pga tour v. martin 532 u.s. 661

8/9/2019 PGA Tour v. Martin 532 U.S. 661

1/30

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Date/Time of Request: Friday, August 20, 2010 14:20 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: SCTFINDCitation Text: 121 S.Ct. 1879Lines: 1765Documents: 1Images: 0

BUSINESS LAW 2 CHAPTER ONE

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.


2/30

Supreme Court of the United StatesPGA TOUR, INC., Petitioner,

v.Casey MARTIN.

No. 00-24.

Argued Jan. 17, 2001.Decided May 29, 2001.

Professional golfer suffering from circulatory dis-order resulting in malformation of his right leg suednon-profit professional golf association, alleging

that association's rule banning use of golf carts incertain of its tournaments violated Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA). The United States DistrictCourt for the District of Oregon, Thomas M. Coffi n, United States Magistrate Judge, entered partialsummary judgment for golfer, 984 F.Supp. 132 0,and, following bench trial, entered permanent injunction requiring association to permit golfer touse cart, 994 F.Supp. 124 2. Association appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit, 204 F.3d 99 4, affirmed. Certiorari wasgranted. The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens , heldthat: (1) even if the protected class under Title IIIof the ADA is limited to clients or customers, itwould be entirely appropriate to classify the golferswho paid the association $3,000 for the chance tocompete in its qualifying tournaments and, if suc-cessful, in the subsequent tour events, as associ-ation's clients or customers, and (2) allowing dis-abled golfer to use a golf cart, despite the walkingrequirement that applied to the association's tours,was not a modification that would fundamentallyalter the nature of those events, and was required

by Title III of the ADA.

Affirmed.

Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thoma s joined,filed a dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes

[1] Civil Rights 78 1047

78 Civil Rights78I Rights Protected and Discrimination Prohib-

ited in General78k10 43 Publi c Accommodations

78k1047 k. Theaters and Places of Exhibi-tion or Entertainment. Most Cited Case s

(Formerly 78k121)Golf tours sponsored by non-profit professionalgolf association, and their qualifying rounds, fitwithin the coverage of Title III of the ADA, as golf courses are specifically identified by the Act as a

public accommodation, association leased and oper-ated golf courses to conduct its qualifying tourna-ments and tours, as a lessor and operator of golf courses, association must not discriminate againstany individual in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advant-ages, or accommodations of those courses, andamong the privileges offered by association onthe courses are those of competing in the qualifyingtournaments and playing in the tours. Americanswith Disabilities Act of 1990, 301(7)(L), 302(a),42 U.S.C.A. 12181(7 )(L), 12182(a ).

[2] Federal Courts 170B 461

170B Federal Courts170BVI I Supreme Court

170BV II(B) Revie w of Decisions of Courtsof Appeals

170Bk460 Review on Certiorari170Bk461 k . Questions Not Presented

Below or in Petition for Certiorari. Most Cite dCasesSupreme Court would exercise its discretion to con-

sider particular argument on coverage of Title III of the ADA though petitioner failed to make the exactargument below, given the importance of the issue,and where the Title III coverage issue was raised inthe lower courts, petitioner advanced the particularargument in support of its position on the issue inits petition for certiorari, and the argument was

121 S.Ct. 1879 Page 1532 U.S. 661, 121 S.Ct. 1879, 149 L.Ed.2d 904, 11 A.D. Cases 1281, 20 NDLR P 188, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.4294, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5217, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 271, 2001 DJCAR 2634(Cite as: 532 U.S. 661, 121 S.Ct. 1879)

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0143096801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998050775http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0156277701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0254763301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0216654601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk460http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk460http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0216654601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0254763301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0156277701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998050775http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0143096801&FindType=h


3/30

fully briefed on the merits by both parties. Americ-ans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 3 et seq., 42U.S.C.A. 12102 et seq .





(Formerly 78k121)Even if the protected class under Title III of theADA is limited to clients or customers, it wouldbe entirely appropriate to classify the golfers whopaid non-profit professional golf association $3,000for the chance to compete in its qualifying tourna-ments and, if successful, in the subsequent tourevents, as association's clients or customers; as-sociation's tournaments simultaneously offer atleast two privileges to the public, that of watch-ing the golf competition and that of competing in it,and the golfers on tour were not employed by theassociation or any related organizations. Americanswith Disabilities Act of 1990, 302(a),(b)(1)(A)(iv), 42 U.S.C.A. 12182(a ), (b)(1)(A)(iv )

.




