Kuketz v. Petronelli
443 Mass. 355, 16 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 987, 821 N.E.2d 473 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A fitness club's refusal to provide a specific accommodation (two bounces for a disabled player against one for able-bodied opponents) to a disabled racquetball player does not constitute discrimination under federal and state anti-discrimination laws if the accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the game.
Facts:
- Stephen B. Kuketz, a paraplegic since 1991, was a nationally ranked wheelchair racquetball player by 1995.
- In the fall of 1994, Kuketz joined the Brockton Athletic Club (club), which was owned and operated by MDC Fitness Corporation (MDC).
- In January 1995, Kuketz paid a league fee and requested placement on the men's “A” league roster, presuming he would be granted two bounces while his able-bodied opponents would receive one bounce due to his disability.
- The official rules of racquetball, which govern league play, provide that the “objective” of the game is to win each rally and a player loses when unable to hit the ball before it touches the floor twice.
- Official rules include modifications for wheelchair competition allowing up to two bounces, but they have no provision governing competitive play between a wheelchair player and a footed player.
- In February 1995, Roslyn Petronelli, the general manager of the club, informed Kuketz that he would not be allowed to play in the men’s “A” league due to safety concerns and offered alternative options: playing in a lower-level league under the one-bounce rule or organizing a wheelchair league.
- Kuketz declined both alternative offers.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen B. Kuketz filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (commission) against the Brockton Athletic Club, alleging violations of Title III of the ADA and state anti-discrimination laws.
- Before the commission completed its investigation, the Brockton Athletic Club ceased operations.
- Kuketz moved to amend his complaint by substituting MDC Fitness Corporation (the owner), Charles M. Mirrione (MDC's president), and Roslyn Petronelli (the general manager) as respondents.
- Prior to a ruling by the commission on that motion, Kuketz removed his charges from the commission pursuant to G. L. c. 151B, § 9, and filed a complaint in the Superior Court.
- In the Superior Court, Kuketz's complaint alleged discrimination on the basis of physical disability in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 98, G. L. c. 151B, and Title III of the ADA.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, a Superior Court judge granted judgment for the defendants on all of Kuketz's claims, ruling that the requested modification would "fundamentally alter the nature of the racquetball competition" and that state law claims mirrored federal law.
- Kuketz appealed the Superior Court's judgment.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to itself on its own motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a fitness club's refusal to allow a wheelchair racquetball player to play in an able-bodied league under a modified two-bounce rule for the disabled player and a one-bounce rule for able-bodied opponents constitute discrimination based on physical disability in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.?
Opinions:
Majority - Cordy, J.
No, a fitness club's refusal to allow a wheelchair racquetball player to compete in an able-bodied league under a two-bounce rule for the disabled player and a one-bounce rule for opponents is not an act of discrimination under the ADA because such a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the game. Title III of the ADA requires public accommodations to make reasonable modifications to policies unless doing so would "fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations." Citing PGA TOUR, Inc. v. Martin, the court emphasized that a modification could fundamentally alter a game if it changes an essential aspect, even if it affected all competitors equally. The court found that the essence of racquetball is hitting the ball before the second bounce, as explicitly stated in its official rules. Allowing a two-bounce rule for one player in mixed-ability competition would "alter such an essential aspect of the game...that it would be unacceptable even if it affected all competitors equally," thereby creating a "new game, with new strategies and new rules." The court further clarified that an individualized assessment of Kuketz's abilities was not required because his requested modification involved the waiver of an "essential rule of competition." Unlike minor accommodations like 'spotting' points for less skilled players, which do not change how the game is played, the two-bounce rule fundamentally changes the sport.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the "fundamental alteration" defense under Title III of the ADA, particularly in competitive sports. It establishes a critical distinction between accommodations that modify peripheral rules and those that alter essential aspects of a game. The ruling reinforces that public accommodations are not obligated to redefine the core nature of their services to accommodate individuals with disabilities, even while mandating accessibility. This precedent will guide future courts in evaluating requests for rule modifications in athletic competitions, requiring a close examination of whether the proposed change impacts a fundamental element of the sport rather than just an incidental one.
