Casey Martin Wins Appeal on Golf Cart

Casey Martin Wins Appeal on Golf Cart Use

Ninth Circuit Court Appeals affirmed lower court, in 3-0 opinion

San Francisco, March 8, 2000 -- Casey Martin won the latest round in his highly-publicized fight with the PGA Tour over the wish to use a golf cart while playing in Tour events.

In a 3-0 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a federal magistrate's ruling that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to a professional golfer participating in competition and rejected the Tour's reason for banning carts was a violation of the rules of the game. [click here for the complete decision]

The court discusses two issues: whether PGA Tour golf courses are "places of public accommodation" under Title III of the ADA. The panel answered yes, noting that the law specifically lists golf courses as such a public accommodation. It then rejected the PGA's argument that that the competitors' area "behind the ropes" is not a public accommodation because the public has no right to enter it. "Despite the surface plausibility of this argument, it too narrowly construes the nature of a public accommodation," court reasoned.

The PGA also claimed that the fact that its tournaments are restricted to the nation's best golfers means that the courses on which they play during tournaments cannot be places of public accommodation. The court did not accept the argument. In looking at competitive universities (covered under Title III), it ruled that the fact that these facilities are limited to those who are admitted does not remove the universities from the statute's definition as places of public accommodation. "It is true that the rest of the public is then excluded from [elite] schools, but the students who are admitted are nevertheless members of the public using the universities as places of public accommodation."

Reasonable Modification

The court then discussed the issue whether permitting Martin to use a golf cart -- in contravention of the rules of the PGA Tour -- was "reasonable" in light of his disability or "fundamentally altered" the nature of the competition. The court clearly thought the change was reasonable because of Martin's considerable difficulties in walking (he suffers from Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome, a congenital, degenerative circulatory disorder that is manifested in a malformation of his right leg. In the most controversial portion of the opinion, it affirmed the lower court's view that the changing of the rules did not fundamentally alter the nature of the sport.

Although the PGA provides, in the Conditions of Competition for its PGA and Nike Tours (the level of players just below the Tour), that "players shall walk at all times during a stipulated round," the court stated that actual rules of the sport do not require players to walk. The court noted that the lower court dismissed the PTA's argument that the purpose of walking was to "inject a fatigue factor into the shot-making of the game," noting that "the fatigue factor injected into the game of golf by walking the course cannot be deemed significant under normal circumstances."

Martin endures significant pain while walking, and while getting in and out of his cart. The district court, after considering these factors, found that Martin "easily endures greater fatigue even with a cart than his able-bodied competitors do by walking."

It continued: "In light of these findings, we conclude, as did the district court, that permitting Martin to use a golf court in PGA and Nike Tour competitions would not fundamentally alter the nature of those competitions. The central competition in shot-making would be unaffected by Martin's accommodation. All that the cart does is permit Martin access to a type of competition in which he otherwise could not engage because of his disability."

This court did note a contrary decision in a case from Indiana. In Olinger v. United States Golf Association, the court found that use of a cart can provide a golfer with a competitive advantage over a golfer who walks. Olinger has a degenerative hip condition that makes walking difficult [click here] Olinger's appeal was rejected the same week as the Martin ruling.

Question of Appeal

The PGA has not stated whether it will appeal the case to a full panel of the 9th Circuit (known as an en banc panel) or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. With a conflicting ruling in the Olinger case, the grounds for an appeal exist and the Supreme Court may be interested in resolving the issue of ADA accessibility. But many question whether the PGA should cut its losses and end a case that has turned into a public relations dilemma. On the other hand, the PGA could be faced with requests to use golf carts from others.

Martin was quoted as saying: "Driving a cart in golf -- surely there are more important things that [the Supreme Court] would hear."