78k104 4 k. In General. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k119.1)

The general prohibitions of specific clauses of TitleIII of the ADA cannot be avoided by means of con-

tract, but contractual relationships will not expand apublic accommodation's obligations under the gen-eral prohibitions subparagraph beyond its own cli-ents or customers. Americans with Disabilities Actof 1990, 302(b)(1)(A)(i-iv), 42 U.S.C.A. 12182(b)(1)(A) (i-iv).





(Formerly 78k121)As a public accommodation during its tours andqualifying rounds, non-profit professional golf as-sociation may not discriminate against either spec-tators or competitors on the basis of disability.Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 302(a),42 U.S.C.A. 12182(a ).



ited in General78k10 16 Handi cap, Disability, or Illness

78k102 1 k. Physical Access and Mobility;Carriers. Most Cited Case s

(Formerly 78k107(2))

Civil Rights 78 1047




(Formerly 78k121)Allowing professional golfer suffering from circu-latory disorder resulting in malformation of hisright leg to use a golf cart, despite the walking re-quirement that applied to tours sponsored by non-profit professional golf association, was not a modi-fication that would fundamentally alter the natureof those events, and was required by Title III of theADA; the use of carts is not itself inconsistent withthe fundamental character of the game of golf, andthe purpose of the association's walking rule is toinject the element of fatigue into the skill of shot-


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_188e0000e3613http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1044http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1044http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b16000077793http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b16000077793http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1016http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1016http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1021http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1021http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1021http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1021http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1016http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b16000077793http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b16000077793http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1044http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1044http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_188e0000e3613http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12102&FindType=L


4/30

making, but golf is a game in which it is impossibleto guarantee that all competitors will play under ex-actly the same conditions, and it was uncontestedthat the particular disabled golfer easily enduredgreater fatigue even with a cart than his able-bodiedcompetitors did by walking. Americans with Disab-ilities Act of 1990, 302(a), (b)(2)(A)(ii), 42U.S.C.A. 12182(a ), (b)(2)(A )(ii).





(Formerly 78k121)Title III of the ADA contemplated three inquirieswith respect to a requested accommodation for par-ticipant in professional golf tour: whether the re-quested modification was reasonable, whether itwas necessary for the disabled individual, andwhether it would fundamentally alter the nature of the competition. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 302(b)(2)(A)(ii), 42 U.S.C.A . 12182(b)(2)(A) (ii).





(Formerly 78k121)Refusal of non-profit professional golf associationto consider disabled golfer's personal circumstances

in deciding whether to accommodate his disabilityran counter to the clear language and purpose of theADA, despite the association's claim that all thesubstantive rules for its highest-level competi-tions were sacrosanct and could not be modifiedunder any circumstances. Americans with Disabilit-ies Act of 1990, 301(b)(1), 302(b)(2)(A)(ii), 42

U.S.C.A. 12101(b)(1 ), 12182(b)(2)(A) (ii).





(Formerly 78k121)Reasonable modification requirement of Title III of the ADA carves out no exemption for elite athlet-ics. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 2(a)(1, 5), 301(7)(C, L), 302(b)(2)(A)(ii), 42U.S.C.A. 1210 1(a)(1, 5), 12181(7) (C, L),12182(b)(2)(A) (ii).

[10] Statutes 361 190

361 Statutes361V I Construction and Operation

361VI (A) Gener al Rules of Construction361k18 7 Meaning of Language

361k190 k. Existence of Ambiguity.Most Cited CasesThe fact that a statute can be applied in situationsnot expressly anticipated by Congress does notdemonstrate ambiguity; it demonstrates breadth.




78k104 4 k. In General. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k119.1)

Title III of the ADA does not limit the reasonablemodification requirement only to requests that areeasy to evaluate. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 302(b)(2)(A)(ii), 42 U.S.C.A . 12182(b)(2)(A) (ii).

**1881 Syllabus FN*

FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_3fed000053a85http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k187http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k190http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k190http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1044http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1044http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1044http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1044http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k190http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k190http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k187http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_3fed000053a85http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1047http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4


5/30

opinion of the Court but has been preparedby the Reporter of Decisions for the con-venience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S .321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499 .

