|
Disability-rights advocates say they belong to the only minority that anyone can join in a moment. But Martin achieved membership by birthright, when he was born with a rare degenerative circulatory disorder that shoots searing pain up his leg with every step. As one of the best young golfers in Oregon, Martin was able to limp his way through games. Then, four years ago, when he was captain of Stanford's golf team, the pain intensified. Martin reluctantly agreed to use a cart, allowed under NCAA rules for golfers with a certified medical disability. When he turned pro, Martin asked the PGA Tour for the same accommodation. But tour officials refused to look at medical records documenting his disability. When Martin's friend Bill Wiswall, a lawyer, told him that he had a right to the cart under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, Martin decided to sue. Martin was motivated by two factors. First, Wiswall says, his leg had deteriorated to the point where "it was either ride or quit golf." Second, he resented the PGA Tour's refusal to treat him as a person instead of a problem. In December, U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin allowed Martin to use a cart until the trial ended. Under intense media scrutiny, Martin won a PGA Nike Tour tournament in Florida on Jan. 9. Until the trial, few people knew the extent of Martin's disability. In a video submitted as evidence, Martin showed his shockingly white and withered limb. When he removed the bandage, purple splotches started to appear almost instantly and the leg swelled visibly, making it feel "like it's going to blow up," Martin said. Within moments he had to sit down and elevate it. Martin's doctors testified that he's in such severe, chronic pain that he can't sleep more than a couple of hours at a time. He risks a serious leg fracture every time he walks on a golf course. Ultimately, the leg will probably have to be amputated. Clearly it would have been nice for the PGA Tour to voluntarily offer Martin a cart. But should it be required to? The ADA requires employers, building owners and others subject to the law to find a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability. Martin proved that a cart was a reasonable accommodation by showing how the PGA used carts in other competitions that are not part of the PGA Tour. But the law also says a business can avoid making even a reasonable accommodation if it would fundamentally alter the nature of the business or service. The PGA Tour argued that allowing a golfer to use a cart would fundamentally alter the nature of top-level pro golf by giving that competitor an advantage over a golfer who walked. The specifics of Martin's affliction were not relevant, they said. "Their strategy was to divorce Casey from the case," says Wiswall. The move backfired, proving to be the key to Martin's victory and, perhaps, the case's legal legacy. The ADA, Martin's lawyers argued, requires "individualized assessment" in determining whether the accommodation would fundamentally alter the game. In other words, the question was not whether a cart would give some hypothetical golfer an advantage, but whether it would give Casey Martin an edge. Martin's lawyers showed how his limp and constant pain make him expend more energy than other golfers. They provided evidence that most players--including Martin--prefer not to use carts because walking helps them establish a rhythm, assess course conditions and "walk off" emotional highs and lows. Finally, even those who testified against him conceded that Martin's bum leg takes a good 20 yards off his drives. "I don't see any advantage," Martin testified. "If I could trade my cart for a good leg, I'd do it anytime, anywhere." As Martin's attorney Martha Walters put it, "Casey only wants a ride to the starting line, not a 50-yard lead." The judge agreed. No advantage means no fundamental alteration. The PGA Tour must accommodate Martin. Disability advocates say the ADA's emphasis on individual circumstances is its genius as well as its safeguard. Let's take a typical ADA case. Suppose a small business hires a deaf person as an administrative assistant. The employer might worry that it would need to hire a full-time interpreter to accommodate her. But if this individual possessed sufficient lip-reading skills to perform most of her duties without interpretation, the company might be able to reasonably accommodate her by occasionally hiring an interpreter for meetings with multiple speakers, in which lip reading is difficult. Coffin ruled that accommodation is made on a case-by-case basis. If the judgment stands up to appeals, it could cement this principle into law. Regardless of its ultimate legal importance, the Martin case has already served to educate the public about the reasonableness and significance of the ADA. Polls show about two-thirds of respondents favor Martin's demand for a cart. Plus, of course, he's got a new Nike commercial. "As this case stimulates public debate, we're educating people about the fairness of the principle of reasonable accommodation," says Speed Davis of the National Council on Disability. "People are seeing that what we're about is equality, not superiority." |
