Mass. SJC on "Two-Bounce" Rule for Racquetball

Yesterday, in an opinion that can be found here, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a racquet club was not required (under ADA Title III and a parallel state law) to waive the so-called "one-bounce rule" for a talented wheelchair racquetball player who wished to compete against players who participated on foot. The plaintiff wanted to receive the benefit of the "two-bounce rule," which governs most wheelchair competitions, and which permits a player to return a ball at any point before the third bounce. Under his proposed accommodation, the nondisabled player would still have to comply with the "one-bounce rule," which generally governs racquetball competitions, and which permits a player to return a ball at any point before the second bounce. The court held that modification of the "one-bounce rule" would effect a fundamental alteration of the game of racquetball. The Casey Martin case was different, the court said, because the "walking rule" Martin sought to waive was not an essential part of the game of golf, but the "one-bounce rule" is an essential part of the game of racquetball. To alter the latter rule, the court said, would be effectively to create a new game.

An interesting case. My former students may find it familiar, as the fact pattern formed the basis for a final exam question I gave a number of years ago.