*661 Petitioner sponsors professional golf tourna-ments conducted on three annual tours. A playermay gain entry into the tours in various ways, mostcommonly through successfully competing in athree-stage qualifying tournament known as theQ-School. Any member of the public may enterthe Q-School by submitting two letters of recom-mendation and paying a $3,000 entry fee to covergreens fees and the cost of golf carts, which are

permitted during the first two stages, but have beenprohibited during the third stage since 1997. Therules governing competition in tour events includethe Rules of Golf, which apply at all levels of amateur and professional golf and do not prohibitthe use of golf carts, and the hard card, which ap-plies specifically to petitioner's professional toursand requires players to walk the golf course duringtournaments, except in open qualifying events foreach tournament and on petitioner's senior tour. Re-spondent Martin is a talented golfer afflicted with adegenerative circulatory disorder that prevents him

from walking golf courses. His disorder constitutesa disability under the Americans with Disabilities**1882 Act of 1990(ADA), 42 U.S.C. 1210 1 et seq. When Martin turned pro and entered the Q-School, he made a request, supported by detailedmedical records, for permission to use a golf cartduring the third stage. Petitioner refused, and Mar-tin filed this action under Title III of the ADA,which, among other things, requires an entity oper-ating public accommodations to makereasonable modifications in its policies when ...necessary to afford such ... accommodations to in-dividuals with disabilities, unless the entity candemonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such ... accom-modations, 12182(b)(2)(A )(ii) (emphasis added).In denying petitioner summary judgment, the Ma-gistrate Judge rejected its contention, among others,

that the play areas of its tour competitions are notplaces of public accommodation within Title III'sscope. After trial, the District Court entered a per-manent injunction requiring petitioner to permitMartin to use a cart. Among its rulings, that courtfound that the walking rule's purpose was to injectfatigue into the skill of shotmaking, but that the fa-tigue injected by walking a golf course cannot bedeemed significant under normal *662 circum-stances; determined that even with the use of a cart,the fatigue Martin suffers from coping with his dis-ability is greater than the fatigue his able-bodiedcompetitors endure from walking the course; andconcluded that it would not fundamentally alter thenature of petitioner's game to accommodate Martin.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding, inter alia,that golf courses, including play areas, are places of public accommodation during professional tourna-ments and that permitting Martin to use a cartwould not fundamentally alter the nature of thosetournaments.

Held:

1. Title III of the ADA, by its plain terms, prohibitspetitioner from denying Martin equal access to itstours on the basis of his disability. Cf. Pennsylvania

Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey , 524 U.S. 206, 209 ,118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215. That Titleprovides, as a general rule, that [n]o individualshall be discriminated against on the basis of a dis-ability in the full and equal enjoyment of the ...privileges ... of any place of public accommoda-tion. 12182(a ). The phrase public accommoda-tion is defined in terms of 12 extensive categories, 12181(7 ), which the legislative history indicatesshould be construed liberally to afford people withdisabilities equal access to the wide variety of es-tablishments available to the nondisabled. Giventhe general rule and the comprehensive definitionof public accommodation, it is apparent that peti-tioner's golf tours and their qualifying rounds fitcomfortably within Title III's coverage, and Martinwithin its protection. The events occur on golf course[s], a type of place specifically identified as


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1906101604http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1906101604http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1906101604http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1906101604http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998125691http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998125691http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998125691http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998125691http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998125691http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998125691http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998125691http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998125691http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1906101604http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1906101604http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1906101604http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1906101604


6/30

a public accommodation. 12181(7 )(L). And, at allrelevant times, petitioner leases and operatesgolf courses to conduct its Q-School and tours. 12182(a) . As a lessor and operator, petitioner mustnot discriminate against any individual in thefull and equal enjoyment of the ... privileges of those courses. Ibid. Among those privileges arecompeting in the Q-School and playing in the tours;indeed, the former is a privilege for which thou-sands of individuals from the general public pay,and the latter is one for which they vie. Martin isone of those individuals. The Court rejects petition-er's argument that competing golfers are not mem-bers of the class protected by Title III- i.e., clientsor customers of the covered public accommoda-

tion, 12182(b)(1)(A)(iv )-but are providers of theentertainment petitioner sells, so that theirjob-related discrimination claims may only bebrought under Title I. Even if Title III's protectedclass were so limited, it would be entirely appropri-ate to classify the golfers who pay petitioner $3,000for the chance to compete in the Q-School and, if successful, in the subsequent tour **1883 events, aspetitioner's *663 clients or customers. This conclu-sion is consistent with case law in the analogouscontext of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.See, e.g., Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298, 306, 89S.Ct. 1697, 23 L.Ed.2d 318 . Pp. 1889-1893.

2. Allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite peti-tioner's walking requirement, is not a modificationthat would fundamentally alter the nature of peti-tioner's tours or the third stage of the Q-School. Intheory, a modification of the tournaments mightconstitute a fundamental alteration in these ways:(1) It might alter such an essential aspect of golf,e.g., the diameter of the hole, that it would be unac-ceptable even if it affected all competitors equally;or (2) a less significant change that has only a peri-pheral impact on the game itself might neverthelessgive a disabled player, in addition to access to thecompetition as required by Title III, an advantageover others and therefore fundamentally alter thecharacter of the competition. The Court is not per-suaded that a waiver of the walking rule for Martin

would work a fundamental alteration in eithersense. The use of carts is not inconsistent with thefundamental character of golf, the essence of whichhas always been shotmaking. The walking rule con-tained in petitioner's hard cards is neither an essen-tial attribute of the game itself nor an indispensablefeature of tournament golf. The Court rejects peti-tioner's attempt to distinguish golf as it is generallyplayed from the game at the highest level, where,petitioner claims, the waiver of anoutcome-affecting rule such as the walking rulewould violate the governing principle that compet-itors must be subject to identical substantive rules,thereby fundamentally altering the nature of tourna-ment events. That argument's force is mitigated by

the fact that it is impossible to guarantee that allgolfers will play under exactly the same conditionsor that an individual's ability will be the sole de-terminant of the outcome. Further, the factual basisof petitioner's argument-that the walking rule isoutcome affecting because fatigue may adverselyaffect performance-is undermined by the DistrictCourt's finding that the fatigue from walking duringa tournament cannot be deemed significant. Even if petitioner's factual predicate is accepted, its legalposition is fatally flawed because its refusal to con-sider Martin's personal circumstances in decidingwhether to accommodate his disability runs counterto the ADA's requirement that an individualized in-quiry be conducted. Cf. Sutton v. United Air Lines , Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 483, 119 S.Ct. 2139 , 144L.Ed.2d 450 . There is no doubt that allowing Mar-tin to use a cart would not fundamentally alter thenature of petitioner's tournaments, given the Dis-trict Court's uncontested finding that Martin en-dures greater fatigue with a cart than his able-bodied competitors do by walking. The waiver of aperipheral tournament *664 rule that does not im-

pair its purpose cannot be said to fundamentally al-ter the nature of the athletic event. Pp. 1893-1898.

204 F.3d 994 , affirmed.

STEVENS , J., delivered the opinion of the Court,in which REHNQUIST , C.J., and O'CONNOR ,


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_188e0000e3613http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969143758http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969143758http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969143758http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1999146023http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1999146023http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1999146023http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1999146023http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0156277701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0238463201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209675601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209675601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0238463201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0156277701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1999146023http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1999146023http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1999146023http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1999146023http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969143758http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969143758http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969143758http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_188e0000e3613http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1


7/30

KENNEDY , SOUTER , GINSBURG , and BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA , J., filed a dissenting opinion,in which THOMAS , J., joined, post, p. 1898.H. Bartow Farr, II I, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Roy L. Reardon , New York City, for respondent.

Barbara D. Underw ood , Washington, DC, forUnited States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting respondent.

For U.S. Supreme Court briefs, see:2000 WL1706732 (Pet.Brief)2000 WL 1846091(Resp.Brief)2000 WL 1890962 (Reply.Brief)

**1884 Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of

the Court.

This case raises two questions concerning the ap-plication of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 328, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq . , to agifted athlete: first, whether the Act protects accessto professional golf tournaments by a qualifiedentrant with a disability; and second, whether a*665 disabled contestant may be denied the use of agolf cart because it would fundamentally alter thenature of the tournaments, 12182(b)(2)(A )(ii), toallow him to ride when all other contestants mustwalk.

I

Petitioner PGA TOUR, Inc., a nonprofit entityformed in 1968, sponsors and cosponsors profes-sional golf tournaments conducted on three annualtours. About 200 golfers participate in the PGATOUR; about 170 in the NIKE TOUR FN1 ; andabout 100 in the SENIOR PGA TOUR. PGATOUR and NIKE TOUR tournaments typically are

4-day events, played on courses leased and oper-ated by petitioner. The entire field usually competesin two 18-hole rounds played on Thursday and Fri-day; those who survive the cut play on Saturdayand Sunday and receive prize money in amountsdetermined by their aggregate scores for all fourrounds. The revenues generated by television, ad-

missions, concessions, and contributions from co-sponsors amount to about $300 million a year,much of which is distributed in prize money.

FN1. After the trial of the case, the nameof the NIKE TOUR was changed to theBuy.com TOUR.

There are various ways of gaining entry into partic-ular tours. For example, a player who wins threeNIKE TOUR events in the same year, or is amongthe top-15 money winners on that tour, earns theright to play in the PGA TOUR. Additionally, agolfer may obtain a spot in an official tournamentthrough successfully competing in open qualify-ing rounds, which are conducted the week beforeeach tournament. Most participants, however, earnplaying privileges in the PGA TOUR or NIKETOUR by way of a three-stage qualifying tourna-ment known as the Q-School.

