One-legged golfer sues council-run course for discrimination

[JollyRedDevil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45358763

Beggars belief either way, but I thought you only needed a doctor's not if playing in a comp.

 

[clubchamp98]

if there a ban on buggies fair enough but this seems stupid and crass.
If someone has a problem you can’t see then a doctors note yes,
He only has to show them he’s missing a leg ,
Jobsworth probably councils are full of them

 

[Lord Tyrion]

It does seem a bizarre story at face value. Perhaps we are only getting part of it.

If as seems, you need a note just to play a round that is a nonsense. If it is to play in a club comp then I think that it common practice at most clubs. I am picturing the moment someone asks him for a note, he rolls up the trousers leg, "really?"

 

[Orikoru]

Once again common sense would have been the winner here. Asking for a doctor's note to explain his missing leg when you can clearly see his prosthetic one with your own eyes. Incredible stupidity.

 

[andycap]

This guy is a member of a social group that I belong to , I have not played or met him , but many of my playing partners have , he is a lovely guy who does so much for disabled golf and disabled charities . I remember this happening as his playing partner on the day told me the saga , and he was treated appallingly ( as if having a prosthetic limb is not proof of disability ! . I believe the back story to this is that he is not doing it for personal gain , it is purely on principle , and any compensation will be going to charity

 

[Hobbit]

There's not enough detail in the piece about the interaction between the jobs-worth and the golfer. Maybe there's a clear ruling that includes the process for giving permissions, and this highlights a gap in it. Equally, I don't see why he has to roll up his trouser leg - he may be self-conscious about his disability. On the face of it, an emotive story with (currently) a poor outcome. No doubt common sense will be applied in the cold light of day.

 

[Slab]

Once again common sense would have been the winner here. Asking for a doctor's note to explain his missing leg when you can clearly see his prosthetic one with your own eyes. Incredible stupidity.

I didn't see any mention if the fella was wearing shorts back in 2106 when it happened (dunno if those pics are from the date of the incident)

 

[Orikoru]

I didn't see any mention if the fella was wearing shorts back in 2106 when it happened (dunno if those pics are from the date of the incident)

I would imagine as soon as the guy mentioned needing a doctor's note, the chap would show him his leg wouldn't he?

 

[Pathetic Shark]

Once they see his missing leg, they haven't got anything to lean on. Then again nor has he. Thank you Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.

Being serious, this is jobsworths indeed. The guy is making the most of his disability and any private club would let him on without a problem. I hope the idiots responsible for the ban get named and shamed but that will never happen.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

This guy is a member of a social group that I belong to , I have not played or met him , but many of my playing partners have , he is a lovely guy who does so much for disabled golf and disabled charities . I remember this happening as his playing partner on the day told me the saga , and he was treated appallingly ( as if having a prosthetic limb is not proof of disability ! . I believe the back story to this is that he is not doing it for personal gain , it is purely on principle , and any compensation will be going to charity

Thanks for the post. Was he just rocking up and having a game? What was the reason given as to why he couldn't go out on the buggy? I have read the BBC piece but it seems a little vague.

 

[Slab]

I would imagine as soon as the guy mentioned needing a doctor's note, the chap would show him his leg wouldn't he?

You'd like to think so, but its not a given is it (especially as its someone who doesn't believe they should even need to show a doctors note regardless of the leg)

It could absolutely be that it was a jobs-worth moment and he was poorly treated and it absolutely needs to be addressed (but what bugs me is why the council would choose to defend themselves if that were the case)
It could also be that on that day the course was near waterlogged and no one was allowed a buggy (or trolley) that would damage the course, and the fella wanted an exception made and didn’t get it

Or some other information we’re not getting but there’s just not enough info in the article to know why what happened happened

 

[JollyRedDevil]

You'd like to think so, but its not a given is it (especially as its someone who doesn't believe they should even need to show a doctors note regardless of the leg)

It could absolutely be that it was a jobs-worth moment and he was poorly treated and it absolutely needs to be addressed (but what bugs me is why the council would choose to defend themselves if that were the case)
It could also be that on that day the course was near waterlogged and no one was allowed a buggy (or trolley) that would damage the course, and the fella wanted an exception made and didn’t get it

Or some other information we’re not getting but there’s just not enough info in the article to know why what happened happened

It says in the article that they asked him for a doctor's note in order to let him use a buggy, so therefore the course must have been fit for a buggy.

 

[Orikoru]

You'd like to think so, but its not a given is it (especially as its someone who doesn't believe they should even need to show a doctors note regardless of the leg)

It could absolutely be that it was a jobs-worth moment and he was poorly treated and it absolutely needs to be addressed (but what bugs me is why the council would choose to defend themselves if that were the case)
It could also be that on that day the course was near waterlogged and no one was allowed a buggy (or trolley) that would damage the course, and the fella wanted an exception made and didn’t get it

Or some other information we’re not getting but there’s just not enough info in the article to know why what happened happened

Well, I'm making some assumptions here of course, but it would be common sense either way. If the guy asked for a doctor's note despite seeing his leg, then he's failed at common sense. If the chap didn't show his leg out of some indignation or whatever, then he's failed instead. And waterlogged course in August? Seems unlikely.

