Accessible Golf Cars

Accessible Golf Cars

Summary of Comment: For the vast majority of persons with mobility disabilities, an accessible golf car is necessary to obtain the full and equal access to a golf course that is required by the ADA. Accessible golf cars are a great example of publicly available assistive technology that increases recreational opportunities for people with disabilities. Accessible golf cars are as safe as regular golf cars and cause less damage to the golf course than standard golf cars, particularly on the course’s tees, fairways and greens. It is far more reasonable to have golf courses provide accessible golf cars to golfers with mobility disabilities than to expect golfers to purchase their own golf cars and transport them by trailer to each golf course they wish to play. People without disabilities are not expected to bring their own golf carts, why should persons with disabilities? At least two accessible golf cars should be provided at each 18-hole golf course so that more than one person with a disability can play the course at any given time.

Comment: Affirmatively requiring in the Department’s regulations that golf courses provide accessible golf cars would have a number of benefits, including the avoidance of piecemeal and costly litigation. A specific regulatory provision would also avoid confusion among golf course owners, operators, and the public regarding whether or not golf courses are required to provide accessible golf cars.

We agree with the Department’s position that the express language of the ADA, and the Department’s existing regulations requiring modifications in policies, practices and procedures (28 CFR 36.302) and barrier removal (28 CFR 36.304) squarely covers the issue. As the Department notes in its NPRM, “[I]f a person with a disability does not have full and equal access to a covered entity’s services because of the lack of accessible equipment, the entity must provide that equipment, unless doing so would be a fundamental alteration or would not be readily achievable.”

Within the ADA’s existing regulatory framework, a District Court in the Northern District of California has already concluded that failing to provide accessible golf cars at Marriott-operated golf facilities was discriminatory under the ADA. Celanoet. al. v. Marriott Intern.Inc., 2008 WL 239306 (N.D.Cal.2008). The court held that providing accessible cars was “reasonable” and “necessary” for the plaintiffs in that case, and that failing to provide accessible golf cars for mobility impaired golfers put those golfers in a distinctly unequal situation as compared to their non-mobility-impaired counterparts.

The Department of Interior (“DOI”) has also stated that public entity golf courses must make accessible golf cars available for rental at public golf courses unless it can be demonstrated that doing so would change the fundamental nature of the game of golf. The DOI has suggested that it is an acceptable guide for a golf facility to provide as many accessible golf cars as the minimum number of accessible parking spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessible Guidelines.

Finally, as noted by the Department in the NPRM, the Department of Defense agrees it has a legal obligation to provide two accessible golf cars at each of the 174 courses it operates. See U.S. Dept. of Defense, Report to Congress: Access of Disabled Persons to Morale, Recreation, and Welfare (MRW) Facilities and Activities (Sept. 25, 2007).

For more on golf, see the draft comment on accessible teeing grounds, putting greens, and weather shelters, in the general section on “Questions on Specific 2004 ADAAG Standards.”

When the title III regulation was initially proposed in 1991, it contained a provision concerning accessible equipment, which required that newly purchased furniture or equipment that was made available for use at a place of public accommodation be accessible, unless complying with this requirement would fundamentally alter the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered, or would not be readily achievable. See 56 FR 7452, 7470-71 (Feb. 22, 1991). In the final title III regulation promulgated in 1991, the Department decided not to include this provision, explaining in the preamble to the regulation that "its requirements are more properly addressed under other sections, and . . . there are currently no appropriate accessibility standards addressing many types of furniture and equipment."56 FR 35544, 35572 (July 26, 1991).

Equipment has been covered under the Department’s ADA regulation, including under the provision requiring modifications in policies, practices, and procedures and the provision requiring barrier removal, even though there is no provision specifically addressing equipment. See 28 CFR 36.302, 36.304. If a person with a disability does not have full and equal access to a covered entity’s services because of the lack of accessible equipment, the entity must provide that equipment, unless doing so would be a fundamental alteration or would not be readily achievable.

