[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
Its been stated a lot in this thread as fact that the ADA requires a resonable accomodation. I'm hoping somebody with some knowledge on the subject can weigh in on the subject and say whether that's true.

My knowledge of the ADA could be described as cursory at best, and non-existant at worst, but I'm under the impression that while it clearly requires that a casino wold have to make reasonable accomodation to allow a disabled person into the building, rooms, showers, gambling area's, etc. I'm not at all clear that it requires reasonable accomodation to play in a poker tournament.

Does anybody know for sure if it does?


[/ QUOTE ]

Caveat: I am a lawyer but I am not an expert on the ADA. This is not legal advise and should not be relied on as such. [Now doesn't that sound lawyerly.]

I think this would be similar to Casey Martin's case against the PGA. Casey Martin was afflicted with a degenerative muscular disease (I believe) and he wanted to use a golf cart. PGA said no -- walking was a requirement on the professional golf tour. Supreme Court found for Martin and allowed him to use the golf cart.

The law found applicable in the Martin case (and is likely to be equally applicable of Lubarsky and Harrahs) is Title III of the ADA. That section requires an entity operating "public accommodations" to make "reasonable modifications" in its policies "when... necessary to afford such...accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such...accommodations."

Allowing someone to whisper the cards to a blind man and provide him other objective information (I do not believe he should be describing players reactions to cards, but can describe stack sizes, etc.) is a reasonable modification which does not fundamentally alter the tournament. (Some will argue that the one-player-to-a-hand rule is fundamental, but based on the reasoning in the PGA case, that argument is likely to fail.)