exercises control over spectators’ access to a sports facility; the Ninth Circuit’s and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Martin, however, require an expanded analysis. While prior decisions by other courts have focused largely on a private entity’s control over the public spectator areas of a “place of public accommodation,” the decisions in Martin also recognize that control exerted over access to the field of play can subject a private entity to ADA requirements. 532 U.S. at -, 121 S.Ct. at 1890 (“[T]he underlying premise of the cases dealing with disabled student-athletes is that Title III applies to the playing field, not just the stands.”). See also Olinger v. United States Golf Ass’n, 205 F.3d 1001, 1004-05 (7th Cir.2000), rev’d, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2212, 150 L.Ed.2d 207 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The Ninth Circuit in Martin I noted that the
holding failure to immediately approve request for accommodation even for employee with known disability did not constitute denial of reasonable accommodation where employer was working on solution over several months holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding that insurance company administering employerprovided disability plan was not place of public accommodation under ada because employees received their benefits through employment not through a public accommodation holding that the competitive area of golf course used for us open did constitute a place of public accommodation holding section 625 only requires a showing that the conduct was done in a place that is open to the public or where the public has a right to be