Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign developments (Updated x2)
Next Post: Invest in Kids proponents make big public relations push
Posted in:
* The basic crux of the matter from the Tribune…
(T)he suit alleges that the Sox do not currently offer season tickets for accessible seats online. It also alleges that not all accessible seats in the stadium are offered at every game.
Forty-four of the 63 sections on the lower deck of Guaranteed Rate Field have wheelchair-accessible seats. Of 36 upper-deck sections, six include accessible seating.
This is also allegedly an abrupt change from Sox policy of past years.
* The lawsuit is here. Press release…
Access Living, a leading disability service and advocacy center, and Much Shelist, P.C., a Chicago law firm with a history of advancing disability rights, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 13, 2023, alleging the Chicago White Sox, LTD have discriminatory ticket sales practices and that the organization refuses to offer equal benefits to people with disabilities as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The suit alleges that the White Sox refuse to sell ADA accessible season tickets on their website. This forces people with disabilities who want season tickets to call to make a purchase, limiting the seats they can purchase to the few offered over the phone instead of allowing them to choose from all unsold accessible seats like standard season ticket purchasers can do on the website.
The suit also alleges the White Sox have discriminatory restrictions on the website sale of accessible single game tickets, only offering a small percentage of accessible seats for sale, and frequently limiting them to only certain areas of the stadium or certain games during the year. For the majority of this season, the suit alleges that the White Sox website primarily offered accessible seating in the outfield or upper deck. Only after the White Sox were assured of not making the playoffs did the Sox release some accessible seats for sale closer to the infield on the main level.
Access Living brings the suit on behalf of two plaintiffs with disabilities: Ralph Yaniz, a former regional vice president for the AARP and counselor, and Douglas McCormick, a longtime season ticket holder who worked for the scaffolding company that was part of the construction of Guaranteed Rate Field where the White Sox play.
McCormick, who now needs mobility assistance, tried to change his season ticket seats to accessible seats and was told no.
“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. “Well, that’s exactly what the White Sox told me after decades of supporting them.”
Yaniz, who also has mobility needs, was turned away when he tried to buy season tickets online, and he’s struggled to find appropriate accessible seating for individual games for sale online as well, describing the options as limited. […]
The suit asks the court to:
• Declare that the White Sox current practice of not offering for sale all unsold wheelchair accessible seats in White Sox Park for season tickets and individuals game tickets violates the Americans with Disabilities Act;
• Declare that the White Sox current practice of limiting single game tickets for wheelchair accessible seats to only certain areas of the White Sox Park despite the wide availability of wheelchair accessible seating in the Park itself violates the Americans with Disabilities Act; with initiating a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendant ordering them to:o offer season tickets for wheelchair accessible seats on its website and through all other methods of ticket purchase.
o offer all unsold wheelchair accessible seats for sale on its website and through all other methods of ticket purchase during the same stages of ticket sales as are available to purchasers who do not require accessible seats.
o offer all unsold wheelchair accessible seats for sale on its website and other methods of ticket purchase for all areas of White Sox Park that have accessible seating.
* ABC 7…
“Go back to the old system. Where you could go online,” McCormick said. “I would be able to go online a couple hours before the game, you hit the filter button, you could see what’s accessible, you could buy your ticket and you go to the game. It was an easy system. Don’t know what changed or why they changed it. But it has changed.”
The two said even single game tickets were impacted, with only a small percentage of accessible seats listed for sale.
“Last year I went to 40 games,” McCormick said. “This year, I think I went to ten games.”
* Fox 32…
“They do have in the stadium, a lot of accessible seating,” said Charles Petrof, senior attorney for Access Living. “But that’s not what this is about. This is about them actually selling the seating.”
“Starting back in November of last year, I really attempted to buy season tickets for my second year and what happened is they had blacked out all season tickets for wheelchairs online,” said Ralph Yaniz, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “So I had an email conversation with them at that time, and basically they said no they weren’t going to put them online.”
* Daily Herald…
“We are disappointed by this lawsuit as the White Sox always hope to accommodate the needs of all our fans at the ballpark,” the Sox said. “The White Sox comply with all legal requirements and provide significant accessible seating at our games for our guests. We strongly believe that White Sox baseball is for everyone. While litigation is pending, we will not have any additional comment.”
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:01 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign developments (Updated x2)
Next Post: Invest in Kids proponents make big public relations push
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Just when I thought that I couldn’t regret my fandom even more this year… Just sell the team and be done with it.
Comment by Benniefly2 Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:10 pm
Every unsold seat counts when you’re trying to extend your twelve-year run of keeping attendance low enough to not have to pay a piece of your ticket sales to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority.
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:10 pm
Meh. I can’t get excited about it. I want everyone to have access, and the access is still there. Being unhappy with how the Sox sell the tickets isn’t an ADA violation in my eyes.
Comment by James Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:14 pm
You’d think with the low attendance they would be encouraging people to attend games.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:18 pm
seems wrong. on the other hand, anyone can amble or wheel around the entire first level of the stadium and watch the game in progress. not something you can do at that other Chicago ballpark. being beneath the scoreboard when it fires off is really something.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:21 pm
The simple?
Easy.
This organization these past years, they are not fan driven;
The product on the field
The business plan to a small market existence
Relying on deep fandom not building a base of current fans
Now it’s here seen in the idea of excluding (allegedly) and not following the ADA
Every aspect of this ball club is rotten from the culture of the ownership, down to the fans being mistreated
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:22 pm
I would expect to hear from the ACLU next. Watching a Sox game is cruel and unusual punishment
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:36 pm
The number of unforced errors the business side of the White Sox organization has is even greater than the errors on the field. The organization is a joke and it begins and ends at the top.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:42 pm
“We strongly believe that White Sox baseball is for everyone.” We won’t do anything to actually make paying customers believe that, as the past decade of low attendance indicates.
Comment by Agora Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:43 pm
Isn’t this a Ticketmaster issue as the official ticketing system for MLB teams more so than a White Sox organizational issue? At least for individual game tickets. I don’t know how the Sox handle season tickets these days.
Comment by CLJ Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:13 pm
I can’t speak to the strength or lack thereof of this lawsuit, but a case by an individual against the Cubs was won by the team earlier this year (DOJ lawsuit against the Cubs still pending). It would be interesting if this suit against the Sox prompted a look by the DOJ.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-cubs-wrigley-renovations-disability-lawsuit-20230623-icjxn5ii5rh6pdcqbmw44zdfim-story.html
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:50 pm
“We are disappointed by this lawsuit”
Probably not as disappointed as the White Sox fan who couldn’t go to the game for what seems to be no good reason.
Comment by Anon E Moose Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:11 pm
Fully believe in accommodation anyone with a disability BUT talk to any lawyer who represents either developers or owners of any establishment which deals with the public( restaurants hotels etc) they will tell you the ADA is routinely used by lawyers who file questionable cases in the hope of extracting settlements. It is often seen as a hold up. This case may have merit but many do not
Comment by Sue Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:17 pm
===Probably not as disappointed as the White Sox fan who couldn’t go to the game for what seems to be no good reason.===
If seats are available, couldn’t they just buy a ticket at the door?
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:48 pm
==Every aspect of this ball club is rotten from the culture of the ownership, down to the fans being mistreated==
1000% correct and Im a lifelong fan.
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 5:43 pm
== by lawyers who file questionable cases in the hope of extracting settlements.==
If the business is complying they have nothing to fear. In fact, many businesses are not in compliance and simply disagree with the law.
Comment by Big Dipper== Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 7:37 pm