During the third round of the PGA, a qualifying golfer, Casey Martin, requested to use a golf cart to alleviate pain associated with his degenerative circulatory disease. The PGA denied Martin’s request which led him to file an action under Title III of the ADA.

Background of the PGA V. Martin Case

Title III of the ADA requires an entity operating public accommodations to make reasonable modifications to its policies when necessary to afford such accommodations to individuals with disabilities. The entity is exempt from this requirement if they can demonstrate that a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of such accommodations. 

What Section of the ADA the PGA V. Martin Case Regarded

In a 7-2 decision from the SCOTUS, the court found that Title III of the ADA prohibits the PGA from denying equal access to the course on the basis of his disability as permitting him to use a cart would not fundamentally violate the walking rule.

The Conclusion of PGA V. Martin

The issue examined in this case was whether the ADA requires a professional sports organization (the PGA) to make modifications for a participant with a disability.

Michigan State University

Includes court cases that used the ADA as the basis of supporting evidence for arguments, cases that changed/amended the ADA, cases that defined definitions, and more. 

Court Cases Regarding the ADA in the United States 

PGA TOUR, Inc. v. Martin, 532 US 661 (2001) 

PGA TOUR, Inc. v. Martin 532 US 661 (2001) 

This case questions what the proper standard under the ADA is when determining if an individual is substantially limited in performing manual tasks. 

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., v. Williams (2002)

Ronald Yeskey was sentenced to a 18-36 month stay in prison and got recommended to participate in a Motivational Boot camp available for first time offenders; the purpose of the boot camp was that it would grant Yeskey parole after 6 months. The Department of Corrections refuse his acceptance into the camp once discovering he had a history of hypertension, to which Yeskey claimed as discriminatory and brought it to the courts. 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey (1998)

PGA Tour V. Martin (2001)

This case decided the question if corrective and mitigating measures should be considered when determining whether an individual is disabled under the ADA.

Sutton V. United Airlines(1999)

Many courts have ruled that presence is an essential function of employment, which considering many people cannot meet without the necessary accommodations, has turned the matter of absenteeism into a rule of law - siding in favor of employers experiencing “undue hardship” as such rather than disabled workers.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After