Subject: (Seattle Times) High Court rules for Martin, says disabilities law applies to PGA
From: James Levy (jrlevy@u.washington.edu)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 09:59:02 PDT
The Supreme Court came through for Casey! In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme
Court held that the PGA must allow Casey Martin to use a cart while playing
in PGA tournaments. More on this case in tomorrow's Washington Disability
Lawyers and Advocates List Digest. In the meantime, here is the Seattle
Times story. Attached to this message is the Supreme Court opinion, in pdf
format.
James R. Levy, J.D.
Research Associate
Center for Technology and Disability Studies
University of Washington
email: jrlevy@u.washington.edu
High Court rules for Martin, says disabilities law applies to PGA
By Seattle Times news services
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that professional golf must
bend its rules so a disabled golfer can participate in tournaments, applying
the federal disability-rights law to professional sports for the first time
in a ruling that also could strengthen the legal position of disabled people
in ordinary workplaces.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices held that the PGA Tour must allow Casey Martin
to ride a golf cart despite the tour's usual requirement that all players
walk the 18-hole course. Martin, 28, has a rare leg ailment that makes it
almost impossible for him to walk that far.
The tournaments are "public accommodations" covered by the 1990 Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), and letting Martin use a cart is a "reasonable
modification" that gives him the access required by the law, the court said.
In rejecting the tour's argument that waiving the rule for Martin would
represent a fundamental change in the game, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote
in his opinion, "The essence of the game (of golf) has been shot making,"
not walking.
The PGA Tour's "refusal to consider Martin's personal circumstances ... runs
counter to the clear language and purpose" of the disabilities law, wrote
Stevens, a persistent, if not particularly skilled, golfer.
Hal Sutton, a golfer who also is a member of the tour's policy board, said
many pros have bad backs and might apply to use a cart. Sutton has had back
problems.
"In Casey's particular case, there's no doubt about his disability," Sutton
said. "This is not about Casey Martin. It's about the possibilities it opens
up."
The ruling will not produce any immediate changes for the elite-level PGA
Tour because Martin is not playing well enough to qualify. He is playing on
the Buy.Com Tour where PGA rules also apply.
Justice Antonin Scalia issued a fierce 16-page dissent that accused his
colleagues of adopting an "Alice in Wonderland" view of sports and the law.
He said he envisioned parents of Little Leaguers claiming that because their
son has attention-deficit disorder, he "ought to be given a fourth strike,"
not the usual three strikes and you're out.
"The rules are the rules. They are (as in all games) entirely arbitrary, and
there is no basis on which anyone - not even the Supreme Court of the United
States - can pronounce one or another of them to be `nonessential' if the
rulemaker (here the PGA Tour) deems it to be essential," he wrote in the
dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Martin's case, PGA Tour vs. Martin, has been hotly debated since he sued the
PGA Tour in 1997.
The case became a rallying point for disability-rights groups, which saw
Martin as the perfect emblem for the struggles of lesser-known disabled
people.
The PGA Tour appealed lower-court rulings in favor of Martin to stand up for
what it called "the integrity of the rules," under which walking is required
as a test of competitors' physical and mental stamina.
Golf greats such as Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus testified about the
physical challenge walking adds to the game.
Yesterday, Martin said the ruling "opens some doors for people." While it
might not immediately affect other golfers, Martin said he hoped disabled
athletes in general would benefit. "An institution like the PGA Tour ...
before they just automatically knock down someone's desire for
accommodation, they might have to think twice," he said.
For its part, the PGA Tour called the opinion a narrow one, whose
implications would not extend beyond Martin's case.
However, some experts said Martin's victory could give a boost to disabled
athletes competing in recreational and school sports.
Until yesterday, it had not been clear whether sports competitors were
covered by the ADA.
Under this law, it is illegal to discriminate against people with physical
or mental disabilities in "places of public accommodation."
In Martin's case, lawyers for the PGA Tour conceded that because golf
tournaments are open to the public, they must make reasonable accommodations
for spectators who are disabled. However, they maintained the
antidiscrimination rule did not cover the players.
The Supreme Court read the law more broadly and ruled that it covers "the
players in tournaments" as well as the spectators.
Sponsors of such public events "may not discriminate against either
spectators or competitors on the basis of disability," Stevens said.
Legal experts said this holding has the effect of extending the law to all
disabled athletes.
"This will be hugely important for recreational and scholastic sports
because it makes it clear that disabled athletes have a right to
participate," said Harvard Law Professor Samuel Bagentos, who filed a
friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of several disability-rights groups.
Disability-rights advocates and attorneys for employers said the court, in
faulting the PGA Tour for insisting its rule needed to be enforced across
the board rather than weighing Martin's specific situation, also had sent a
strong signal about how the ADA should be applied in conventional
workplaces.
"They've said you can't react in a knee-jerk way, but you have to make sure
you understand the implications of what the person is asking for," said Andy
Imparato, president and chief executive officer of the American Association
of People with Disabilities.
As a result, plaintiffs in future ADA cases may have gained some latitude in
arguing that certain job requirements are not "fundamental" and can be
modified, said Alan Levins, a San Francisco-based attorney who represents
business in employment cases. "People will say working at home is analogous
to giving Casey Martin a cart," he said.
The Washington Post, The Associated Press and Los Angeles Times contributed
to this report.
Copyright (c) 2001 The Seattle Times Company
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed May 30 2001 - 10:01:28 PDT