Any member of the public may enter the Q-Schoolby paying a $3,000 entry fee and submitting twoletters of reference *666 from, among others, PGATOUR or NIKE TOUR members. The $3,000 entryfee covers the players' greens fees and the cost of golf carts, which are permitted during the first two

stages, but which have been prohibited during thethird stage since 1997. Each year, over a thousandcontestants compete in the first stage, which con-sists of four 18-hole rounds at different locations.Approximately half of them make it to the secondstage, which also includes 72 holes. Around 168players survive the second stage and advance to thefinal one, where they compete over 108 holes. Of those finalists, about a fourth qualify for member-ship in the PGA TOUR, and the rest gain member-ship in the NIKE TOUR. The significance of mak-ing it into either tour is illuminated by the fact that

there are about 25 million golfers in the country .FN2

FN2. Generally, to maintain membershipin a tour for the succeeding year, ratherthan go through the Q-School again, aplayer must perform at a certain level.


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0243105201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0263202201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0224420501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0254766801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0254763301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0216654601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0132981801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0250442801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0103725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0156277701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12182&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_1eca000045f07http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0156277701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0103725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0250442801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0132981801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0216654601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0254763301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0254766801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0224420501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0263202201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0243105201&FindType=h


8/30

Three sets of rules govern competition in tourevents. First, the Rules of Golf, jointly written bythe United States Golf Association (USGA) and theRoyal and Ancient Golf Club of Scotland, apply tothe game as it is played, not only by millions of am-ateurs on public courses and in private countryclubs throughout the United States and worldwide,but also by the professionals in the tournamentsconducted by petitioner, the USGA, the Ladies'Professional Golf Association, and the Senior Wo-men's Golf Association. Those rules do **1885 notprohibit the use of golf carts at any time. FN3

FN3. Instead, Appendix I to the Rules of Golf lists a number of optional condi-

tions, among them one related to transport-ation: If it is desired to require players towalk in a competition, the following condi-tion is suggested:

Players shall walk at all times during astipulated round. App. 125.

Second, the Conditions of Competition and LocalRules, often described as the hard card, applyspecifically to petitioner's professional tours. Thehard cards for the PGA *667 TOUR and NIKE

TOUR require players to walk the golf course dur-ing tournaments, but not during open qualifyingrounds. FN4 On the SENIOR PGA TOUR, which islimited to golfers age 50 and older, the contestantsmay use golf carts. Most seniors, however, prefer towalk. FN5

FN4. The PGA TOUR hard card provides:Players shall walk at all times during astipulated round unless permitted to rideby the PGA TOUR Rules Committee. Id.,at 127. The NIKE TOUR hard card simil-

arly requires walking unless otherwise per-mitted. Id., at 129. Additionally, as noted,golf carts have not been permitted duringthe third stage of the Q-School since 1997.Petitioner added this recent prohibition inorder to approximat[e] a PGA TOURevent as closely as possible. Id., at 152.

FN5. 994 F.Supp. 1242, 1251 (D.Or.1998 ).

Third, Notices to Competitors are issued for par-ticular tournaments and cover conditions for thatspecific event. Such a notice may, for example, ex-plain how the Rules of Golf should be applied to aparticular water hazard or manmade obstruction. Itmight also authorize the use of carts to speed upplay when there is an unusual distance between onegreen and the next tee. FN6

FN6. See, e.g., App. 156-160 (Notices toCompetitors for 1997 Bob Hope ChryslerClassic, 1997 AT & T Pebble Beach Na-tional Pro-Am, and 1997 Quad City Clas-sic).

The basic Rules of Golf, the hard cards, and theweekly notices apply equally to all players in tourcompetitions. As one of petitioner's witnesses ex-plained with reference to the Masters Tournament,which is golf at its very highest level, ... the key isto have everyone tee off on the first hole under ex-actly the same conditions and all of them be testedover that 72-hole event under the conditions thatexist during those four days of the event. App.192.

II

Casey Martin is a talented golfer. As an amateur, hewon 17 Oregon Golf Association junior events be-fore he was 15, *668 and won the state champion-ship as a high school senior. He played on the Stan-ford University golf team that won the 1994 Na-tional Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)championship. As a professional, Martin qualifiedfor the NIKE TOUR in 1998 and 1999, and basedon his 1999 performance, qualified for the PGATOUR in 2000. In the 1999 season, he entered 24events, made the cut 13 times, and had 6 top-10 fin-ishes, coming in second twice and third once.

