Promoting, Dignity, Equality and Self-Determination
Washington Protection & Advocacy System
Home ׀
About WPAS ׀
News ׀
Self-Advocacy
׀ Public Policy
׀ Publications
׀ Contact
WPAS
E-Mail Updates
׀ Support WPAS
׀ Search
SUPREME COURT GRANTS CASEY MARTIN A TICKET TO RIDE
by Phil Jordan
May 31, 2001
The Supreme Court has ruled that Casey Martin, a talented golfer with a degenerative circulatory condition that makes it painful to walk, may use a golf cart while competing on the Professional Golf Association (PGA) Tour. Martin had filed suit against the PGA under the Americans with Disabilities Act after the PGA refused to waive its rule requiring all competitors to walk the golf course in PGA events.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) bans discrimination against people with disabilities in public accommodations. The law requires "reasonable modifications" for an individual with disabilities unless such changes would fundamentally alter the place or event. The Casey Martin case turned on this key provision of the ADA. The PGA argued that allowing Martin to ride, rather than walk the course, would "fundamentally alter the nature" of the game played on the PGA Tour. Secondly, the PGA believed that the ADA did not apply in this case, because the PGA Tour was not a place of "public accommodation," as set forth in Title III of the ADA. The court disagreed by voting 7-2 to uphold Martin’s right to use a cart.
The court held that the essential feature of golf was shot making, and that allowing Martin to ride in a golf cart did not alter the fundamental nature of the game. Several members of the PGA have publicly stated that this ruling will "open the floodgates", allowing individuals with bad backs, for example, to apply to the PGA to ride a cart. They argue that the playing field should be level for all competitors, and thus, the rules should be identical for all players. They believe that this ruling allows individuals to gain a competitive advantage in their sport.
Advocates for people with disabilities recognize that applying fair standards to all individuals is an important theme in the American consciousness. It does not follow, however, that a strict adherence to a uniform set of rules serves the cause of fairness. Applying a single set of rules to all individuals is not necessarily the same as providing a level playing field. In this case, the court determined that Casey Martin had all the necessary skills to compete at the level of other PGA golfers, but needed an individualized accommodation that would allow his golfing skill to be fairly pitted against the skill of the other golfers on the Tour. This is consistent with the purpose of the ADA.
The PGA had argued that walking the course introduced a factor of fatigue into the game that Martin would not be subjected to if he were allowed to ride between shots. A lower court ruled, however, that Martin’s circulatory condition, which obstructs blood flow to his right leg and heart, causes him greater fatigue even with a cart than is experienced by competitors who walk. This individualized accommodation for Martin has no bearing on how other players on the Tour can or should be accommodated for a bad back, a trick knee, or a migraine headache. It applies only to Casey Martin who has sought accommodation utilizing the provisions of the ADA.
The ADA is a law that seeks to level the playing field for people with disabilities. This often means that accommodations must be made so that such individuals have equal access to justice, to public events, to housing, to employment, and to the activities one undertakes on a day-to-day basis. Rules must sometimes be altered to allow an individual with a disability to enjoy the same rights and privileges others experience. These alterations are to be considered on an individual basis, according to the nature of a person’s disability.
The ruling by the Supreme Court in the Casey Martin case appreciates the difference between fairness and the perfunctory application of rules. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that when Congress passed the ADA, lawmakers intended that sponsoring organizations "carefully weigh" the effect of their rules on people with disabilities. The PGA Tour's "refusal to consider Martin's personal circumstances in deciding whether to accommodate his disability runs counter to the clear language and purpose" of the ADA, Justice Stevens wrote in his opinion for the court. The PGA Tour will now be required to carefully consider the effect their rules have on Casey Martin and on other individuals with disabilities that are qualified to compete on the PGA Tour.
● Back to Envoy Archives ● Back to Envoy Online ● Back to Home Page ●
