Interpretation

Interpretation is not just understanding a problem but learning how to approach a problem distinctively. Last week I selected the PGA Tour vs Martin to practice my interpretation with a specific dispute. PGA tour vs Martin focuses on a golfer who has a disability that makes it lethal to walk. Martin requested a golf cart so he could still participate in the tour. PGA denied the request even though the Disability Act states that members with disabilities should be accommodated. Martin decided to sue PGA due to their violation of the Disability Act by not providing a golf cart for Martin. I decided that the disability act should overrule any argument in this case since it establishes that every employer must accommodate employees with disabilities. Since Martin is playing for PGA, they have the responsibility of accommodating Martin with a golf cart. This was not the case in court because they classified PGA as a competitive program and accommodation could be used as a competitive advantage. This led me to the interpretation used by the lawyers in the trial. In the trial, the main aspect discussed was whether walking was a fundamental aspect of golf which was not what I would have argued. I learned that it is good to always have a contrasting interpretation of a case because it shows the ability to build different arguments than existing ones to be more sui generis.