May 6, 2009

In June of 2001 Rick Reilly, then of ‘Sports Illustrated’, interviewed Casey Martin. Martin stated, “ I hate playing golf in it (the cart). I hate being the center of attention. People don’t come to see me play golf. They come to see me limp.”
   
A four year battle began in 1997 when Martin asked, and was denied, permission to use a cart during the PGA’s qualifying school. Martin then sought and received a preliminary injunction allowing him to use a cart. Martin claimed that the PGA had ignored the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in denying him use of the cart, and in contravention of the Act was not making it’s tournaments accessible to the disabled.

Fast forward to the Supreme Court in 2001. In a 7-2 ruling in favor of Martin, two central issues were discussed in the majority opinion. First: does the ADA’s public accommodation language apply to professional athletes during a competition? Second: would the use of a cart fundamentally alter the nature of golf tournament play? (an implication of which was that his use of a cart afforded Martin an unfair advantage in competition)

The Supreme Court found that golf courses are, in the language of the ADA, “places of public accommodation“. The majority opinion linked courses used by the PGA with all golf courses through the PGA’s leasing and operation of public courses. (emphasis added) Dispositive of the first question was that the pros of the PGA were playing, then, on places covered by the ADA.

As to the second question, the Court found that Martin’s use of a cart did not amount to a fundamental alteration of the game, but that it did allow people who had the skill and desire to play access to the sport.  The Court took notice of the widespread use of carts in the sport, including even some PGA events, such as its Seniors tournaments.  The Court was unpersuaded by the PGA's argument that the fatigue factor of walking a golf course was important in affecting performance, noting with approval expert testimony that the fatigue induced by walking had an insignificantly small affect.  The Court also agreed with Martin that his use of a cart would not give him an unfair competitive advantage, but rather served to level the playing field.