High Court Rules for , Says ADA Applies to PGA

[Guest guest]

FEAT DAILY NEWSLETTER Sacramento, California http://www.feat.org

" Healing Autism: No Finer a Cause on the Planet "

______________________________________________________

May 30, 2001 Search www.feat.org/search/news.asp

*** FINAL REMINDER - EVENTS CALENDAR DEADLINE FRI: events@... ***

LEGAL, POLITICAL

High Court Rules for , Says Disabilities Law Applies to PGA

Commentary to Follow

[by Seattle Times news services.]

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/displa

y?slug=scotus30 & date=20010530 < --address ends here.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that professional golf must bend its

rules so a disabled golfer can participate in tournaments, applying the

federal disability-rights law to professional sports for the first time in a

ruling that also could strengthen the legal position of disabled people in

ordinary workplaces.

By a 7-2 vote, the justices held that the PGA Tour must allow Casey

to ride a golf cart despite the tour's usual requirement that all

players walk the 18-hole course. , 28, has a rare leg ailment that

makes it almost impossible for him to walk that far.

The tournaments are " public accommodations " covered by the 1990

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and letting use a cart is a

" reasonable modification " that gives him the access required by the law, the

court said.

In rejecting the tour's argument that waiving the rule for

would represent a fundamental change in the game, Justice s

wrote in his opinion, " The essence of the game (of golf) has been shot

making, " not walking.

The PGA Tour's " refusal to consider 's personal circumstances

.... runs counter to the clear language and purpose " of the disabilities law,

wrote s, a persistent, if not particularly skilled, golfer.

Hal Sutton, a golfer who also is a member of the tour's policy board,

said many pros have bad backs and might apply to use a cart. Sutton has had

back problems.

" In Casey's particular case, there's no doubt about his disability, "

Sutton said. " This is not about Casey . It's about the possibilities

it opens up. " The ruling will not produce any immediate changes for the

elite-level PGA Tour because is not playing well enough to qualify.

He is playing on the Buy.Com Tour where PGA rules also apply.

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 envisioned parents of Little Leaguers claiming that because

their son has 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 the dissent joined only by Justice Clarence .

's case, PGA Tour vs. , has been hotly debated since he

sued the PGA Tour in 1997.

The case became a rallying point for disability-rights groups, which

saw as the perfect emblem for the struggles of lesser-known disabled

people.

The PGA Tour appealed lower-court rulings in favor of to stand

up for what it called " the integrity of the rules, " under which walking is

required as a test of competitors' physical and mental stamina.

Golf greats such as Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus testified about

the physical challenge walking adds to the game.

Yesterday, said the ruling " opens some doors for people. " While

it might not immediately affect other golfers, said he hoped disabled

athletes in general would benefit. " An institution like the PGA Tour ...

before they just automatically knock down someone's desire for

accommodation, they might have to think twice, " he said.

For its part, the PGA Tour called the opinion a narrow one, whose

implications would not extend beyond 's case.

However, some experts said 's victory could give a boost to

disabled athletes competing in recreational and school sports.

Until yesterday, it had not been clear whether sports competitors were

covered by the ADA.

Under this law, it is illegal to discriminate against people with

physical or mental disabilities in " places of public accommodation. " In

'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 the

anti-discrimination rule did not cover the players.

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, " s said.

Legal experts said this holding has the effect 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 Bagentos, who filed a

friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of several disability-rights groups.

Disability-rights advocates and attorneys for employers said the

court, in faulting the PGA Tour for insisting its rule needed to be enforced

across the board rather than weighing 's specific situation, also had

sent a strong signal about how the ADA should be applied in conventional

workplaces.

" They've said you can't react in a knee-jerk way, but you have to make

sure you understand the implications of what the person is asking for, " said

Andy Imparato, president and chief executive officer of the American

Association of People with Disabilities.

As a result, plaintiffs in future ADA cases may have gained some

latitude in arguing that certain job requirements are not " fundamental " and

can be modified, said Alan Levins, a San Francisco-based attorney who

represents business in employment cases. " People will say working at home is

analogous to giving Casey a cart, " he said.

