Pga Tour, Inc. V. Martin
Essay Preview: Pga Tour, Inc. V. Martin
Report this essay
Emily Owens – 9EEX 3093January 27, 2016Paper 2 – Athletes and the ADACase 1: PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, (2001)Facts:This case against The Professional Golfers Association (PGA) and respondent golfer Casey Martian puts the PGA and their regulations regarding a “no cart” rule at question of violating Title III of The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Martian is a golfer who suffers from a “congenital, degenerative circulatory disorder” making him not only experience pain and fatigue when walking but subjects him to the risk of other potentially serious injuries. His endeavors included competing in a three-stage qualifying tournament. The issue arose when the respondent request to be exempt from the “walking rule” was denied. Since his condition is recognized as a disability under the ADA, and he further filed a case under Title III which prohibits the discrimination concerning activities taking place in public accommodations. The PGA argued that the reason this rule was in place was in order to create fatigue amongst players by walking the course. Decisions:Ultimately the courts decided that walking would not alter the nature of the game nor was it “fundamental to the completion”. It was also determined that the fatigue the respondent suffers from his disability alone will outweigh the fatigue that an able body experiences through the duration of the tournament from walking the course and therefore would not give Martian an unfair advantage. They were able to do this thorough Title III of the ADA because it falls under a public accommodation (recreational facility) and therefore Martian should not be subject to discrimination.
Analysis:I fully agree with the courts decision to allow Martian a golf cart throughout the entirety of the tournament. I understand where the Professional Golfers Association is striving to create an even playing field and treat all the players the same however not all players are in the same physical condition as maybe the person in front or behind them.  The fact that the reasoning behind the “walking rule” is to create a sense of fatigue, especially regarding a person who suffers from fatigue already, I completely agree that this should be considered a “reasonable modification” and allowed to use a golf cart. Case 2: McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic AssociationFacts:The Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) has rules and regulations in place, one including an eight semester eligibility rule against student athletes. However, Dion R. McPherson, a student at Ann Arbor Huron High School, challenged this rule entering into his 5th year in high school. McPherson was finally diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in addition to a seizure disorder after his first year of the eleventh grade.  His disorders caused him to suffer academically, but once placed into a special “Individualized Education Program” he was able to repeat his eleventh grade year (his seventh and eighth semester in high school). This allowed his grades to greatly improve and making him eligible to participate in interscholastic athletics, specifically the basketball team. Going into his senior year (but ninth and tenth semester in high school) MHSAA originally was not permitting him to play on the basketball team because it violated their eight-semester eligibility rule. In attempts to overturn this rule, McPherson responded with a lawsuit against the school district as well as the Michigan’s High School Athletic Association.