Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PGA Tour v. Martin 532 U.S. 661

PGA Tour v. Martin 532 U.S. 661

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Aug 20, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/20/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-
Date/Time of Request: Friday, August 20, 2010 14:20 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: SCTFINDCitation Text: 121 S.Ct. 1879Lines: 1765Documents: 1Images: 0
BUSINESS LAW 2 CHAPTER ONE
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.
 
Supreme Court of the United StatesPGA TOUR, INC., Petitioner,v.Casey MARTIN.
No. 00-24.
Argued Jan. 17, 2001.Decided May 29, 2001.Professional golfer suffering from circulatory dis-order resulting in malformation of his right leg suednon-profit professional golf association, allegingthat association's rule banning use of golf carts incertain of its tournaments violated Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA). The United States DistrictCourt for the District of Oregon,Thomas M. Coffin, United States Magistrate Judge, entered partialsummary judgment for golfer,984 F.Supp. 1320,and, following bench trial, entered permanent in- junction requiring association to permit golfer touse cart,994 F.Supp. 1242.Association appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit,204 F.3d 994,affirmed. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, JusticeStevens, heldthat: (1) even if the protected class under Title IIIof the ADA is limited to “clients or customers,” itwould be entirely appropriate to classify the golferswho paid the association $3,000 for the chance tocompete in its qualifying tournaments and, if suc-cessful, in the subsequent tour events, as associ-ation's “clients or customers,” and (2) allowing dis-abled golfer to use a golf cart, despite the walkingrequirement that applied to the association's tours,was not a modification that would “fundamentallyalter the nature” of those events, and was requiredby Title III of the ADA.Affirmed.JusticeScalia, with whom JusticeThomasjoined, filed a dissenting opinion.West Headnotes
[1]Civil Rights 78 1047
78Civil Rights78IRights Protected and Discrimination Prohib-ited in General78k1043Public Accommodations 78k1047k. Theaters and Places of Exhibi-tion or Entertainment.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k121)Golf tours sponsored by non-profit professionalgolf association, and their qualifying rounds, fitwithin the coverage of Title III of the ADA, as golf courses are specifically identified by the Act as apublic accommodation, association leased and oper-ated golf courses to conduct its qualifying tourna-ments and tours, as a lessor and operator of golf courses, association must not discriminate againstany individual in the “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advant-ages, or accommodations” of those courses, andamong the “privileges” offered by association onthe courses are those of competing in the qualifyingtournaments and playing in the tours. Americanswith Disabilities Act of 1990, §§ 301(7)(L), 302(a),42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12181(7)(L),12182(a).
[2]Federal Courts 170B 461
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(B)Review of Decisions of Courts of Appeals170Bk460Review on Certiorari170Bk461. QuestionsNot Presented Below or in Petition for Certiorari.Most CitedCasesSupreme Court would exercise its discretion to con-sider particular argument on coverage of Title III of the ADA though petitioner failed to make the exactargument below, given the importance of the issue,and where the Title III coverage issue was raised inthe lower courts, petitioner advanced the particularargument in support of its position on the issue inits petition for certiorari, and the argument was121 S.Ct. 1879 Page 1532 U.S. 661, 121 S.Ct. 1879, 149 L.Ed.2d 904, 11 A.D. Cases 1281, 20 NDLR P 188, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.4294, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5217, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 271, 2001 DJCAR 2634
(Cite as: 532 U.S. 661, 121 S.Ct. 1879)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
fully briefed on the merits by both parties. Americ-ans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 3 et seq.,42U.S.C.A. § 12102 et seq.
[3]Civil Rights 78 1047
78Civil Rights78IRights Protected and Discrimination Prohib-ited in General78k1043Public Accommodations 78k1047k. Theaters and Places of Exhibi-tion or Entertainment.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k121)Even if the protected class under Title III of theADA is limited to “clients or customers,” it wouldbe entirely appropriate to classify the golfers whopaid non-profit professional golf association $3,000for the chance to compete in its qualifying tourna-ments and, if successful, in the subsequent tourevents, as association's “clients or customers”; as-sociation's tournaments simultaneously offer atleast two “privileges” to the public, that of watch-ing the golf competition and that of competing in it,and the golfers on tour were not employed by theassociation or any related organizations. Americanswith Disabilities Act of 1990, § 302(a),(b)(1)(A)(iv),42 U.S.C.A. § 12182(a),(b)(1)(A)(iv) .
[4]Civil Rights 78 1044
78Civil Rights78IRights Protected and Discrimination Prohib-ited in General78k1043Public Accommodations 78k1044k. In General.Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78k119.1)The general prohibitions of specific clauses of TitleIII of the ADA cannot be avoided by means of con-tract, but contractual relationships will not expand apublic accommodation's obligations under the gen-eral prohibitions subparagraph beyond its own cli-ents or customers. Americans with Disabilities Actof 1990, § 302(b)(1)(A)(i-iv),42 U.S.C.A.§12182(b)(1)(A)(i-iv).
[5]Civil Rights 78 1047
78Civil Rights78IRights Protected and Discrimination Prohib-ited in General78k1043Public Accommodations 78k1047k. Theaters and Places of Exhibi-tion or Entertainment.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k121)As a public accommodation during its tours andqualifying rounds, non-profit professional golf as-sociation may not discriminate against either spec-tators or competitors on the basis of disability.Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 302(a),42 U.S.C.A. § 12182(a).
[6]Civil Rights 78 1021
78Civil Rights78IRights Protected and Discrimination Prohib-ited in General78k1016Handicap, Disability, or Illness 78k1021k. Physical Access and Mobility;Carriers.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k107(2))
Civil Rights 78 1047
78Civil Rights78IRights Protected and Discrimination Prohib-ited in General78k1043Public Accommodations 78k1047k. Theaters and Places of Exhibi-tion or Entertainment.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k121)Allowing professional golfer suffering from circu-latory disorder resulting in malformation of hisright leg to use a golf cart, despite the walking re-quirement that applied to tours sponsored by non-profit professional golf association, was not a modi-fication that would “fundamentally alter the nature”of those events, and was required by Title III of theADA; the use of carts is not itself inconsistent withthe fundamental character of the game of golf, andthe purpose of the association's walking rule is toinject the element of fatigue into the skill of shot-121 S.Ct. 1879 Page 2532 U.S. 661, 121 S.Ct. 1879, 149 L.Ed.2d 904, 11 A.D. Cases 1281, 20 NDLR P 188, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.4294, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5217, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 271, 2001 DJCAR 2634
(Cite as: 532 U.S. 661, 121 S.Ct. 1879)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->