NU · neighbordoorsrecords over spin
Open in NU's Reading Room →

SCOTUS and Title III Modification: The PGA Tour Case That Changed Disability Access in Sports

How the Supreme Court's decision in PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin reshaped the interpretation of reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Legal Foundation: ADA Title III and the Question of Reasonable Modification

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 established broad protections against discrimination for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations. Title III of the ADA specifically prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, requiring businesses to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures to ensure equal access. However, the scope of what constitutes a "reasonable modification" has been the subject of significant legal debate, particularly in contexts where such modifications might be perceived as altering the fundamental nature of an activity.

In PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001), the Supreme Court addressed this tension directly. The case arose when Casey Martin, a professional golfer with a circulatory disorder that prevented him from walking long distances, requested permission to use a golf cart during PGA Tour events. The PGA Tour refused, arguing that walking was an essential part of the game and that allowing Martin to use a cart would fundamentally alter the nature of professional golf. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Martin, holding that the use of a golf cart was a reasonable modification under Title III of the ADA.

The Court's decision hinged on the distinction between the "essential nature" of an activity and its "traditional components." Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens emphasized that the ADA requires modifications unless they would "fundamentally alter" the nature of the goods, services, or accommodations offered. The Court found that walking was not an essential aspect of golf, particularly given that golf carts are commonly used in recreational play and even in some professional tournaments.

This ruling established a precedent that has influenced how courts evaluate reasonable accommodations in various contexts, particularly in sports and recreational activities. It clarified that the fundamental nature of an activity must be assessed based on its core elements, not merely its traditional practices.

The Facts of the Case: Casey Martin's Challenge to the PGA Tour

Casey Martin, a professional golfer with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber syndrome, a rare circulatory disorder that made walking long distances dangerous, sought to compete in PGA Tour events. Martin's condition caused severe pain and risked permanent injury if he walked the approximately five miles required during a typical round of golf. He requested permission to use a golf cart as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

The PGA Tour initially denied Martin's request, arguing that walking was a fundamental aspect of golf and that allowing him to use a cart would provide an unfair advantage and fundamentally alter the game. The Tour's position was that walking was integral to the sport, both physically and strategically, and that waiving this requirement would change the essential nature of professional golf.

Martin filed suit in the District Court for the District of Oregon, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The district court, in Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., Case No. 97-6309-TC (D. Or. Feb. 19, 1998), granted summary judgment in favor of Martin, finding that the use of a golf cart was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and did not fundamentally alter the game. The PGA Tour appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Casey Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., 204 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that walking was not an essential aspect of golf and that the use of a cart did not provide Martin with a competitive advantage. The court emphasized that the ADA's requirement of reasonable accommodation must be interpreted broadly, and that the PGA Tour's refusal to allow Martin to use a cart violated the statute.

The PGA Tour then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted. The case became a significant test of the ADA's application to professional sports and raised broader questions about the balance between disability rights and the integrity of competitive activities.

The Supreme Court's Decision: Balancing Access and Tradition

In its decision, the Supreme Court faced the challenge of balancing the ADA's mandate for equal access with the PGA Tour's argument that walking was fundamental to the game of golf. The Court's analysis focused on whether the use of a golf cart would fundamentally alter the nature of professional golf, as defined by the ADA.

Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, began by examining the history and rules of golf. He noted that golf carts are widely used in recreational play and that even some professional tournaments permit their use. The Court rejected the PGA Tour's argument that walking was essential to the game, pointing out that the physical act of walking was not part of the strategic or skill-based elements of golf. Instead, the Court emphasized that golf is fundamentally about accuracy and precision in hitting the ball, not the physical endurance required to walk the course.

The Court also addressed the PGA Tour's concern that allowing Martin to use a cart would provide him with an unfair advantage. It found no evidence that Martin's use of a cart would improve his ability to hit the ball or otherwise enhance his performance. In fact, the Court noted that the cart might actually be a disadvantage, as it could disrupt Martin's rhythm and routine.

