we're just days past the 20th anniversary of the Casey Martin ruling, which changed a fundamental part of the game just for him so he could compete in tournaments. I think they could have accommodated Rahm for one day.
Doesn't work like that, Mike. Rahm's situation isn't one that falls under the ADA. Martin was given a reasonable accommodation because that's what the law calls for. That's not my opinion it's what SCOTUS said. Rahm made a calculated personal or business decision to not receive the vaccination. Martin was born with a genetic abnormality. Two very different things.
There's already been litigation due to COVID that has seen the courts state that the ADA does not apply to those with minor and transitory conditions. In other words, testing positive for an infectious disease does not mean your employer has to find some way to allow you to come into the workplace and potentially expose others. It's not a long-term disability, the employer has a strong reason to prevent you from coming into the workplace, and, accordingly, there's no requirement to make any reasonable accommodation for you.
It's seemingly an extremely unfair situation, but I'd point out a large number of golfers complied with the PGA's suggestion to be vaccinated to avoid this exact situation. Rahm chose not to do so knowing the potential consequences. Why he made that decision I'll never understand. I don't blame employers one bit for incentivizing employees to be vaccinated or for having well-defined COVID protocols. The latter, especially, is an absolute necessity to avoid litigation and liability. The former is largely predicated on ensuring fans can return to view events in-person and that employees and staff can freely do their jobs without running afoul of any local/state restrictions involving quarantine/travel.
If we were in 2020, and a vaccine didn't exist, I'd be all for some kind of exception for Rahm. But we're not, and a vaccine does exist, so Rahm has to live with the consequences of his decision. We all know how golf is. If someone put down they made a bogey on a hole, (and they actually made a birdie) and subsequently sign an incorrect scorecard, depending upon when it happened in the timeline of past rule changes, they would face anything from a DQ to a penalty or having to accept the worse score. Is that fair? Does it even make sense to have the scorecard rule in the day of internet streaming, TV, and advanced analytics? No one can get away with cheating via scorecard at a PGA event.
Point is, this is how golf does things. Everyone is expected to play by the same set of rules. If they want to make an exception for Rahm that'd have been fine but please also make an exception for DJ because a silly local rule cost him a major. Golfers are expected to know the rules. The PGA Tour doesn't have the COVID protocols it does to be vindictive. It's all part of an overall business decision.
Even Jack himself mirrors my thinking as quoted here:
Jon Rahm's forced withdrawal from Memorial mixes elements of truth and grace
amp.dispatch.com
I also agree with the point that it's possible to have loads of empathy for Rahm (a truly gutting experience he had coming off of 18) while pointing out the rules are the rules. Many a heartbreak has been had because of golf's strict adherence to the "those are the rules policies." Rahm made a poor personal and business decision. I feel for him. I truly do. But it wouldn't be fair to others that have had to withdraw or miss events to not hold him to the same standard.
Rahm is one of my favorites. I didn't even watch Sunday because I don't find Cantlay very interesting and Morikawa often annoys me. It'd be awesome to see Rahm go out and win his first major at Torrey Pines. What happened at the Memorial would then be a distant memory! We should have a golf thread. The upcoming US Open is shaping up to be one of the most anticipated majors in awhile. Field is going to he stellar with a lot of interesting subplots.