High Court Lets Disabled Golfer Martin Use Cart

Ruling in favor of golfer Casey Martin, the Supreme Court held Tuesday that disabled athletes are entitled to “reasonable modifications” in some rules that would enable them to compete, as long as the changes do not fundamentally alter the competition or give them an unfair advantage.

The 7-2 decision requires the PGA Tour Inc. to waive its walking rule for Martin and to permit him to ride a cart between the holes.

“The essence of the game [of golf] has been shotmaking,” not walking, said Justice John Paul Stevens, a persistent, if not particularly skilled, golfer.

While walking the 18 holes adds an element of fatigue to the competition, Martin “easily endures greater fatigue” than the other players when he hobbles from the cart to his ball, Stevens said.

Martin’s legal victory may not save his career as a pro golfer, but it could give a significant boost to disabled athletes around the nation who want to compete in recreational and school sports.

By extending the federal anti-discrimination law to the competitors in sporting events, the decision tells the sponsors of school and recreational leagues that they cannot automatically exclude athletes with disabilities. If these athletes are capable of competing, the sponsors must modify certain rules that are not “fundamental” to the competition, the court said.

“I think in the future this opens doors for people,” Martin said in a telephone interview. Sports authorities will have to “think twice” before turning away athletes with a disability, he said.

Martin, a former Stanford University golf star and teammate of Tiger Woods, has been plagued by a degenerative circulatory disorder in his lower right leg that makes it painful for him to walk. Martin played on the regular PGA Tour last year, but was not among the 125 top money winners and lost his playing privileges. But he qualified this year to play on the Buy.Com Tour, the second level for touring pros.

Martin, 28, sued the PGA Tour four years ago when it refused to waive its no-cart rule, and his case forced the justices to consider for the first time how the Americans With Disabilities Act applies to sports.

Until Tuesday, it had not been clear whether sports competitors were covered by the 1990 law.

Under this law, it is illegal to discriminate against people with physical or mental disabilities in “places of public accommodation.” This now-familiar requirement means that stores, restaurants, offices, libraries and even sports stadiums must have ramps for those in wheelchairs.

In Martin’s case, lawyers for the PGA Tour conceded that because golf tournaments are open to the public, they must make reasonable accommodations for spectators who are disabled. However, they maintained that the antidiscrimination rule did not cover the players.

Disagreeing, the Supreme Court read the law more broadly and ruled that it covers “the players in tournaments” as well as the spectators.

Sponsors of such public events “may not discriminate against either spectators or competitors on the basis of disability,” Stevens said.

Legal experts said this holding has the affect of extending the law to all disabled athletes.

“This will be hugely important for recreational and scholastic sports because it makes it clear that disabled athletes have a right to participate,” said Harvard law professor Samuel Bagentos, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of several disability-rights groups.

Martin’s is the truly rare case of an athlete with a physical disability who nonetheless can compete with elite pros. But it will not be uncommon to have athletes with disabilities who can compete in school sports if some modifications are made, Bagentos said.

The court’s opinion stresses that a sport need not waive “an essential rule of competition for anyone.” For example, disabled golfers may not ask for shorter distance from tee to hole or a wider cup.

While a sport cannot be required to “fundamentally alter” the rules in a way that gives a disabled athlete “an advantage over others,” Stevens said, golf’s walking rule can be waived because it is “at best peripheral” to tournament competition.

Agreeing with the court, some sports experts said Tuesday that the “reasonable modifications” required by the law need not affect the essence of competition. They cited the case of an Olympic swimmer who was deaf and could not hear the starting gun, but instead relied on a flashing light to signal the start of a race.

Nonetheless, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a fierce 16-page dissent that accused his colleagues of adopting an “Alice in Wonderland” view of sports and the law.

He said he now envisioned parents of Little Leaguers claiming that because their son has an attention deficit disorder, he “ought to be given a fourth strike,” not the usual three strikes and you’re out.

“The rules are the rules. They are (as in all games) entirely arbitrary, and there is no basis on which anyone--not even the Supreme Court of the United States--can pronounce one or another of them to be ‘nonessential’ if the rulemaker (here the PGA tour) deems it to be essential,” he wrote in a dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Scalia plays tennis and squash but not golf, but his opinion is shared by golf legends Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer. Both testified that walking and fatigue are a factor in competitive golf, and said that for that reason, all the players should be required to walk.

But these days, Nicklaus and Palmer both compete on the PGA Senior Tour, where the use of golf carts is permitted.

PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem’s said he thought the tour would be able to keep its walking requirement.

“Hopefully, with the way this opinion was written, we can have our cake and eat it too,” said Finchem, calling the result a “win-win situation.”

Hal Sutton, a golfer who also is a member of the tour’s policy board, said many pros have bad backs and might now apply to use a cart. Sutton himself has had back problems.

“In Casey’s particular case, there’s no doubt about his disability,” Sutton said. “This is not about Casey Martin. It’s about the possibilities it opens up. The next person’s disabilities--it might not be as clear.”

“I think in the future this opens doors for people,” Martin said in a telephone interview. Sports authorities will have to “think twice” before turning away athletes with a disability, he said.

Tuesday’s outcome in PGA Tour Inc. vs. Martin, 00-24, is somewhat surprising, given the court’s recent record on ADA cases. Three years ago, the justices narrowed the law by saying it did not protect people with treatable conditions or diseases such as epilepsy or heart disease, even if their employers fired them because of their impairments. In one case, a truck mechanic was fired because his blood pressure was extremely high, yet the court ruled he had no disability.

During oral arguments in the Martin case in January, the justices also sounded wary of changing the rules of a sporting event. But the opinion authored by Stevens focused narrowly on the plight of Martin and concludes that his use of a cart does not change the game or give him an unfair competitive advantage in tournament play.

Stevens’ opinion was joined in full by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a sponsor of the law, said he was pleased to see the court stand up for its original intent. “We passed the ADA to give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to fully participate in American life. That includes the opportunity to compete,” he said.

*

Times staff writer Thomas Bonk and Associated Press contributed to this story.

The full text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in PGA Tour Inc. vs. Martin is on The Times’ Web site at https://latimes.com/martin