>> DO SOMETHING ABOUT AUTISM NOW <<

Subscribe, Read, then Forward the FEAT Daily Newsletter.

To Subscribe go to www.feat.org/FEATnews No Cost!

* * *

COMMENTARY

By Lenny Schafer

Golf Handicaps

The Supreme Court 7 to 2 decision Tuesday to allow the Americans With

Disabilities Act to apply to PGA rules to protect the disabled from

frivolous exclusion as players is a welcomed, but potentially a worrisome

victory. Any such high profile challenges to the ADA or its sister, the

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) commands the attention of

families with autism, or should. These decisions can have a profound impact

on our lives.

The ADA and the IDEA are wonderful legislative tools that allows those

with autism and other disabilities the best opportunity to lead an included

life within our communities. The IDEA in philosophy, is an extension of the

ADA, but focused on educational matters. But these laws exist within a

political and financial climate - climates that can, and will probably

change for the worse before they change for the better.

As the autism population continues to grow, it puts enormous pressure

on school districts and state disability agency budgets. An early

intervention program for autism can cost from $20,000 to $60,000 a year per

person. In California and elsewhere in the country we are already beginning

to see signs of a backlash against IDEA mandates. Some California Regional

Centers, in short-sighted attempts to protect their budgets, are stalling

the diagnosis of new cases until the crawler or toddler grows pass the age

of three -- in order to dump them out of their system onto the neighboring

school districts who must then take responsibility at that age.

Both agencies intentionally leave parents in the dark about behavioral

therapies available to children simply because they are so expensive and

difficult to run. That’s one major reason why organizations like the local

FEATs and ASA Chapters are so important for knowledgeable parent advocacy.

School Districts increasing adopt defensive strategies against the

IDEA with the lowest possible public profile. Specialty legal consultants

have an established training program which circuits the US, instructing

school district personnel on how to beat parents fighting for effective

programs for their children at hearings.

Now before the US Congress is pending legislation for the continuation

and funding of the IDEA. Amendments are being attached which have the

effect of weakening the IDEA. They are called IDEA “discipline amendments

which passed in the House of Representatives last week, and will be in

danger of passing the Senate when senators return to session on June 4. As

part of the debate on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education \ Act (E.S.E.A) the amendments differ, but, taken together, could

have the effect of taking us back to pre-1975 when schools could segregate

and/or expel students with disabilities without providing educational

services,” alerts the National Parent Network on Disabilities. [if

interested, see their website for political action instructions

www.npnd.org.] The strategy being the incremental chipping away of the IDEA

in small, low profile steps.

There are opponents to the disabilities protection acts and they will

be helped by challenges that may come in the future as a result of the

ruling that might see as trivial to the public, unlike the PGA Case.

The minority opinion of the Supreme Court warns of the potential of such

abuses down the road. While their arguments were not persuasive enough to

sway the majority and overcome other considerations, they still have some

merit. This can opened the door to future attempts at trivial exploitation

of these laws and spur the backlash now building against them. Court orders

are often bad solutions to ambiguous laws because they allow little or no

room for compromise. You have a winner and you have a loser. There is

something wrong with unnecessarily creating losers so that my son or someone

in my family can be a winner. By suing instead of legislating change, have

we created new allies for those opponents of ours who are now quietly at

work weakening disability protections?

The place for compromise, the place for democratic win-win solutions

is in the legislature, or in private mediation, but not the courts. The PGA

did not have to let this issue become a Supreme Court matter. In their

rigidity, they too lusted for the high-risk winner-take-all judicial quick

fix. The compromise could have been that be allowed his assistive

technology golf cart to play. To compensate for the advantage that would be

given to him by not having to walk the six miles like everyone else, they

could have adjusted his handicap upwards a stroke or two. The result,

gets to play and the playing field remains level. Everyone goes home

a win-winner. Now what message does that send out to everyone?

Let us pick our battles carefully. The ’s ruling is welcomed,

but not all proposed or won battles in the name of the disabled are sound

victories for our purposes.

_______________________________________________________

Lenny Schafer, Editor PhD Ron Sleith Kay Stammers

Editor@... Unsubscribe: FEATNews-signoff-request@...

CALENDAR OF EVENTS submissions to Guppy events@...