Martin is also an individual with a disability asdefined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act). FN7 Since birth he has been af-


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1251http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1251


9/30

flicted with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrom e, adegenerative circulatory disorder that obstructs theflow of blood from his right leg back to his heart.The disease is progressive; it causes severe painand has atrophied his right leg. During the latterpart of his college career, because of the progress of the disease, Martin could no longer walk an 18-holegolf course. FN8 Walking not only caused himpain, fatigue, and anxiety, **1886 but also createda significant risk of hemorrhaging, developingblood clot s, and fracturing his tibia so badly that anamputation might be required. For these reasons,Stanford made written requests to the Pacific 10Conference and the NCAA to waive for Martintheir rules requiring players to walk and carry their

own clubs. The requests were granted.FN9

FN7. Title 42 U.S.C. 1210 2 provides, inpart:

The term disability means, with re-spect to an individual-

(A) a physical or mental impairmentthat substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individu-al .....

FN8. Before then, even when Martin wasin extreme pain, and was offered a cart, hedeclined. Tr. 564-565.

FN9. When asked about the other teams'reaction to Martin's use of a cart, the Stan-ford coach testified:

Q. Was there any complaint ever madeto you by the coaches when he was al-lowed a cart that that gave a competitiveadvantage over the-

A. Any complaints? No sir, there wereexactly-exactly the opposite. Everybodyrecognized Casey for the person he was,and what he was doing with his life, andevery coach, to my knowledge, andevery player wanted Casey in the tourna-

ment and they welcomed him there.

Q. Did anyone contend that that consti-tuted an alteration of the competition tothe extent that it didn't constitute thegame to your level, the college level?

A. Not at all, sir. App. 208.

*669 When Martin turned pro and entered petition-er's Q-School, the hard card permitted him to use acart during his successful progress through the firsttwo stages. He made a request, supported by de-tailed medical records, for permission to use a golf cart during the third stage. Petitioner refused to re-view those records or to waive its walking rule forthe third stage. Martin therefore filed this action. Apreliminary injunction entered by the District Courtmade it possible for him to use a cart in the finalstage of the Q-School and as a competitor in theNIKE TOUR and PGA TOUR. Although not boundby the injunction, and despite its support for peti-tioner's position in this litigation, the USGA volun-tarily granted Martin a similar waiver in events thatit sponsors, including the U.S. Open.

III

In the District Court, petitioner moved for summary judgment on the ground that it is exempt from cov-erage under Title III of the ADA as a privateclu[b] or establishmen[t], FN10 or alternatively,that the play areas of its tour competitions do notconstitute places of public accommodation withinthe scope of that Title. FN11 The Magistrate Judgeconcluded that petitioner should be viewed as acommercial enterprise operating in the entertain-ment industry for the economic benefit of its mem-bers rather than as a private *670 club. Further-more, after noting that the statutory definition of public accommodation included a golf course,FN12 he rejected petitioner's argument that its com-petitions are only places of public accommodationin the areas open to spectators. The operator of apublic accommodation could not, in his view,


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=Iadf4fb86475411db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=UMhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=Icac9cf69475411db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=UMhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=Icac9cf69475411db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=UMhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=Iadf4fb86475411db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=UM


10/30

create private enclaves within the facility ... andthus relegate the ADA to hop-scotch areas. 984F.Supp. 1320, 1326-1327 (D.Or.19 98) . Accord-ingly, he denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment.

FN10. Title 42 U.S.C. 121 87 provides:The provisions of this subchapter shallnot apply to private clubs or establish-ments exempted from coverage under TitleII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42U.S.C. 2000-a(e)) or to religious organiz-ations or entities controlled by religious or-ganizations, including places of worship.

FN11. See 12181(7) .

FN12. 12181(7 )(L).

At trial, petitioner did not contest the conclusionthat Martin has a disability covered by the ADA, orthe fact that his disability prevents him from walk-ing the course during a round of golf. 994 F.Supp.1242, 1244 (D.Or.1998 ). Rather, petitioner assertedthat the condition of walking is a substantive rule of competition, and that waiving it as to any individu-al for any reason would fundamentally alter thenature of the competition. Petitioner's evidence in-cluded the testimony of a number of experts, amongthem some of the greatest golfers in history. Arnold**1887 Palmer, FN13 Jack Nicklaus, FN14 and KenVenturi FN15 explained that fatigue can be *671 acritical factor in a tournament, particularly on thelast day when psychological pressure is at a maxim-um. Their testimony makes it clear that, in theirview, permission to use a cart might well give someplayers a competitive advantage over other playerswho must walk. They did not, however, express anyopinion on whether a cart would give Martin such

an advantage.FN16

FN13. Q. And fatigue is one of the factorsthat can cause a golfer at the PGA Tourlevel to lose one stroke or more?

