Ig V Martin Case Study
Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas dissenting was for the distorts of the text of Title III and the structure of the ADA as well as just common sense. First there is the Title III the placement of public accommodation applies to athletes as well as the spectator. And then there is the having to really look at what it met to play golf, and knowing that equality means that.
In the case of PGA v Martin, Mr. Martin was a independent contractor. While he was playing the game of golf for PGA, was an independent contractor seeking public accommodation. Mr Martin seeking accommodations by use of the ADA mad this case more than just about golf. Mr. Martin exception for the PGA to allow him to ride the cart throughout the tournament. When the PGA allowed
the use of the cart to qualify . the question i have is why can he not us the cart in the tournament. when he qulified with the cart The court held argument on what the meaning of golf, and if Mr. Martin was a employee or and member. I think he was both. because under the ADA laws he has the right to us the cart. Under the these laws he is protected. If he as either it would be common sense that he would still be protected .
Reasonable accommodation is " any change in the work enviroonment or in the way things are coutomarily done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment. Meaning that if a person has some type of issue doing their job that the employee has to accommodate within reason". For the PGA the reasonalbe accommodation would be for Mr. Martin to ride the cart due to his disability so that he too can have an equale opportunity to play the game of golf. While the way the players are getting from one hol to the next has nothing with the distance that a person walks to get to the hole.
If I was the chair of the PGA Rules Committee, I would first have some some type of legal team to keep the policy updated with the new laws. In this case the modifying of the method, provide the need materials for the transportation of all who choose to us them. remove any unlawful, and descreminatory terms, and conditions for a person to be allowed in the game.
In the case of PGA v Martin, Mr. Martin was a independent contractor. While he was playing the game of golf for PGA, was an independent contractor seeking public accommodation. Mr Martin seeking accommodations by use of the ADA mad this case more than just about golf. Mr. Martin exception for the PGA to allow him to ride the cart throughout the tournament. When the PGA allowed
the use of the cart to qualify . the question i have is why can he not us the cart in the tournament. when he qulified with the cart The court held argument on what the meaning of golf, and if Mr. Martin was a employee or and member. I think he was both. because under the ADA laws he has the right to us the cart. Under the these laws he is protected. If he as either it would be common sense that he would still be protected .
Reasonable accommodation is " any change in the work enviroonment or in the way things are coutomarily done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment. Meaning that if a person has some type of issue doing their job that the employee has to accommodate within reason". For the PGA the reasonalbe accommodation would be for Mr. Martin to ride the cart due to his disability so that he too can have an equale opportunity to play the game of golf. While the way the players are getting from one hol to the next has nothing with the distance that a person walks to get to the hole.
If I was the chair of the PGA Rules Committee, I would first have some some type of legal team to keep the policy updated with the new laws. In this case the modifying of the method, provide the need materials for the transportation of all who choose to us them. remove any unlawful, and descreminatory terms, and conditions for a person to be allowed in the game.