Jump to content

Chicago White Sox sued for ADA Discriminatory Ticket Sale Practices


South Side Hit Men
 Share

Recommended Posts

The hits just keep on coming.

https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/white-sox-ticket-practices-discriminates-against-disabled-suit

The suit alleges the following:

  • Fans cannot purchase the inventory of available accessible seats directly on the website.
  • Restrictions on single game ADA ticket availability (upper deck or OF only until Sox eliminated from playoff contention).
  • One of the plaintiffs was refused a change of his season ticket plan to a accessible plan.

 

Quote

“Imagine helping in the construction of the home stadium for your team and being told you can’t buy season tickets to go to games there,” said McCormick, who requires mobility assistance. “Well, that’s exactly what the White Sox told me after decades of supporting them.”

 

Edited by South Side Hit Men
  • Like 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every ballpark operates this way. You have to have a certain number of ADA seats available for reseating each game, because the vast majority of those who need the seating don’t say anything about it until they show up. If the ADA seating was available online, there’s nothing stopping anyone from buying the seats whether they need them or not, as there isn’t currently any reliable way to check for that sort of thing. 

It is understandably annoying for a STH in need of ADA seating to essentially need to be reseated every game, but changing that isn’t just a matter of making an exception — the way the ticket manifest works in Ticketmaster/ProVenue/Ticket Return/etc. makes tickets either available or restricted for a type of purchase by class, so even if a ticket rep was able to escalate the issue and get permission to make an exception for a particular customer, the inventory system can’t accommodate such an exception, meaning you’d have to open up all seating for similar purchase, which is just asking for trouble and may actually even be illegal locally depending upon local law since, again, there’s no way for anyone to realistically verify ADA status in a transaction like this.

The pain points are legit, and it’s totally possible the Sox are fucking this up in many other unjustifiable ways, as is their general modus operandi, but based on what is mentioned in this article, these are all problems with the system in general, and many of them are caused by existing legislature that is in place for good reason, I.e. exceptions can cause larger problems than the ones they solve.

In order to offer this group the same level of convenience and flexibility in purchasing that everyone else gets, there needs to be additional digital infrastructure in place to verify eligibility for those assets, and current legislation would need to adapt to it. I’m all for this, but I think suing the team is barking up the wrong tree. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

The hits just keep on coming.

https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/white-sox-ticket-practices-discriminates-against-disabled-suit

The suit alleges the following:

  • Fans cannot purchase the inventory of available accessible seats directly on the website.
  • Restrictions on single game ADA ticket availability (upper deck or OF only until Sox eliminated from playoff contention).
  • One of the plaintiffs was refused a change of his season ticket plan to a accessible plan.

 

 

I can understand the not being to automatically switch the season ticket plan as the prices may be different.  

I can also understand not being able to purchase them on the website as you would need to prove somehow you needed them.

It's awful that hey restricted them to only the upper deck though. That's just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You both @Eminor3rd  & @ptatc make reasonable points.

That said, even though the points you make sound reasonable, they are not consistent with the ADA act, which I have linked below.

https://www.ada.gov/resources/ticket-sales/

Tickets must be made available at the same time and via the same methods of sale.

Teams cannot require proof of disability to sell ADA tickets. For individual games, the sales platform can list text stating that purchase of these seats are for one or more persons in their group with a disability requiring an accessible seat.

For season tickets, a venue can ask for an attestation, in writing (though can also be submitted via the internet sales function), that a person has a disability requiring accessible seating.

In the event nobody in a group which purchased ADA seats requires ADA seating, the team reserves the right to transfer fans to another area.

—————————————————

TicketMaster, the White Sox official sales platform, charges billions of dollars in ticket fees. It’s hard to believe they do not offer a compliant platform across their nationwide venues to accommodate ADA requirements. If the lawsuit accusations are true, it’s likely the Sox are noncompliant due to Jerry / Brooks’ ticket sales preferences, versus ignorance of relevant law.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

I can understand the not being to automatically switch the season ticket plan as the prices may be different.  

I can also understand not being able to purchase them on the website as you would need to prove somehow you needed them.

It's awful that hey restricted them to only the upper deck though. That's just wrong.

The problem is that they have to hold those ADA seats open for day-of moves. I’m guessing they probably have the minimum legal amount down there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

You both @Eminor3rd  & @ptatc make reasonable points.

That said, even though the points you make sound reasonable, they are not consistent with the ADA act, which I have linked below.

https://www.ada.gov/resources/ticket-sales/

Tickets must be made available at the same time and via the same methods of sale.

Teams cannot require proof of disability to sell ADA tickets. For individual games, the sales platform can list text stating that purchase of these seats are for one or more persons in their group with a disability requiring an accessible seat.

For season tickets, a venue can ask for an attestation, in writing (though can also be submitted via the internet sales function), that a person has a disability requiring accessible seating.

In the event nobody in a group which purchased ADA seats requires ADA seating, the team reserves the right to transfer fans to another area.

—————————————————

TicketMaster, the White Sox official sales platform, charges billions of dollars in ticket fees. It’s hard to believe they do not offer a compliant platform across their nationwide venues to accommodate ADA requirements. If the lawsuit accusations are true, it’s likely the Sox are noncompliant due to Jerry / Brooks’ ticket sales preferences, versus ignorance of relevant law.

Yeah I'm not surprised that there are major incongruencies between the law and the policy that teams adopt/justify and probably misunderstand through games of telephone. What I've said I'm sure is only partially correct but I can tell you is firsthand from several teams I've worked for. ADA stuff is unique because there is SO much out there that is noncompliant, and it just goes by unnoticed unless someone decides to sue. It really is a mess, and it's unfortunate because I think many really would like to get it right but only if it's relatively easy to do, and the nature of much of this is big and expensive. Classic situation where there just aren't enough voices pushing for those affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

Yeah I'm not surprised that there are major incongruencies between the law and the policy that teams adopt/justify and probably misunderstand through games of telephone. What I've said I'm sure is only partially correct but I can tell you is firsthand from several teams I've worked for. ADA stuff is unique because there is SO much out there that is noncompliant, and it just goes by unnoticed unless someone decides to sue. It really is a mess, and it's unfortunate because I think many really would like to get it right but only if it's relatively easy to do, and the nature of much of this is big and expensive. Classic situation where there just aren't enough voices pushing for those affected.

I'd say for smaller businesses, there can be major costs involved that in many cases may not be feasible to implement. Most do not have the resources (staff, legal advice and financial) to know every single relevant law. It's hard enough managing through the various city, county and state laws to operate seemingly simple businesses.

However, for billion dollar net worth entities like the White Sox and Ticketmaster, they have enough attorneys on hand to know the legalities, and at minimum can spend the 2 or so minutes to find the link posted here, and work with Ticketmaster and Boyer's ticket organization to implement. Plantiffs stated ADA requirements, but the Sox choose not to respond or implement, at one point telling Ralph Yaniz "their website is broken".

Link to US District Court Lawsuit: https://www.accessliving.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Yaniz-v.-Chicago-White-Sox-9.13.23-Class-Action-Complaint.pdf

  • ACA.gov link I provided is contained on page 4.
  • See pages 7-11 for Ralph Yaniz.
  • See pages 12-15 for Douglass McCormick.
  • See pages 16-17 for relief sought.

 

Edited by South Side Hit Men
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...