Supreme Court of the United States and Reasonable Accommodation

3100 WordsMay 7, 201313 Pages
35-1Discuss fully whether any of the following actions would constitute a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended. 1. Tennington, Inc. is a consulting firm and has ten employees. These employees travel on consulting jobs in seven states. Tennington has an employment record of hiring only white males.2. Novo Films, Inc. is making a film about Africa and needs to employ approximately one hundred extras for this picture. To hire these extras, Novo advertises in all major newspapers in Southern California. The ad states that only African Americans need apply. In depth it is a bit different. If Tennington, Inc is approached by more highly qualified white males than other genders, races, etc then no violation has…show more content…
Here, Martin suffers from a degenerative circulatory disorder, was otherwise qualified to play golf in the tournament, but was excluded because his disability made him unable to walk the course. Allowing Martin to use a golf cart in these circumstances would be a reasonable accommodation. The court ordered PGA to permit Martin to use a cart. PGA appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the order of the lower court. PGA appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that a golf cart is a reasonable accommodation for a disabled athlete. PGA argued that making an exception to its “walking” rule would “fundamentally alter the sport of golf.” The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the “use of a cart is not inconsistent with the fundamental charac­ter of the game of golf,” PGA’s tours, or the third stage of the Q-School. Golf is defined by “shot-making,” not by walking. The Court explained that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is applied case by case. In other words, “the needs of a disabled person are evalu­ated on an individual basis.” Thus, in this case, “even if petitioner’s factual predicate is accepted, its legal posi­tion is fatally flawed because its refusal to consider Martin’s personal circum­stances in deciding whether to accommodate his disability runs counter to the ADA’s requirement that an individualized in­quiry be conducted.” 35-4 The United Auto Workers

More about Supreme Court of the United States and Reasonable Accommodation

Open Document