A. Oh, it is. And it has happened.

Q. And can one stroke be the differencebetween winning and not winning a tour-nament at the PGA Tour level?

A. As I said, I've lost a few nationalopens by one stroke. App. 177.

FN14. Q. Mr. Nicklaus, what is your un-derstanding of the reason why in thesecompetitive events ... that competitors arerequired to walk the course?

A. Well, in my opinion, physical fitnessand fatigue are part of the game of golf. Id., at 190.

FN15. Q. So are you telling the court thatthis fatigue factor tends to accumulate overthe course of the four days of the tourna-ment?

A. Oh definitely. There's no doubt.. . . . .

Q. Does this fatigue factor that you'vetalked about, Mr. Venturi, affect themanner in which you-you perform as aprofessional out on the golf course?

A. Oh, there's no doubt, again, but that,that fatigue does play a big part. It willinfluence your game. It will influenceyour shot-making. It will influence yourdecisions. Id., at 236-237.

FN16. Q. Based on your experience, doyou believe that it would fundamentally al-ter the nature of the competition on thePGA Tour and the Nike Tour if competit-ors in those events were permitted to use

golf carts?

A. Yes, absolutely.

Q. Why do you say so, sir?

A. It would-it would take away the fa-tigue factor in many ways. It would-it


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998050775&ReferencePosition=1326http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998050775&ReferencePosition=1326http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12187&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1244http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1244http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1244http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1244http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12187&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998050775&ReferencePosition=1326http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998050775&ReferencePosition=1326


11/30

would change the game.. . . . .

Q. Now, when you say that the use of carts takes away the fatigue factor, itwould be an aid, et cetera, again, as I un-derstand it, you are not testifying nowabout the plaintiff. You are just talkingin general terms?

. . . . .

A. Yes, sir. Id., at 238. See also id., at177-178 (Palmer); id., at 191 (Nicklaus).

Rejecting petitioner's argument that an individual-ized inquiry into the necessity of the walking rulein Martin's case would be inappropriate, the DistrictCourt stated that it had the independent duty to in-quire into the purpose of the rule at issue, and to as-certain whether there can be a reasonable modifica-tion made to accommodate plaintiff without frus-trating the purpose of the rule and thereby funda-mentally altering the nature of petitioner's tourna-ments. Id., at 1246 . The judge found that the pur-pose of the rule was to inject fatigue into the skillof shotmaking, but that the fatigue injected bywalking the course cannot be deemed significant

under normal circumstances. Id., at 1250 . Further-more, Martin presented evidence, and the judgefound, that even with the use of a cart, Martin mustwalk over a mile during *672 an 18-hole round ,FN17 and that the fatigue he suffers from copingwith his disability is undeniably greater than thefatigue his able-bodied competitors endure fromwalking the course. Id., at 1251 . As the judge ob-served:

FN17. In the first place, he does walk while on the course-even with a cart, he

must move from cart to shot and back tothe cart. In essence, he still must walk ap-proximately 25% of the course. On acourse roughly five miles in length, Martinwill walk 1 1/4 miles. 994 F.Supp., a t1251 .

[P]laintiff is in significant pain when hewalks, and even when he is getting in and out of the cart. With each step, he is at risk of fracturinghis tibia and hemorrhaging. The other golfershave to endure the psychological stress of com-petition as part of their fatigue; Martin has thesame stress plus the added stress of pain and risk of serious injury. As he put it, he would gladlytrade the cart for a good leg. To perceive that thecart puts him-with his condition-at a competitiveadvantage is **1888 a gross distortion of reality. Id., at 1251-1252 .

As a result, the judge concluded that it wouldnot fundamentally alter the nature of the PGATour's game to accommodate him with a cart.

Id., at 1252 . The judge accordingly entered a per-manent injunction requiring petitioner to permitMartin to use a cart in tour and qualifying events.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, petitioner did notchallenge the District Court's rejection of its claimthat it was exempt as a private club, but it re-newed the contention that during a tournament theportion of the golf course behind the ropes' is nota public accommodation because the public has noright to enter it. 204 F.3d 994, 997 (200 0). TheCourt of Appeals viewed that contention as resting

on the incorrect assumption that the competitionamong participants was not itself public. The courtfirst pointed out that, as with a private university,the fact that users of a facility are highly selecteddoes not mean that the facility cannot be *673 apublic accommodation. Id., at 998.FN18 In itsopinion, the competition to enter the select circle of PGA TOUR and NIKE TOUR golfers was compar-able because [a]ny member of the public who paysa $3000 entry fee and supplies two letters of recom-mendation may try out in the qualifying school. Id., at 999. The court saw no justification in reasonor in the statute to draw a line beyond which theperformance of athletes becomes so excellent that acompetition restricted to their level deprives its sit-us of the character of a public accommodation. Ibid. Nor did it find a basis for distinguishingbetween use of a place of public accommodation


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1251http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1251http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000067458&ReferencePosition=997http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000067458&ReferencePosition=997http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1251http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1998055789&ReferencePosition=1251http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998055789


12/30

for pleasure and use in the pursuit of a living. Ibid .Consequently, the Court of Appeals concluded thatgolf courses remain places of public accommoda-tion during PGA tournaments. Ibid .