The majority opinion concluded that the use of a golf cart was a reasonable modification under Title III of the ADA. The Court emphasized that the ADA requires modifications unless they would "fundamentally alter" the nature of the goods, services, or accommodations offered. Since walking was not an essential aspect of golf, the use of a cart did not constitute such an alteration.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented. Scalia argued that the Court's decision ignored the PGA Tour's expertise in defining the essential nature of its sport. He contended that the majority's interpretation of the ADA was overly broad and could lead to similar accommodations in other sports, potentially undermining the integrity of competitive activities. Scalia's dissent highlighted concerns about judicial overreach and the potential for the ADA to be applied in ways that fundamentally alter the nature of competitive sports.

The Broader Impact: Disability Rights in Competitive Sports

The Supreme Court's decision in PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin had far-reaching implications for disability rights in competitive sports. It established a precedent that has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving requests for reasonable accommodations in athletic contexts.

One notable example is Barron v. PGA Tour, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-02733 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2009), where a golfer with a disability sought accommodations under the ADA. Although the specific facts and outcome of that case differed, the legal framework established in Martin provided the foundation for evaluating the reasonableness of the requested accommodation.

The decision also influenced how courts approach the question of what constitutes a "fundamental alteration" in other contexts. In Martin v. THI E-Commerce, LLC, Case No. G061234 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2023), a court considered whether a business's refusal to accommodate a customer with a disability constituted a violation of the ADA. While the specifics of that case were different, the principles articulated in Martin informed the court's analysis of what modifications were reasonable and whether they would fundamentally alter the nature of the service provided.

Scholars have also analyzed the broader implications of the Martin decision. Frederick Schauer, in The Dilemma of Ignorance: PGA Tour, Inc. v. Casey Martin, 2001 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, explored the tension between disability rights and the integrity of competitive activities. Schauer noted that the Court's decision in Martin represented a significant expansion of the ADA's reach into areas previously considered beyond its scope.

Edward Schiappa, in What Is Golf?: Pragmatic Essentializing and Definitional Argument in PGA Tour, Inc. V. Martin, 31 Argumentation & Advocacy 109 (2001), examined the rhetorical strategies used by both sides in the case. He argued that the Court's decision reflected a pragmatic approach to defining the essential nature of golf, one that prioritized equal access over traditional practices.

Practical Implications for Organizations and Athletes

For organizations that operate in the realm of public accommodations, the Martin decision underscores the importance of carefully evaluating requests for reasonable accommodations. The ADA requires that modifications be made unless they would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, or accommodations offered. This standard means that organizations must assess each request on a case-by-case basis, considering both the specific needs of the individual and the impact of the accommodation on the core elements of the activity.

In the context of sports, this means that leagues and tournament organizers must be prepared to consider accommodations that do not affect the fundamental nature of the competition. Walking, as the Court determined in Martin, is not an essential aspect of golf. However, other elements of a sport—such as the rules governing play, the equipment used, or the physical skills required—may be considered fundamental and therefore not subject to modification.

Athletes with disabilities should be aware of their rights under the ADA and understand that reasonable accommodations may be available to them. However, they should also recognize that the process of requesting and obtaining accommodations may involve legal challenges, as demonstrated by the lengthy litigation in Martin. It is important for athletes to work with legal counsel who understands the ADA and can help navigate the complexities of accommodation requests.

Organizations should also consider proactively reviewing their policies and practices to ensure compliance with the ADA. This may involve consulting with disability rights experts, reviewing past accommodation requests, and updating policies to reflect current legal standards. By taking a proactive approach, organizations can avoid costly litigation and ensure that they are providing equal access to all individuals.

Checklist for Evaluating ADA Title III Accommodation Requests

How to Maintain Compliance Over Time

Maintaining compliance with the ADA requires ongoing attention and commitment. Organizations should establish clear policies and procedures for handling accommodation requests, train staff on disability rights, and regularly review and update their practices to ensure they remain in line with legal requirements. It is also important to stay informed about new developments in disability law and to seek legal advice when necessary. By taking these steps, organizations can create an inclusive environment that respects the rights of all individuals while maintaining the integrity of their activities.

This is not legal advice; consult counsel.

Sources (the record)

<i>Pga Tour, Inc. V. Martin</i>](https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2001.11821553)

NU original — sourced analysis of the public record. Read it in the interactive Reading Room, or browse more at neighbordoors.com.

Transparency: NU articles are AI-assisted and editor-reviewed, built from the cited primary sources. We label what's proven, alleged, and opinion.