FindLaw | Legal News & Information

Olinger sued the USGA claiming discrimination under the ADA. The USGA moved for summary judgment claiming that it was not an owner, lessor, lessee or operator of a place of public accommodation as required under the ADA. In deciding this motion, the court focused on Title III of the ADA, stating that for it to apply, the USGA must be classified as an owner, lessor, lessee, or operator of a place of public accommodation. According to the court, an entity is an "operator" under this provision of the ADA even if its operation of the place of public accommodation is "only for a short time." Moreover, many places of public accommodation are open only to specific invitees as would be a golf course used for the U.S. Open. Denying the USGA's motion, the court held that "[t]he ADA applies to the areas of competition during the U.S. Open championship and qualifying rounds as well as to the gallery and the areas outside the ropes" and "[i]nsofar as the USGA operates a place of public accommodation, it is subject to Title III of the ADA."

At trial, the court focused on whether the requested modification of the competition, the use of a golf cart, is a reasonable modification, or if it would fundamentally change the nature of the activity in a manner not required by the ADA. According to the court, Olinger first had to show that his requested modification is reasonable in a general sense. By showing that the game and rules of golf do not expressly forbid the use of a cart, he was able to meet this burden. Therefore, the burden shifted to the USGA to show that the use of a golf cart would actually fundamentally alter the nature of the competition itself.

As the court explained, "[t]he proper inquiry. . .is not whether the requested accommodation would amount to a fundamental alteration in the game of golf. ..but rather whether the requested accommodation would constitute 'a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program' . . .and the 'program' here at issue is the U.S. Open."

The court was persuaded by expert testimony that the use of a cart may provide a golfer with a competitive advantage over a golfer who walks the course. As the court explained, when deciding a case under the ADA, it must make an individualized decision concerning the plaintiff, yet, a court evaluating a requested accommodation's impact on an activity or program must also give full consideration to that impact. As the court concluded, "[t]o require that someone be given the discretion to allow one competitor a potential advantage (the use of the cart) denied to others would fundamentally alter the nature of the competition." Therefore, the court entered judgment for the USGA.

Top of Page

You Make the Call. . . Index

Copyright © 1999 -- All rights reserved.