FN18. It explained: For example, Title IIIincludes in its definition secondary, un-dergraduate, or post-graduate privateschool [s]. 42 U.S.C. 12181( 7)(J). Thecompetition to enter the most elite privateuniversities is intense, and a relatively se-lect few are admitted. That fact clearlydoes not remove the universities from thestatute's definition as places of public ac-commodation. 204 F.3d, at 998 .

On the merits, because there was no serious disputeabout the fact that permitting Martin to use a golf cart was both a reasonable and a necessary solutionto the problem of providing him access to the tour-naments, the Court of Appeals regarded the centraldispute as whether such permission wouldfundamentally alter the nature of the PGA TOURor NIKE TOUR. Like the District Court, the Courtof Appeals viewed the issue not as whether use of carts generally would fundamentally alter the com-petition, but whether the use of a cart by Martin

would do so. Id., at 1001 . That issue turned on anintensively fact-based inquiry, and, the court con-cluded, had been correctly resolved by the trial judge. In its words, [a]ll that the cart does is per-mit Martin access to a type of competition in whichhe otherwise could not engage because of his disab-ility. Id., at 1000 .

*674 The day after the Ninth Circuit ruled in Mar-tin's favor, the Seventh Circuit came to a contraryconclusion in a case brought against the USGA by adisabled golfer who failed to qualify for America's

greatest-and most democratic-golf tournament, theUnited States Open. Olinger v. United States Gol f Assn., 205 F.3d 1001 (C.A.7 2000 ).FN19 The Sev-enth Circuit endorsed the conclusion of the DistrictCourt in that case that the nature of the competi-tion would be fundamentally altered if the walkingrule were eliminated because it would remove

stamina (at least a particular type of stamina) fromthe set of qualities designed to be tested in thiscompetition. Id., at 1006 (internal quotation marksomitted). In the Seventh Circuit's opinion, the phys-ical ordeals endured by **1889 Ken Venturi andBen Hogan when they walked to their Open victor-ies in 1964 and 1950 amply demonstrated the im-portance of stamina in such a tournament. FN20 Asan alternative basis for its holding, the court alsoconcluded that the ADA does not require the USGAto bear the administrative burdens of evaluatingrequests to waive the walking rule and permit theuse of a golf cart. Id., at 1007 .

FN19. The golfer in the Seventh Circuit

case, Ford Olinger, suffers from bilateralavascular necrosis, a degenerative condi-tion that significantly hinders his ability towalk.

FN20. For a description of the conditionsunder which they played, see Olinger v .United States Golf Assn., 205 F.3d, at1006-1007 .

Although the Seventh Circuit merely assumed thatthe ADA applies to professional golf tournaments,

and therefore did not disagree with the Ninth on thethreshold coverage issue, our grant of certiorari,530 U.S. 1306, 121 S.Ct. 30, 147 L.Ed.2d 1052(2000) , encompasses that question as well as theconflict between those courts.

IV

Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 to remedywidespread discrimination against disabled indi-viduals. In studying the need for such legislation,Congress found that historically, society has ten-ded to isolate and segregate individuals with *675disabilities, and, despite some improvements, suchforms of discrimination against individuals withdisabilities continue to be a serious and pervasivesocial problem. 42 U.S.C. 12101(a)( 2); see 12101(a)(3) ([D]iscrimination against individuals


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12181&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_794b00004e3d1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000067458&ReferencePosition=998http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000067458http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000070377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000070377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000070377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000070377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000070377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000070377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000070377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000070377&ReferencePosition=1006http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000070377&ReferencePosition=1006http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000070377&ReferencePosition=1006http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000070377&ReferencePosition=1006http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000432090http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000432090http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_d86d0000be040http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_28cc0000ccca6http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_28cc0000ccca6http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_28cc0000ccca6http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_28cc0000ccca6http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12101&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_d86d0000be040http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000432090http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000432090http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000070377&ReferencePosition=1006http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000070377&ReferencePosition=1006http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000070377&ReferencePosition=1006http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2000070377&ReferencePosition=1006http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=20000703