolina) writes in part as follows: "I am pleased that this matter 
was concluded favorably. I take particular pride in the language on 
page 4 which gives any citizen of the State of South Carolina the 
right to enforce this decree should Carnival fail to abide by it. 
This was a provision which we insisted be part of the settlement." 
Mr. Koon also writes, "I am happy to tell you that we have settled 
the case with Carnival.... Carnival has agreed to change its discriminatory
policies and to place handicapped persons on an equal plane with others. 
We are very happy with the victory in this case. We will, however, 
be monitoring Carnival Cruise Lines very closely to ensure that they 
give more than lip service to their policy change." 
It is noteworthy that the Consent Order cites the Bill of Rights for 
the Blind Law, sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind of 
South Carolina in the early 1970s, in reaching this settlement. This 
law is also referred to as the Model White Cane Law. Section I of 
the Consent Order states, "that this action was commenced by the 
plaintiff, Urbanek, on February 10, 1989, alleging that the defendant, 
Carnival, had engaged in certain discriminatory practices against 
Urbanek, a blind citizen of South Carolina, and other persons similarly 
situated, by requiring them to sign a special release form as a condition 
of passage on its cruise ships, in violation of South Carolina's `Bill 
of Rights for Handicapped Persons' Section 43-33-510 et seq., 
South Carolina's Code of Laws for 1976." 

Once again it is clear that legislation sponsored by the National 
Federation of the Blind of South Carolina which became law is very 
important because it protects blind citizens against discriminatory 
practices based solely on blindness. It should also be apparent to 
anyone that the Federation will enforce the law through court action, 
if necessary, in the interest of blind persons' being treated fairly 
and on a nondiscriminatory basis.