Supreme Court Case: Paga Tour Inc. V. Martin

PGA TOUR INC. V. MARTIN

Facts of the Case

PGA Tour Inc. v. Martin was a 2001 Supreme Court case that involved the relevance of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act to professional golf tours and their members. In order to qualify for the PGA (Professional Golfers’ Association of America), a golfer must first pass through a three stage qualifying tournament popularly known as “Q School.” The tournament allows players to use golf carts for the first two stages of the tournament, but prohibits their use during and after the third stage.

Casey Martin was a talented golfer who suffered from an ADA listed disability called Klippel Trenaunay Weber syndrome, a degenerative circulatory disorder in his right leg that prevents him from walking the

Petronello was a 2005 case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disputed between Stephen B. Kuketz and Roslyn Petronelli. Kuketz was a nationally ranked racquetball player who was confined to a wheelchair since 1991 and joined the Brockton Athletic Club. Petronello was the General Manager of the club during Kuketz’s membership. Kuketz ability to compete rests on allowing him to return the ball after the second bounce, not the first; the rules of Raquetball provide for this exception for wheelchair competition. However, the general manager, Roslyn Petronelli, said he would not longer be able to play in the A League due to safety concerns, offering to either help Kuketz organize a wheelchair league or to simply play in a lower division with the one-bounce

In defense of their actions, the club contended that Kuketz was denied the accommodation he requested for safety reasons and because to grant it would fundamentally change the nature of the game. He later filed a complaint in the Superior Court, changing the defendant to Petronelli after the club ceased operations.

Decisions

The Superior Court judge ruled that the defendants were not required to change the rules because it would “fundamentally alter the rules of racquetball.” The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the Superior Court’s judgment, writing “we conclude that affording Kuketz two bounces against footed players in league play would fundamentally alter the nature of the competition.”

Analysis

The facts and the circumstances of Kuketz v. Petronelli poses the challenging question of how far should individuals and societal institutions should go in providing accommodations to disabled individuals. Though intuition tells us to go as far as humanly possible to accommodate all individuals, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the correct ruling in deciding this case. Kuketz assertion, though entirely well-intentioned, is unsound on the grounds that are covered by the ADA. His determination to be allowed a second bound “fundamentally alters” the game of racquetball and the club’s refusal to accommodate