Unruh Civil Rights Act

The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.[1][2] This law applies to all businesses in California, including hotels and motels, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[3] 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.[4][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." [4]

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 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 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 Acts, 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

There was a proposed change, S.B.242, that would have added use of language to the list of protected statuses. However, this bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[12]

See also

References
Notes
  1. http://www.disabilityaccessinfo.ca.gov/lawsregs.htm#unruh_rights_act
  2. http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2017/06/DFEH_UnruhFactSheet.pdf
  3. "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.
  4. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=51. California Legislative Information Service website
  5. http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch4
  6. Wyllie, Steven, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, pages 1337–1338. "The UNRUH Civil Rights Act: A Weapon to Combat Homophobia in Military On-Campus Recruiting". Retrieved 8 November 2012.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. "Rolon v. Kulwitzky (1984)". Justia Law. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  8. Libby, Thomas L., California Lawyer. "Hindsight: 25 Years Ago". Retrieved 22 March 2012.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. "Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass'n" (PDF). Retrieved 28 November 2009.
  10. 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.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. McNichol, Tom (January 2012). "Targeting ADA Violators". California Lawyer. California Bar Association: 22.
  12. California Chamber of Commerce; Government Relations. "'Job Killers' bill detail". Retrieved 13 November 2009.
Bibliography
  • California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Fact Sheet .
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.