Unruh Civil Rights Act

Last updated

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (colloquially the "Unruh Act") is an expansive 1959 California law that prohibits any business in California from engaging in unlawful discrimination against all persons (consumers) within California's jurisdiction, where the unlawful discrimination is in part based on a person's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

The Unruh Act applies to all businesses in California including: hotels and motels, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments. [4] The law was enacted in 1959 and was named for its author, Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified as California Civil Code section 51. [3] [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, genetic information, 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." [3]

The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face". [6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination", [6] such as in the case of Rolon v. Kulwitzky. [7]

The California Supreme Court also 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. [8]

California courts held that a private school's admissions office was not covered by the Act, because it was not a business. (A school had expelled two 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). [9]

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." [10]

Disability litigation

Since the passage of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, disability access violations count among the practices that run afoul of the Unruh act. Combined with the California Disabled Persons Act (Civil Code Sections 54 – 55.32), disability access plaintiffs are allowed to tack on state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits. The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees. In most states, plaintiffs are entitled to only injunctive relief, having the disability access issue fixed. As a result of the damages claimed under Unruh Act, California accounts for 42% of all ADA litigation nationwide. [11] However, in California, damages may be reduced in certain cases to $2,000 or $1,000 if construction related accessibility violations are corrected within 30–60 days of being served with a complaint.

Modifications

In 2009 a proposed change, SB 242, that would have added use of language to the list of protected statuses, was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. [12] In 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 600, adding citizenship, primary language, and immigration status to the list of protected statuses. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990</span> 1990 U.S. civil rights law

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1968</span> United States law

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is a landmark law in the United States signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during the King assassination riots.

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-discrimination law</span> Legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people

Anti-discrimination law or non-discrimination law refers to legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people; these groups are often referred to as protected groups or protected classes. Anti-discrimination laws vary by jurisdiction with regard to the types of discrimination that are prohibited, and also the groups that are protected by that legislation. Commonly, these types of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as public accommodations. Anti-discrimination law may include protections for groups based on sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, sex characteristics, religion, creed, or individual political opinions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Civil Rights Department</span> State government housing agency in California

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) is an agency of California state government charged with the protection of residents from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, and hate violence. It is the largest state civil rights agency in the United States. It also provides representation to the victims of hate crimes. CRD has a director who is appointed by the governor of California and maintains a total of five offices and five educational clinics throughout the state. Today, it is considered part of the California Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cover charge</span> Type of entrance fee

A cover charge is an entrance fee sometimes charged at bars, nightclubs, or restaurants. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as a "fixed amount added to the bill at a nightclub or restaurant for entertainment or service." In restaurants, cover charges generally do not include the cost of food that is specifically ordered, but in some establishments, they do include the cost of bread, butter, olives and other accompaniments which are provided as a matter of course.

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is a sub-agency of the U.S. Department of Education that is primarily focused on enforcing civil rights laws prohibiting schools from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or membership in patriotic youth organizations.

A ladies' night is a promotional event, often at a bar or nightclub, where female patrons pay less than male patrons for the cover charge or drinks. In the United States, state courts in California, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have ruled that ladies' night discounts are unlawful gender-based price discrimination under state or local statutes. However, courts in Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington have rejected a variety of challenges to such discounts.

<i>National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.</i> 2006 American class action lawsuit

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, was a class action lawsuit in the United States that was filed on February 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, and subsequently moved to federal court. The case challenged whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, specifically Title III's provisions prohibiting discrimination by "places of public accommodation", apply to websites and/or the Internet, or are restricted to physical places.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories". The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1959, codified as Government Code §§12900 - 12996, is a California statute used to fight sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful discrimination in employment and housing, which was passed on September 18, 1959.

North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego County Superior Court is a case decided before the California Supreme Court on August 18, 2008, ruling that physicians must offer IUI infertility services to gays and lesbians despite religious objections or find a colleague in their office who will do so.

A protected group, protected class (US), or prohibited ground (Canada) is a category by which people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In Canada and the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment and housing. Where illegal discrimination on the basis of protected group status is concerned, a single act of discrimination may be based on more than one protected class. For example, discrimination based on antisemitism may relate to religion, ethnicity, national origin, or any combination of the three; discrimination against a pregnant woman might be based on sex, marital status, or both.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in California</span>

California is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights, which have received nationwide recognition since the 1970s. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1976. Discrimination protections regarding sexual orientation and gender identity or expression were adopted statewide in 2003. Transgender people are also permitted to change their legal gender on official documents without any medical interventions, and mental health providers are prohibited from engaging in conversion therapy on minors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in South Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of South Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Dakota, and same-sex marriages have been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arnold Schwarzenegger and LGBT rights</span> Overview of the relationship between Arnold Schwarzenegger and LGBT rights

Arnold Schwarzenegger was an early opponent of same-sex marriage in the United States, including during his Governorship of California. As an elected official he opposed legal recognition of same-sex marriage but otherwise he supported LGBT rights legislation, including civil unions.

<i>Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College</i> U.S. court case

Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling made the Seventh Circuit the first federal appeals court to find that sexual orientation is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

<i>Rolon v. Kulwitzky</i> California court case about LGBT discrimination by businesses

Rolon v. Kulwitzky was an unlawful discrimination case filed by Deborah Johnson and Zandra Rolón, a lesbian couple, against a Los Angeles restaurant, Papa Choux, after they were refused seating in a semi-private booth. The lower court denied the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction in their action for unlawful discrimination, but the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, holding that the restaurant engaged in prohibited discrimination.

References

Notes
  1. ↑ "Disability Laws and Regulations | California Disability Access Information". Archived from the original on 21 November 2010. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
  2. ↑ "Unruh Civil Rights Act - Fact Sheet" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 August 2017. Retrieved 2 September 2017.
  3. 1 2 3 4 California Legislative Information Service website
  4. ↑ "General Information about the Unruh Civil Rights Act". California Department of Fair Deployment & Housing. Archived from the original on 19 September 2015. Retrieved 8 October 2015.
  5. ↑ "Chapter 4 - Public Accomodations, Businesses and Services". Archived from the original on 24 October 2015.
  6. 1 2 Wyllie, Steven. "The UNRUH Civil Rights Act: A Weapon to Combat Homophobia in Military On-Campus Recruiting". Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review: 1337–1338. Retrieved 8 November 2012.
  7. ↑ "Rolon v. Kulwitzky (1984)". Justia Law. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  8. ↑ Libby, Thomas L. "Hindsight: 25 Years Ago" . Retrieved 22 March 2012.
  9. ↑ "Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass'n" (PDF). Retrieved 28 November 2009.
  10. ↑ Cassidy Liebert. "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.
  11. ↑ McNichol, Tom (January 2012). "Targeting ADA Violators". California Lawyer. California Bar Association: 22.
  12. ↑ "'Job Killers' bill detail" . Retrieved 13 November 2009.
Bibliography
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.