Commenters also said that the Department’s stated plan to assess the financial impact of free-standing equipment on businesses was not necessary, as any regulations could include a financial balancing test. Other commenters representing persons who are blind or have low vision urged the Department to mandate accessibility for a wide range of equipment— including household appliances (stoves, washers, microwaves, and coffee makers), audiovisual equipment (stereos and DVD players), exercise machines, vending equipment, ATMs, computers at Internet cafes or hotel business centers, reservations kiosks at hotels, and point-of-sale devices— through speech output and tactile labels and controls. They argued that modern technology allows such equipment to be made accessible at minimal cost. According to these commenters, the lack of such accessibility in point-of-sale devices is particularly problematic because it forces blind individuals to provide personal or sensitive information (such as personal identification numbers) to third parties, which exposes them to identity fraud. Because the ADA does not apply directly to the manufacture of products, the Department lacks the authority to issue design requirements for equipment designed exclusively for use in private homes. See Department of Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual Covering Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities, III–4.4200, available at To the extent that equipment intended for such use is used by a covered entity to facilitate a covered service or activity, that covered entity must make the equipment accessible to the extent that it can. Seeid.: 28 CFR part 36, app. B (2009) (‘‘Proposed Section 36.309 Purchase of Furniture and Equipment’’).

Summary of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Casey Martin

The Supreme Court's Review of the PGA's ADA Obligations

Barry C. Taylor Legal Advocacy Director, Equip for Equality, Inc.

The Facts of the Martin Case

Casey Martin is a professional golfer who has a congenital, degenerative circulatory disorder. This condition causes Martin severe pain and atrophy in his lower leg, rendering him unable to walk for extended periods of time. The Professional Golf Association ("PGA") has a requirement that players walk the course during tournaments, a requirement that Martin cannot meet. Martin requested that the PGA make a reasonable modification of its "walking rule" and allow him to use a golf cart during tournaments. The PGA refused and Martin filed suit under Title III of the ADA.

The PGA did not dispute that Martin has a disability under the ADA. Instead, it claimed that it was not required to grant Martin's request because the playing area of a golf course used during professional tournaments is not a place of public accommodation under the ADA. The PGA also argued that allowing Martin to use a golf cart would fundamentally alter the competition and therefore, the PGA should not have to modify its walking rule. The trial court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of Martin, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

The Supreme Court's Decision

On May 29, 2001, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, ruled that Martin may use a golf cart to compete in PGA tournaments, and that to deny Martin's request was a violation of the ADA. The Court addressed two separate issues:

First, it considered whether a golf course used for a PGA Tour event was a place of public accommodation. The Court found that, given the comprehensive statutory definition of "public accommodation," golf tours and their qualifying rounds fit well within Title III's scope, and that golf courses are places of public accommodation.

Second, the Court considered whether allowing Martin to use a golf cart would fundamentally alter the game such that the PGA would not have to modify its walking rule. The Court held that allowing Martin to use a golf cart would not constitute a fundamental alteration. Specifically, the Court found that allowing Martin to use a cart would not change a fundamental aspect of the game, because walking is not an essential aspect of the game of golf. The Court further found that allowing Martin to use a cart would not give him an unfair advantage because Martin endures far more fatigue even when using a cart than do the other PGA competitors.

Potential Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling in Martin

• Failure to provide reasonable modifications is discrimination under the ADA. The Supreme Court confirms that public accommodation discrimination is not limited to outright intentional exclusion, but includes the "failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices."
• The Supreme Court embraces liberal construction of the term public accommodation. The Supreme Court expressly states that the term public accommodation "should be construed liberally to afford people with disabilities equal access to the wide variety of establishments available to the non-disabled." This may prove helpful to people with disabilities when entities claim the ADA does not apply to them, such as insurance companies.
• The Supreme Court states that the ADA can apply in situations not originally contemplated by Congress. As part of its finding that the playing areas of golf courses during professional tournaments are places of public accommodation, the Court states that "the fact that a statute can be applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth." This may be helpful to people with disabilities to get courts to expand the application of a variety of terms in the ADA, including "places of public accommodation" and "major life activities."
• The Supreme Court relies upon the ADA's legislative history. In its decision, the Supreme Court states that one of the ADA's greatest strengths is its "comprehensive character." In support of this statement, the Court quotes from Senate hearings on the ADA. Reliance upon testimony from the Senate hearings demonstrates the Court's deference to the legislative history of the ADA in making its decision. This deference to legislative history may be useful to people with disabilities in future cases in which the statute is not clear on its face, but the legislative history is helpful.
• The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance that ADA-covered entities conduct individualized assessments. In its opinion, the Supreme Court states that the PGA failed to conduct an individualized assessment in response to Martin's request as required by the ADA, and instead improperly applied its walking rule without taking into consideration the particular circumstances of Martin. The Court's insistence that entities covered by the ADA conduct individualized assessments will be helpful to people with disabilities who are experiencing difficulties because of a broad exclusionary rule or policy. In addition to cases of reasonable modification (Titles II and III) and reasonable accommodation (Title I), the Court's opinion may be useful when a person with a disability is deemed a direct threat without an individualized assessment as to whether the person is indeed a threat to others. The Court's opinion also rejects that administrative burden can be a basis for a public accommodation to fail to meet its obligation to conduct an individualized assessment.

