Professional Golf and Disabilities Law Collide in the Courtroom

Do you play golf?  Did you know that under the Professional Golf Association Tour’s (PGA) rules, golfers who have trouble walking are not allowed to use golf carts to compete in PGA tournaments?  This presents an interesting legal issue, because the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed by Congress in 1990, forbids discrimination in public places against people who suffer from physical or mental disabilities.  Does the PGA’s rule violate the ADA ?  Must the PGA provide a “reasonable accommodation” to disabled golfers so they can compete on the PGA tour?  Here’s the background to this interesting story. 

Two professional golfers, Casey Martin (a teammate of Tiger Woods on Stanford University ’s NCAA championship golf team) and Ford Olinger, suffer from serious circulatory diseases that leave them physically unable to walk the entire course.  Both asked the PGA for permission to use a golf cart as an exemption from the PGA’s “walking rule.”  When the PGA rejected their requests, Martin sued the PGA in Oregon and Olinger sued the PGA in Illinois claiming the PGA violated the ADA by not reasonably accommodating their disabilities.  Martin won and Olinger lost.  The PGA appealed its loss in Oregon , and Olinger appealed his loss in Illinois . 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Martin’s victory, holding in part that “the provision of a golf cart to [Martin] was a reasonable accommodation to [Martin’s] disability, and that [Martin’s] use of the cart did not fundamentally alter the nature of [the PGA’s] tournaments."  Shortly thereafter, though, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reached exactly the opposite conclusion, holding that allowing Olinger to ride in a golf cart “although reasonable in a general sense, would alter the fundamental nature of that competition.” 

How could these two federal courts examine the same issue and reach completely different results?  The reason is that while the ADA requires “reasonable accommodation” for the disabled, it is not at all clear what that means in any given situation.  This golf-related controversy is simply the latest example of the ongoing confusion the ADA has engendered. 

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the Martin case and will now decide whether allowing a pro golfer to ride a cart during PGA tournaments would indeed “fundamentally alter” the nature of the competition.  The PGA argues that having the stamina to walk the 72 holes over four days is a “fundamental” part of the competition and that to compromise this physical fitness requirement would open the door for more and more requests for accommodations for all sorts of maladies.  For his part, Martin contends that the “fundamental” part of golf is having the skill to hit the ball from the tee into the hole and that whether one walks or rides a cart in between shots is beside the point. 

In passing the ADA 10 years ago, it is highly unlikely Congress gave any thought one way or the other to this issue.  Now it is up to the Supreme Court to determine whether Martin, Olinger and other disabled golfers will have the opportunity to compete in PGA tournaments or must instead watch from the gallery.  A decision is expected by July. 

Ken Diamond is an attorney with the firm of Winterbauer & Diamond P.L.L.C. in Seattle, WA.  Mr. Diamond’s father owns and operates an optical store in Pittsburgh, PA.  Lisa Vanderford-Anderson, an attorney with Winterbauer & Diamond P.L.L.C., assisted in drafting this article.