PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin Case Study Assignment

PGA Tour Inc. vs. Martin
Name
Institution
PGA Tour Inc. vs. Martin
In PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, the United States Supreme court faced the question of whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applied to a professional sports body. In the case, Casey Martin, a disabled golfer, had sued the Professional Golf Association (PGA) for refusing his attempt to use a golf cart during the PGA tour. According to the case, Casey Martin suffered from Klippel-Trenaunay- Weber Syndrome. This degenerative disorder leads to blood pooling in Martin’s lower right leg. One of the signs for this condition is acute pain. The pain places Martin at significant health risks, which includes the possible amputation of his right leg. Due to his condition, Martin requested for a waiver of the PGA’s “no cart” rule in order to make it possible for him to qualify. In its ruling, the United States District Court for the district of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals maintained that PGA tournaments are places where people go to be entertained. For this reason, the two courts pointed out that allowing Casey Martin to use a golf cart during the tour is a rational accommodation that does not principally change the nature of professional golf (Cornell University Law School, 2017).
Application of the ADA in the Martin Case
Congress adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1960. The Act was adopted as a measure by the government to protect disabled people by eliminating discrimination against people with disabilities of any type. Specifically, the ADA bars discrimination of any kind in the area of employment, programs and services offered by the government, and goods and services provided by private companies and commercial amenities. At the present, the ADA is codified into five titles that offer a range of comprehensive protections for the disabled people (Green, 2002).
Title 1 of the ADA covers employment discrimination and prevents employers from discriminating the disabled when it comes to offering employment opportunities or promotion. Title II also prevents public entities from discriminating on disables people. Section III, which was quoted in Martin’s case touches on public accommodations and commercial facilities. Specifically, Title III of the ADA prevents anyone from discriminating against the disabled when it comes to the enjoyment of goods, services, and other social amenities (Andrew, Pedersen & McEvoy, 2011). The Title also prohibits anyone from denying disabled person the privileges and benefits or accommodations by either the owner or the person in charge of public accommodations. In order to be eligible for this Title, a disabled person must prove beyond doubt that he has a disability and that the defendant either owns or runs the place of public accomm...