 

[Slab]

It says in the article that they asked him for a doctor's note in order to let him use a buggy, so therefore the course must have been fit for a buggy.

Equally it could be that the course was unfit for buggies in general so they wanted a medical cert in order to let him use his
(same principle why dogs aren't usually permitted in shops selling fresh food but guide dogs are fine. It doesn't mean that the underlying reason for prohibiting dogs in general is flawed but they make exceptions because its right to do so) and no I'm not making a comparison between a dog and the guy just the principal of exceptions

Likely it was a jobs-worth anyway but I still don't see what the council has to defend in that scenario

 

[UlyssesSky]

While it seems stupid to ask a man with a prosthetic leg for a doctor's note in order to allow him to use a buggy, there's also a couple of reasons why it doesn't have to be.

1. There's people with prothetic legs who can walk perfectly fine (Oscar Pistorius even started in the "normal" olympics), so a prosthetic leg isn't necessarily proof someone needs to use a buggy.

2. If you exempt people with "obvious" disabilities from having to show a doctor's note, how obvious would that disability have to be in order to be obvious enough? This may sound silly, but if you exempt some people from having to show proof of their disability, other people with less obvious conditions will (rightfully) feel discriminated against.

3. I don't know if it was in place by the time the incident happend, but the club's buggy policy can be found online for everyone to see here. "A golf buggy may be used by a player who can provide a valid current medical certificate of disability". So if this policy was on the internet when this happened, it's just another case of "go and read the terms & conditions of any course you want to play before you go there instead of complaining later that you were kept from playing the course because you violated the t&c you didn't read"

 

[andycap]

This was a social game , not a comp , at a public course , I believe the course do not supply buggies , the guy has his own buggy with insurance , I think the issue here is of discrimination on a public, council owned course .

 

[r0wly86]

While it seems stupid to ask a man with a prosthetic leg for a doctor's note in order to allow him to use a buggy, there's also a couple of reasons why it doesn't have to be.

1. There's people with prothetic legs who can walk perfectly fine (Oscar Pistorius even started in the "normal" olympics), so a prosthetic leg isn't necessarily proof someone needs to use a buggy.

2. If you exempt people with "obvious" disabilities from having to show a doctor's note, how obvious would that disability have to be in order to be obvious enough? This may sound silly, but if you exempt some people from having to show proof of their disability, other people with less obvious conditions will (rightfully) feel discriminated against.

3. I don't know if it was in place by the time the incident happend, but the club's buggy policy can be found online for everyone to see here. "A golf buggy may be used by a player who can provide a valid current medical certificate of disability". So if this policy was on the internet when this happened, it's just another case of "go and read the terms & conditions of any course you want to play before you go there instead of complaining later that you were kept from playing the course because you violated the t&c you didn't read"

I'm pretty sure that the claimant will be using the Equality Act 2010 to take the council to court. The Act says that establishments have to make reasonable adjustments for those with a defined characteristic. Disability is a defined characteristic so the golf course will have to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate him, not to do so would be discrimination.

So it comes down to whether asking for a doctors certificate is a reasonable adjustment. I would day not, as a man with a disability who doesn't have a doctors certificate on them will not be able to play golf due to the course's rules. So they are discriminating against him, you can't just cite terms and terms and conditions as a reason someone can be discriminated against.

You second point is interesting but I would suggest that clubs err on the side of caution and if someone says they have a disability and need a buggy that they give one to them, the alternative is to potentially be sued

 

[Slab]

So basically it’s a case of the fella saying:
Under the equality act you can’t ask me to provide a medical cert to play golf using a buggy... because it’s a public course

And the course saying:
Under the equality act we ask you to provide a medical cert to be sure you need to use a buggy to play golf... because it’s a public course

And both weirdly arguing for equality!

Sounds like an issue with the equality act then

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I'm struggling to understand why the course has an issue with someone using their own buggy, own insurance, for a social game. Where is the issue with that? I must be missing something there.

 

[r0wly86]

So basically it’s a case of the fella saying:
Under the equality act you can’t ask me to provide a medical cert to play golf using a buggy... because it’s a public course

And the course saying:
Under the equality act we ask you to provide a medical cert to be sure you need to use a buggy to play golf... because it’s a public course

And both weirdly arguing for equality!

Sounds like an issue with the equality act then

As with all civil law it comes down to reasonableness which is undefinable until someone goes to court.

Is it reasonable to prevent someone with a disability from using a buggy because they don't have a doctor's certificate? That's the question the judge ill essentially rule on, helped with other case law.

For me (although the judge may disagree) conditioning their disability policy on the production of certificate is not reasonable, if he had lost it, or just gone out for a quick 18 and forgotten it then the course policy stops him from playing