Disabled Golfer's Case Hits High Court

Jan. 17, 2001 -- -- Casey Martin is no Tiger Woods. But the former college teammate of the world's most celebrated golfer has come into his own fame as the man who's asking the Supreme Court to change the stringent rules of the venerable game of professional golf.

Today, the high court heard lively arguments in Martin's lawsuit against the PGA Tour, a case with potential consequences not just for his future, but on the scope of a landmark disabilities law and the future of competitive golf itself. Martin, 28, lives with a rare circulatory disorder and is suing the Tour for refusing to allow him to use a golf cart during tournament play.

Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome, a congenital, degenerative disorder, makes it painful and difficult for Martin to walk. Although his career has included highs such as winning the 1994 NCAA championships with Stanford University teammate Woods, Martin's game is in decline of late as his condition persists. He recently failed to qualify for the 2001 season of the PGA Tour.

Even if his disease ends his golf career, though — amputation of his right leg is possible — Martin could leave a lasting mark on the game he loves.

Just Silly Rules?

The most contentious argument raised in Martin's case is whether allowing him to use the cart will "fundamentally alter" the nature of tournament play.

The Tour argues that a cart would give Martin an unfair advantage over his competitors. During four days of competition, golfers can walk about 25 miles, and the effort can "affect golfers'concentration, shot-making ability and overall performance," theTour's lawyers said.

Arguing the case for the Tour, H. Bartow Farr III told the court that golf is"nothing more or less than a competition that tests excellence inperforming what the rules require." Allowing Martin to use a golfcart would fundamentally change the nature of the competition, whichthe PGA is not obligated to do under the ADA, Farr said.

But Martin's lawyer, Roy L. Reardon, countered that walking is notfundamental to the game, unlike the size of the hole orwhere a player hits the ball. "He plays every single rule of thegame" even with a golf cart, Reardon said.

In reply, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested Reardon's argument onlydemonstrates "that you can play the game under a different rule." "Is it fundamental to baseball that the strike zone be from theshoulders to the knees?" Scalia asked. "It could be from the eyesto the hips, couldn't it? … All sports rules are silly rules,aren't they?"

Then, Scalia said that if some justices knew as little about baseball as they did about golf, "the former would be a much greater sin."

"Wait a minute," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, alongtime golfer.

"In dissent again," added Justice John Paul Stevens, as the courtroom audience erupted in laughter.

The Fatigue Factor

PGA Tour rules forbid competitors from using carts — with a mind toward injecting a "fatigue factor" into the game — but Martin sued in 1997, claiming the policy violates his rights under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of disability.He has been allowed to use a cart pending the outcome of the case.

The provision at issue, Title III of the ADA, states: "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full enjoyment … of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases [or leases to], or operates a place of public accommodation."

The law specifically states golf courses are places of public accommodation for its purposes, akin to gyms, health spas, or bowling alleys. Further, the ADA stipulates such recreational facilities must make reasonable accommodations to the disabled in order to comply with the law.

The PGA Tour disputes the description of its courses as places of public accommodation, however. Although the spectator areas likely fall under this category, the competitors' area "behind the ropes" is not a public area, the group says. Only the most elite golfers, not the general public, are allowed onto the playing area, the Tour argues.

The Fate of Professional Sports

If the Supreme Court sides with Martin in this case, all professional sports could be vulnerable to similar rule-tinkering, says attorney Richard Goldstein, who filed a brief on behalf of the LPGA and the Association of Tennis Professionals. A loss for the PGA in this case could do considerable damage to professional sports as we know it, he says.

"However noble the goal of improving access to public accommodations by the disabled community is — and it is a very noble goal," he said, "when you modify the rules of a professional competition you are fundamentally affecting the fairness of the result because you are eliminating the essential characteristics of the game, which is measuring each contestant's particular skills and traits against a uniform set of rules."

Countering that argument, Martin's lawyers responded in court papers that he "is not asking for a wider golf hole, or a few strokes in handicap. He isnot asking to change the rules of the game; he is asking only to beallowed to get to the game, which is exactly what the ADArequires."

Martin Won in Lower Courts

Martin first took his case to the U.S. District Court in Oregon in 1997, where a judge ruled in his favor.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the lower court ruling last year. "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," reads the opinion written by Judge William C. Canby. "That is precisely the purpose of the ADA."

Allowing disabled players to use carts, the court ruled, would not damage the game of golf itself. Indeed, the court found that walking is not essential to golf and that the PGA doesn't require players to walk during other, less competitive tournaments such as the Senior Tour or even at all times during Tour competition.

During last week's Mercedes Championships in Kapalua, Hawaii, for example, the Tour provided players with carts on the hilly fourth hole. Once they reached the crest of the hill, they walked the rest of the way.

The lower court also didn't buy the logic that requiring the top-shelf competitors to walk was designed to inject fatigue into the game. Even with a cart, Martin must walk about 25 percent of the course.

Since Martin endures significant pain while walking, the district court concluded he "easily endures greater fatigue even with a cart than his able-bodied competitors do by walking."

In an appeal to the high court, lawyers for the PGA Tour said the appeals court ruling "bars the tour from requiring that all competitors at its events play by the same rules."

"So far as we are aware, no court has ever before held that a professional sport must waive a legitimate competitive rule to enable a would-be participant, disabled or not, to more successfully compete," they said.

A ruling in Martin's favor would pave the way for workplace discrimination lawsuits by independent contractors and other non-employees, they said.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling in the case, PGA Tour, Inc. vs. Casey Martin, by July.