Pga Tour, Inc. v. Martin: Reasonable Modifications Under the Ada Fore the Disabled - Christopher James Hudson

• Publication year: 2002

Casenote

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin: Reasonable Modifications Under the ADA FORE the

Disabled*

In PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin,¹ the United States Supreme Court held that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act² prohibits the Professional Golf Association ("PGA") from denying Casey Martin, a disabled golfer, equal access to its tournaments.³ In support of its holding, the Court explained that allowing Martin to use a golf cart would not "fundamentally alter" the nature of the tournaments.⁴ Therefore, the Court concluded that the PGA Tour must provide this modification.⁵

I. Factual Background

Casey Martin is a disabled golfer who qualified for the PGA Tour in 2000.⁶ Martin suffers from Klippel-Trenaunay Weber Syndrome, a degenerative circulatory disorder that obstructs the blood flow from his right leg to his heart. His disability causes severe pain, fatigue, anxiety, and also creates the risk of hemorrhaging and blood clots. Because of the severe pain and risk that his tibia may fracture, Martin is unable to walk an eighteen-hole golf course. Since the latter part of his college career, Martin has had to use a golf cart in order to compete in tournaments. Before Martin sought to play professionally, this was not a problem because the National Collegiate Athletic Association and Pacific 10 Conference allowed him a waiver from the rules requiring players to walk. Martin found that the PGA, however, was not as receptive to his requests to use a golf cart at PGA events. ⁷

The PGA is a nonprofit entity that sponsors and cosponsors three annual tours of golf tournaments: the Buy.com Tour, the PGA Tour, and the Senior PGA Tour.⁸ There are two ways to qualify for these tournaments. First, a golfer may win a spot in a tournament through open qualifying rounds conducted immediately prior to each tournament. More commonly, a golfer may earn the privilege to play in an entire year of a tour's tournaments by participating and excelling in the Qualifying School ("Q-School"). The Q-School is open to any member of the public upon the payment of a $3000 entry fee and obtaining two letters of recommendation from members of either the PGA or Buy.com tours.⁹

The PGA adopted three sets of rules that govern PGA tournaments. First, the general rules of play are regulated by the "Rules of Golf," written by the United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of Scotland. These rules are respected by many public and private courses worldwide and do not prohibit the use of golf carts. Next, the "Conditions of Competition and Local Rules" ("Hard Card") apply specifically to PGA tournament events. The Hard Card allows golf carts during open qualifying rounds, but prohibits golf carts during Buy.com and PGA tournaments. The Hard Card allows senior players to use carts in all Senior PGA Tour events. Finally, a set of rules for each PGA tournament, called "Notices to Competitors," give specific rules particular to each course and event. Notices to Competitors may allow carts in certain instances, for example, during tournaments at times to speed up play between holes.¹⁰

When Martin entered the Q-School qualifying competition the Hard Card permitted him to use a golf cart during the first two stages, but prohibited the use of carts during the final stage of the competition. Although Martin requested a rule waiver and offered documentation of his disability, the PGA denied his request. Martin subsequently filed an action in the United States District Court of Oregon, under the Americans with Disabilities Act¹¹ ("ADA") asserting that the PGA violated the ADA by not making its tournaments accessible to individuals with disabilities.¹² Martin sought to enjoin the PGA from denying him the use of a cart during the final qualifying stage of the Q-School and in future PGA tournaments. The district court granted a preliminary injunction that forced the PGA to allow Martin to use a golf cart in the remaining Q-School rounds and in future Nike and PGA Tour events until the matter was litigated.¹³

The district court held that the PGA was not exempt as a "private club" or "establishment"¹⁴ from Title III of the ADA.¹⁵ The court reasoned that the PGA was "a commercial enterprise operating in the entertainment industry for the economic benefit of its members rather than a private club."¹⁶ Also, the court held that the PGA operates "places of public accommodation" at golf courses; therefore, the PGA tour must provide "reasonable modifications"¹⁷ to accommodate qualified disabled people using the facilities.¹⁸ Rejecting the PGA's argument that only the spectator areas of the tournament were places of public accommodation, the court reasoned that operators of public accommodations could not "create private enclaves within the facility . . . and thus relegate the ADA to hop-scotch areas."¹⁹ Therefore, the court granted partial summary judgment for Martin, ruling that the PGA did operate a place of public accommodation and was not exempt from the ADA.²⁰ Thereafter at trial, the court held that requiring the PGA to allow Martin to use a golf cart is a reasonable modification that does not "fundamentally alter" the nature of the PGA's events.²¹ The PGA argued that the walking rule was a substantive rule of competition and waiving this rule for anyone, under any circumstances, would fundamentally alter the nature of the tournaments. The PGA presented testimony from several golf legends, including Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer, who testified that the walking requirement injects "fatigue" into the tournament. However, the court rejected this generalized argument and stated that an "individualized inquiry" into Martin's case must be made in order to determine whether allowing Martin the use of a cart would give him an unfair advantage.²² The court discounted the significance of the fatigue factor, and reasoned that even if this was a legitimate part of the game, an individualized inquiry was prudent in Martin's case.²³ Furthermore, a detailed inquiry in this case revealed that because of his disability, even with the use of a cart, Martin suffers fatigue "undeniably greater" than other competitors who walk.²⁴ Accordingly, the court held that allowing Martin the use of a golf cart was a reasonable modification and issued a permanent injunction requiring the PGA to allow Martin to use a golf cart during tour events.²⁵

The PGA appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On appeal, the court rejected the contention that only the spectator areas were places of public accommodation.²⁶ Instead the court stated that the competition itself was public.²⁷ Also, the Ninth Circuit agreed that allowing Martin to use a golf cart would not fundamentally alter the nature of the game.²⁸ Accordingly, the court upheld the district court's ruling that the PGA must allow Martin to use a golf cart during PGA tournaments.²⁹

The United States Supreme Court granted the PGA's motion for certiorari.³⁰ However, a strikingly new issue arose. The PGA did not assert that it was exempt from ADA coverage because it was a private club, nor did it contend that the competitor's area was not a place of public accommodation (as it did in the lower courts). Instead, the PGA reframed the threshold issue and argued that Martin was not part of the class to be protected under Title III.³¹ Specifically, the PGA argued that Title III applied only to clients or customers, and Martin was a provider of entertainment, not a client or customer. Additionally, the PGA argued that the lower courts erred by applying an individualized inquiry to determine whether allowing Martin to use a golf cart was a reasonable accommodation that would not fundamentally alter the nature of the game.³² Rejecting both of the PGA's arguments, the Court affirmed.³³

II. Legal Background

Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate to end discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to bring persons with disabilities into the economic and social mainstream of American life; to provide enforceable standards . . . and to ensure that the Federal government plays a central role in enforcing these standards . . . ."³⁴ President George H. Bush, in his signing speech, described the wide-ranging barriers faced by people with disabilities and how the ADA was carefully crafted to "give the business community the flexibility to meet the requirements of the Act without incurring undue costs."³⁵

The ADA's mandate covers three broad areas: employment (Title I), services (Title II), and places of public accommodation (Title III). Applicable to Martin, Title III states that

it shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.³⁶

Discrimination is defined, inter alia, as

a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.³⁷

Many questions have arisen regarding the application of Title III of the ADA. For example, what is a place of "public accommodation?"³⁸

Also, what constitutes a "reasonable modification?" Martin is most significant because it helped resolve a long-standing conflict among the circuits regarding how to determine whether a modification constitutes a fundamental alteration. The following background...