Unruh Civil Rights Act: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Rjwilmsi (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
937,261 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m typo
m →Legal interpretation and effects: Citation parameter fixes, , accessdate using AWB (7794)
Line 9: Line 9:
The California Supreme Court decided that the act outlaws sex-based prices at bars ([[ladies' night]]s): offering women a discount on drinks, but not offering the same discount to males. In ''Koire v Metro Car Wash'' (1985) 40 Cal 3d 24, 219 Cal Rptr 133, the court held that such discounts constituted sex stereotyping prohibited by this Act.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=911877&evid=1 | title=Hindsight: 25 Years Ago | author=Libby, Thomas L., ''California Lawyer'' | accessdate=14 October, 2010}}</ref>
The California Supreme Court decided that the act outlaws sex-based prices at bars ([[ladies' night]]s): offering women a discount on drinks, but not offering the same discount to males. In ''Koire v Metro Car Wash'' (1985) 40 Cal 3d 24, 219 Cal Rptr 133, the court held that such discounts constituted sex stereotyping prohibited by this Act.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=911877&evid=1 | title=Hindsight: 25 Years Ago | author=Libby, Thomas L., ''California Lawyer'' | accessdate=14 October, 2010}}</ref>


California courts recently held that a private school's admissions office was not covered by the Act, because it was not a ''business.'' (A school had expelled 2 students who were perceived as bisexual.) "Although the fact the School is nonprofit is not controlling, this does mean it should not be deemed a business unless it has some significant resemblance to an ordinary for-profit business." Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass’n, 170 Cal.App.4th 828 (2009).<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.mbglaw.com/news/Mother%20Doe.pdf |title=Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass’n | accessdate 28 November 2009}}</ref> However, schools ''may'' be businesses for the purpose of the Act when they are engaging in commercial activities. "For example, the Court noted that the School would not be permitted to discriminate in its nonmember transactions, such as in the sale of football tickets, because of the Unruh Act. Thus, while private religious schools' admissions and disciplinary practices may not be subject to the Unruh Act, schools should be aware that other business transactions may still be."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://lcwlegal.com/69251 | title=California Court of Appeal Has Ruled That Private Religious School Is Not A Business Establishment Subject To The Unruh Act And Therefore Was Permitted To Discriminate Against Students Based On Perceived Sexual Orientation. | author=Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore Legal | accessdate=6 February 2009}}</ref>
California courts recently held that a private school's admissions office was not covered by the Act, because it was not a ''business.'' (A school had expelled 2 students who were perceived as bisexual.) "Although the fact the School is nonprofit is not controlling, this does mean it should not be deemed a business unless it has some significant resemblance to an ordinary for-profit business." Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass’n, 170 Cal.App.4th 828 (2009).<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.mbglaw.com/news/Mother%20Doe.pdf |title=Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass’n | accessdate= 28 November 2009}}</ref> However, schools ''may'' be businesses for the purpose of the Act when they are engaging in commercial activities. "For example, the Court noted that the School would not be permitted to discriminate in its nonmember transactions, such as in the sale of football tickets, because of the Unruh Act. Thus, while private religious schools' admissions and disciplinary practices may not be subject to the Unruh Act, schools should be aware that other business transactions may still be."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://lcwlegal.com/69251 | title=California Court of Appeal Has Ruled That Private Religious School Is Not A Business Establishment Subject To The Unruh Act And Therefore Was Permitted To Discriminate Against Students Based On Perceived Sexual Orientation. | author=Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore Legal | accessdate=6 February 2009}}</ref>


==Modifications==
==Modifications==

Revision as of 14:11, 17 August 2011

The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on age,[1][2] sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.[3] This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[4] This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified as California Civil Code section 51.[5]

Text of the Act

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

The California Supreme Court decided that the act outlaws sex-based prices at bars (ladies' nights): offering women a discount on drinks, but not offering the same discount to males. In Koire v Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal 3d 24, 219 Cal Rptr 133, the court held that such discounts constituted sex stereotyping prohibited by this Act.[6]

California courts recently held that a private school's admissions office was not covered by the Act, because it was not a business. (A school had expelled 2 students who were perceived as bisexual.) "Although the fact the School is nonprofit is not controlling, this does mean it should not be deemed a business unless it has some significant resemblance to an ordinary for-profit business." Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass’n, 170 Cal.App.4th 828 (2009).[7] However, schools may be businesses for the purpose of the Act when they are engaging in commercial activities. "For example, the Court noted that the School would not be permitted to discriminate in its nonmember transactions, such as in the sale of football tickets, because of the Unruh Act. Thus, while private religious schools' admissions and disciplinary practices may not be subject to the Unruh Act, schools should be aware that other business transactions may still be."[8]

Modifications

There was a proposed change S.B.242 that would have added use of language to the protected status. However, this bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[9]

See also

References

  1. ^ http://www.disabilityaccessinfo.ca.gov/lawsregs.htm#unruh_rights_act
  2. ^ http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/DFEH/Publications/PublicationDocs/DFEH-167.pdf
  3. ^ UNRUH ACT And RALPH ACT
  4. ^ "General Information about the Unruh Civil Rights Act". California Department of Fair Deployment & Housing.
  5. ^ California Legislative Information Service website
  6. ^ Libby, Thomas L., California Lawyer. "Hindsight: 25 Years Ago". Retrieved 14 October, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ "Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass'n" (PDF). Retrieved 28 November 2009.
  8. ^ Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore Legal. "California Court of Appeal Has Ruled That Private Religious School Is Not A Business Establishment Subject To The Unruh Act And Therefore Was Permitted To Discriminate Against Students Based On Perceived Sexual Orientation". Retrieved 6 February 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ California Chamber of Commerce, Government Relations. "'Job Killers' bill detail". Retrieved 13 November 2009.

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F445335884