Scenario 1 Conversation with Legal Experts How should schools accommodate players with disabilities? (To read the scenario in its entirety, with comments from our student panel, click on the above link. Click on participant names to read bios.) Ronald Peeler/Elizabeth Grob Participants: Daniel, 11th grade, does not participate in sports-related activities. Jesse, 11th grade, participates in football and weight-lifting. Neena Chaudhry is a lawyer at the National Women's Law Center Marcia Greenberger is a lawyer at the NWLC. Ron Peeler & Elizabeth Grob are lawyers whose focus includes school issues. Daniel Daniel: What other possible legal effects could stem from allowing Erik to use a golf cart? Marcia Greenberger/Neena Chaudhry: The scenario presented is almost identical to a case recently decided by a federal district court in Oregon. In that case, Casey Martin, a disabled professional golfer, sued the PGA Tour for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because they refused to allow him to use a golf cart to compete in the PGA’s golf tournaments. There was no question that Mr. Martin was disabled; instead, the main issue the court had to decide was whether allowing him to use a golf cart was a reasonable accommodation. The PGA claimed that use of a golf cart would alter the basic nature of the game because walking was part of the game. But Mr. Martin introduced evidence that the PGA Tour permits the use of carts at two of the four types of tournaments it stages. and that the NCAA and PAC 10 conference also permit the use of carts as an accommodation to disabled golfers. In addition, the court found that nothing in the rules of golf requires or defines walking as part of the game, even though the PGA had its own walking rule. The court held that allowing Mr. Martin to use a golf cart would not alter the fundamental nature of the competition because the fatigue factor that the walking rule injected into the golf competition was not significant, and because the golf cart did not give Mr. Martin a competitive advantage. In fact, the court found that Mr. Martin’s disability caused him to suffer greater fatigue even with a cart than able-bodied competitors suffered by walking. Ronald Peeler/Elizabeth Grob: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(a)) prohibits disability discrimination in education programs receiving federal funds. The ADA prohibits disability discrimination in public accommodations. When a student is disabled within the meaning of the statutes, a school must provide reasonable accommodations to allow the student to participate in the educational program, which includes athletic and extracurricular programs. The school, however, is not required to provide an accommodation that would fundamentally alter the nature of a program. In Scenario 1, if it is determined that the use of a golf cart does not fundamentally alter the nature of the golf program, the school and tournament sponsors would need to allow Erik to use a golf cart. A school district cannot simply deny Erik access to the golf team because tournament rules of competition do not allow the use of a golf cart. Courts have inquired into the purpose of the rule at issue (here, no carts), to ascertain whether a reasonable modification can be made to accommodate a plaintiff without frustrating the purpose of the rule and without altering the fundamental nature of the program. Once a court determines that the requested accommodation does not fundamentally alter the nature of the program, the court has effectively stated that such an accommodation does not provide an unfair advantage for the person requesting the accommodation. The accommodation, however, is individual to the disabled person. Daniel: Could other students claim an unfair advantage? Would they be able to argue for themselves to also use golf carts? If so, how? Marcia Greenberger Marcia Greenberger/Neena Chaudhry: While each case under the ADA must be evaluated based on the specific facts it presents, this court’s decision would most likely apply to Erik’s situation. Other students would not be able to use golf carts unless they, too, were disabled and could show that allowing them to use carts was a reasonable accommodation--i.e., that it would not fundamentally alter the nature of the competition. Ronald Peeler/Elizabeth Grob: Non-disabled participants have no right to claim an accommodation that would change the rule for them. It is possible, however, that the tournament sponsor may decide that because the use of a cart did not fundamentally alter the nature of the program, all participants will be able to use a cart. Jesse Jesse: Who determines whether you are a "qualified individual with a disability?" Is that something that can only be determined by a medical doctor? Marcia Greenberger/Neena Chaudhry: The phrase "qualified individual with a disability" is a legal term that comes directly from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which requires "reasonable accommodations" for disabled people in their jobs and in their use of public services. Usually, a disabled person suing his or her employer under the ADA must prove that he or she is a "qualified individual with a disability"--that is, that he or she is disabled but qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without some type of reasonable accommodation. Ultimately, a court decides whether someone is a "qualified individual with a disability," but doctors, employers, friends and others may provide evidence to the court on a number of issues to help the court make this decision. For example, a doctor may be in the best position to evaluate whether a person has a physical or mental disability, but a friend or relative may be better poised to evaluate whether that disability substantially limits one or more of the person’s major life activities, which is also something the disabled person must prove. While the ultimate determination of who is a "qualified individual with a disability" will depend on answers to a number of factual questions, many courts have addressed these issues before and hence there is a body of law that can help other courts make such decisions. Ronald Peeler/Elizabeth Grob: The Americans with Disabilities Act applies only to those "qualified individual[s] with a disability." While medical information is relevant, the question is not decided by a doctor. If an education program is involved, the school district will consider the information and make the initial decision whether a person is entitled to the protection of the ADA. Alternatively, in an employment situation, the employer would initially make that determination. The affected person (i.e., the person with the disability) may not agree with the school district's or employer's determination and may ultimately litigate the issue. It is generally the first issue that is addressed by the court. Each party will present evidence to support its position, which often includes the opinions of medical experts. The purpose of this column is to identify issues. It does not purport to be exhaustive or to render legal advice. You should consult with qualified counsel or other professionals in developing responses to specific situations. Check out the sports celebrities' views on this scenario. >>Legal experts scenario 1 conversation >>Legal experts scenario 2 conversation >>Legal experts scenario 3 conversation >>Legal experts additional questions Student Panelists | Sports Celebrities | Legal Experts Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 *Conversations* | Convo Central (Student Comments) Links Online Conversations | Title IX