Constitutional Law
Jul. 4, 2001
Fair Way?
Recently, the worlds of professional sports and civil rights law collided in the case of PGA Tour v. Martin. Because the U.S. Supreme Court made the correct decision, both were left better off for the experience.
Michael Waterstone
Fritz B. Burns Dean, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Email: michael.waterstone@lls.edu
Recently, the worlds of professional sports and civil rights law collided in the case of PGA Tour v. Martin. Because the U.S. Supreme Court made the correct decision, both were left better off for the experience. This case is important because it takes the first step in explaining how the Americans With Disabilities Act will apply to professional sports, and it squarely rejects the idea that professional sports can unilaterally isolate their rules from legal challenges.
People who dislike the result are angry for two reasons. The first criticism centers on a general hostility to the federal government invading professional sports. In other words, the feds have no place telling professional sports leagues what rules they can and cannot have.
As a matter of law, this position is simply wrong. Professional sports receive no special treatment in the eyes of civil rights laws; otherwise, Major League Baseball would be free to exclude African-American ballplayers. The freedom to exclude is given to private clubs, such as the Boy Scouts, or even blatantly discriminatory organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan. The PGA Tour is not such an organization and did not argue that it was.
The Supreme Court's decision also leaves some fearing that Casey Martin's case will become a runaway train and that there is no logical stopping point to athletes requesting rule changes. This position misunderstands disability law. Several, albeit extreme, examples demonstrate this misunderstanding.
One local sports radio talk show host complained that Mark McGwire, who has been plagued throughout his career with various back problems, could now reach first base and receive a pinch runner without leaving the game. This is wrong because as a threshold matter a court must determine that a plaintiff meets the disabilities act's definition of disability, which requires a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities." Recent Supreme Court cases have interpreted this definition extremely narrowly. Martin, whose every step carries a risk that his leg will need to be amputated, meets this definition; McGwire does not. Anyone reading Martin's medical record will understand clearly the trial judge's finding that Martin always will be more fatigued after riding a golf course than other golfers will be after walking. Allowing Martin to ride a cart is not an "advantage;" it merely gives him the opportunity to compete.
There are other examples in this parade of horribles. Consider the height-impaired basketball player who now can have baskets lowered or the one-legged baseball player who will demand that first base be moved closer. Even after Martin, these modifications would not be granted. First, the Supreme Court makes clear that a court should look at how "fundamental" the particular rule is. Although this inquiry admittedly contains a subjective element, 90-foot bases and 10-foot baskets are clearly more fundamental to baseball and basketball than walking is to golf. The formal rules of golf have no walking requirement, and some professional tours and events use carts. Moreover, altering the bases or baskets changes the way that the game is played for everyone. In contrast, Martin's riding a golf cart does not influence at all how Tiger Woods or David Duval plays his round.
The real future of this area of law will involve more challenging scenarios. Should an NBA player with a mental disability be allowed extra time at the free-throw line? Can an athlete take medication for a disability if that medication is banned by the league for its performance-enhancing effects? Martin points us in the right direction because it teaches that there is no across-the-board correct answer. Indeed, the heart of Martin is its explicit rejection of the PGA's argument that all sports rules that relate to competition are immune from legal challenge. This will allow athletes like Martin, with the talent to succeed and the heart to combat adversity, to pursue their dreams and compete at the highest levels. This is why the Supreme Court's decision should be heralded and not feared.
Michael Waterstone is an associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com