By Natalie Bird, Ph.D.
The California State Court of Appeal’s Fourth District affirmed a trial court decision in favor of a golf course sued for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Defendants, owners and operators of Marbella Golf and Country Club in San Juan Capistrano, California (collectively referred to as “Marbella”), were sued by member Jefferey Lurner for engaging in discriminatory golf cart policies. On appeal, Lurner’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and motion for new trial were denied.
Jefferey Lurner, a member of Marbella, suffers from pulmonary arterial hypertension, a blood pressure disease of the lungs that can cause shortness of breath, chest pain, and other symptoms. This condition makes it difficult to walk long distances and on hilly terrain, both of which exist at Marbella, even when using a golf cart.
Marbella Golf and Country Club has policies surrounding golf cart use, as cart paths extend throughout the entire 18-hole golf course. The golf cart policies are standard to most courses and necessary for safety and traffic reasons. For example, carts are not permitted within 10 yards of tee boxes, greens, and bunkers. Driving over sprinklers or areas commonly deemed ground under repair is not permitted; freshly planted grass and plants, wet turf, or newly-renovated areas are also to be avoided. Marbella also implements a special cart access flag (SCAF) policy to provide more golf course access for those with disabilities. The policy requires golfers seeking accommodation to present formal documentation of their disability in exchange for a blue flag to affix to their cart. However, there are some golf cart rules that extend to all golfers, even those with disabilities. Such policies and their limitations are common at many golf courses.
Despite their efforts to accommodate those with disabilities, Lurner claimed Marbella discriminated against him in a lawsuit filed in 2018. He contended the course did not change their policies so he could participate which prevented his “full and equal enjoyment” of the course. After examining the facts of the case and considering the testimony of an expert witness, the court ruled Marbella did not impede on Lurner’s ability to access and enjoy the course and its amenities.
Lurner appealed the original judgement claiming Marbella’s policies were facially discriminatory, the course did not make changes to their polices, and the expert witness erred in their opinion in favor of the defendants. His complaint also asserted the course did not provide him a special single-rider golf cart designed to limit damage to course conditions, allowing him to drive virtually anywhere on the course. Management also did not inform other members nor golf course staff of his disability and the reason for accommodations. He claimed these inactions prevented Lurner from fully and equally enjoying the golf course as other members without disabilities.
The golf course made multiple efforts to understand Lurner’s disability so they could make accommodations. They sent Lurner a letter that outlined the SCAF policy and asked him to sign it in acknowledgement of the requirements. He refused to sign it and continued to drive his cart in areas banned by the SCAF policy. Marbella also requested an in-person meeting so they could discuss Lurner’s limitations and how they could best meet his needs. During the meeting, Lurner claimed the only way for him to fully access the golf course was to be able to drive his cart anywhere on the course, regardless the area or conditions.
After the meeting, Lurner still continued to disobey the policy and drive his cart in restricted areas. The golf course issued verbal warnings both individually to Lurner and also during announcements to all players in tournaments. Some pre-tournament announcements addressed Lurner specifically; they were eventually discontinued after he complained other players were harassing him after being called out in front of the entire tournament field. Lurner requested Marbella’s membership be notified via email of his disability and state he is exempt from the SCAF policy’s regulations. However, the course did not send an email to all members about Lurner’s condition because they felt it would be inappropriate and a violation of his privacy.
Marbella’s members are encouraged to alert staff of misbehavior, and many complained of Lurner’s driving. Pro shop staff were notified of Lurner’s disability and trained to address member complaints by asking for an understanding of the situation. Members also complained of Lurner’s interactions with other members beyond golf cart use. Lurner was suspended from Marbella for 30 days on two separate occasions after altercations with other members. In one incident, he challenged players to a fistfight when he hit into a bunker on their hole and disrupted their play. Lurner also challenged another member to a fight when he hit a shot into their group ahead of him. In these scenarios Lurner was the instigator of the conflict by both hitting the shots and provoking violence. Lurner was also suspended from the club for 30 days when he drove an adapted golf cart into a bunker. After the initial lawsuit was filed in 2018, Marbella acquired an adaptive golf cart and adopted a policy that allowed it to be driven anywhere on the course that was deemed safely accessible. Per course policy, a bunker is not considered safe because the sand’s texture can cause a cart to tip over.
Despite its discriminatory effect in practice, Marbella did provide reasonable ADA accommodations. Lurner’s expectations were excessive. His demands for additional permissions, member email notifications, and special equipment were beyond reasonable. However, this case raises an important point when considering the reasonableness of accommodations. The term “reasonable” leaves much room for interpretation due to the variation in golf course structures, settings, and financial viability. What may be reasonable for profitable, private country clubs may not be reasonable for struggling public golf courses. This case also raises the important consideration of when special permissions for select members is worth it. Judging each member or player based on their reputation alone can be skewed, especially if they are on their best behavior around the right people. To avoid litigation similar to this case, it is increasingly important golf courses have straightforward behavior policies and also ensure they provide access in accordance with the ADA.