Questions? Call Equip for Equality at (800) 537-2632 (v) or (800) 610-2779 (TTY)

Golfers charge Marriott-run properties fail

to accommodate individuals with disabilities

Two California men sued Marriott International Inc., alleging the company discriminates against people with disabilities by refusing to provide specially equipped golf carts at its courses.

(Celano, et al. v. Marriott International Inc., et al., No. 05-cv-04004 (N.D. Calif. complaint filed

10/04/05).)

The lawsuit charges Marriott’s policies violate the ADA and state civil rights laws. It was initiated, an attorney for the plaintiffs said, after a prolonged effort to settle the matter out of court failed. The suit seeks no monetary damages, but demands Marriott provide golf carts for the individuals with disabilities.

“Our clients made a number of requests for accommodation. We engaged in correspondence with Marriott’s lawyers and corporate officials. Unfortunately, Marriott was unwilling to alter its policy,” said attorney Mark A. Chavez, who is representing plaintiffs Richard Thesingand Laurence Celano.

“Marriott is a huge player in the golf industry, and all of its golf courses, across the nation are in violation of the ADA,” he continued. “As a matter of corporate policy, Marriott has refused to provide accessible golf carts.”

Disability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit law firm based in Oakland, Calif., is also representing the plaintiffs.

Marriott spokesman Tom Marderdeclined to comment on the lawsuit, but said as a matter of policy and practice, Marriott strives to comply with all laws, including those that deal with public accommodations.

Marriott owns, operates or contracts with approximately 80 courses throughout the United States, including several at popular vacation spots in California, Arizona, South Carolina and Florida.

Through its numerous subsidiaries such as Ritz-Carlton, Marriott contracts with golf course owners adjacent to its hotel properties to encourage the use of those courses by hotel guests.

Marriott also advertises golf as an amenity that can be enjoyed at many of its hotels.

Ocean Colony Partners, the company that owns Half Moon Bay Golf Links and contracts with Marriott subsidiary Ritz-Carlton to facilitate use of its courses by hotel guests, is also named as a defendant in the suit.

Courses are public accommodations under ADA

Thesing suffered a spinal cord injury in a diving accident at age 18 and must use a wheelchair.

In the complaint, he claims to have written to Marriott and Ocean Colony several times to inquire about accessible carts, but they refused to provide them.

Celano, who lives in Arizona, has a spinal cord injury from gunshot wounds received in the U.S. military action in Panama. Unable to walk, he took up golf after his recovery so that he could socialize with his friends. Both men contend in the suit that access to golf courses is important in the business world because they are a place where relationships are nurtured and deals are made. About 300 of the nation’s golf courses now have golf carts available for the disabled to hit the links, according to mobilitygolf.com, which Thesing operates.

Chavez said the ADA specifically lists golf courses as public accommodations that must provide “full and equal access” to individuals with disabilities.

Lawsuit reminiscent of Casey Martin case

“Adaptable” or “accessible” golf carts allow people who are unable to walk to play golf. These specially designed carts use hand controls to drive and steer, and have seats that rotate to enable a golfer to swing and strike a ball from the tee, the fairway, and on the green without getting out of the cart. Chavez said these carts typically cost between $6,000 and $8,000. Courses can recoup the cost through rental fees, he said. The suit is reminiscent of that of golfer Casey

Martin, who turned pro and successfully sued the PGA Tour under the ADA for the right to use a golf cart to get around in PGA tournaments. Martin has a degenerative circulatory disorder that makes it very painful for him to walk. He uses a regular golf cart to travel from shot to shot. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately held in Martin’s favor. The case was PGA Tour Inc. v. Martin, 20 NDLR 188 (U.S. 2001). “The issue in Martin was whether the PGA could lawfully bar the use of a golf cart by an individual with a disability,” Chavez said. “The issue in our case is whether course operators have a legal obligation to provide accessible golf carts to individuals with mobility disabilities.”

U.S. District Judge Joseph C. Sperois presiding. 