California Civil Rights & Discrimination Lawyers

The Scarlett Law Group are National Trial Lawyers based in San Francisco, California with outstanding results in cases involving automobile accidents, airplane crashes, traumatic brain injury, head injury, personal injury, catastrophic personal injuries, mass torts, medical malpractice , professional negligence, class actions, civil rights, environmental disasters and wrongful death.

Specific discussion of discrimination is almost precluded due to the multitude of circumstances and factual scenarios giving rise to this indignation. For those who have experienced the insidious effects of discrimination, almost no explanation of its devastating impact need be explained.

Where the government or state intrudes on protected liberties, a lawsuit is the avenue to protect, and to provide a remedy.

Even where state or governmental action is not at issue, individuals may nonetheless be protected from discrimination where the wrongful conduct occurs at "business establishments" and other "organizations"

The following factual case description was taken directly from a case tried by Mr. Scarlett. The California Supreme Court ultimately ruled on this case, barring sexual discrimination from occurring in business establishments in California. (Note that the Club has long since changed its policies. This discussion relates to Bylaws and policies in effect at the times mentioned.)

Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club

Mrs. W was an avid accomplished golfer whose father had been a golf professional. Mrs. W participated in golf tournaments herself through high school, was a semi-finalist in a state championship held in Oregon, and competed in the state pro junior championship at the age of seventeen.

In 1963, Mrs. W was married. Her golf enthusiasm only increased after marriage. Both Mrs. W and her husband continued to golf, joining various clubs until the late 1960's.

Ultimately, Mrs. W and her husband elected to submit their application of membership for a Regular Family Membership at the Peninsula Golf & Country Club.

At no time during the application process did anyone inform Mrs. W that only men were allowed to be "proprietary members" of the Club. Instead, the family membership was accepted in a short period of time.

From 1970 through February, 1981, Mrs. W and her two children increasingly utilized their membership at the Club. In fact, on two occasions, Mrs. W won the Club's Women's Golf Championship. She regularly represented the Club on the women's golf team.

Unfortunately, because of marital problems, both Mrs. and Mr. W sought a dissolution of marriage, which was finalized in 1981. An Order of the Court awarded Mrs. W the Club membership.

Allegedly based on provisions of the Bylaws prohibiting women from being proprietary members of the Club, on April 22, 1981, the Board of Directors of the Club voted to terminate Mrs. W's family membership. Mrs. W was actually forced to leave the Club in November, 1981.

Membership and Bylaws

Although the Club maintained various different memberships, Regular Family Memberships were the only memberships of a "proprietary" nature. The Regular Family Membership was at the time, limited to 350 members.

As a proprietary member, an individual member owned one three hundred fiftieth (1/350) of all of the assets of the club. Additionally, the ownership interest afforded the individual the opportunity to vote and become a Board Member. No other class of membership afforded ownership nor voting rights.

Significant changes to the Bylaws occurred in March 1970. Prior to such time, the Club allowed women to maintain and own proprietary membership. However, after March 19, 1970, three key amendments were made to the Bylaws which Board Members felt effected the ability of women to hold proprietary memberships.

First, Section 7.5 of the Bylaws was adopted which stated:

Section 7.5 Male Members. Certificates of Regular Family Membership shall be issued only in the name of an adult male person. Proposals for Regular Family Membership shall not be approved for females or minors. In the case of a married regular family member, upon termination of the marriage relationship by divorce or annulment, or in the event of legal separation, the husband shall continue to be the Regular Family Member, and all rights, privileges and obligations shall be his. In the event of an award of the Certificate of Regular Family Membership in final judicial action to the female spouse, and the male spouse does not forthwith thereafter purchase the female spouse's interest in the Regular Family Membership, such membership may, by action of the Board, be terminated.

Additionally, Section 6.2 of the new Bylaws was amended in order the Board was empowered to terminate an individual male's regular family membership, should such male wed or marry after acquiring membership, and the female spouse not meet the standards of the Board.

Lastly, the March 1970 Board of Directors enlarged its own powers through enactment of Section 13.2 of the Bylaws. This section empowered the Board to amend the establishment's Bylaws without approval or consent of the Regular Family Membership except in certain stated areas.

Discriminatory Action of Board

During trial of the action, the members of the Board of Directors, who had terminated Mrs. W's membership in the Club, were called to the stand. Certain members" disdain for women was apparent. For example, one Board Member indicated that it was only during the period of time that the Club was a "Jewish club" that "ladies" were allowed to be members of the club.

All Board Members, however, testified at various times that they terminated the membership of Mrs. W, because she was a woman. Each board member felt that the Bylaws prohibited them from allowing her continued membership. (Note, that the Bylaws did not require this. Even were they to have so required, however, they would have been contrary to law.)

Thus, the irreconcilable and uncontradicted truth was simple: Mrs. W was denied membership status at the club based on her sex.

Issues Framed

Accordingly, the issues were clear. Should a Country Club be entitled to deny membership status to an individual simply based on that individual's sex? At first blush, many would argue that a private club, such as a country club, should not be required to allow women in as members. However, where a club operates as a "business establishment" conferring benefit to its members, and not as a "true" private club, the answer was, resoundingly "no".

Evidence of Business Establishment

During trial, it was established that the country club fit the definition of "business establishment" under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

For example, one Board Member testified to regularly entertaining business associates at the Club. He regularly took clients to dinner, lunch, and to the bar at the establishment. He played golf at the establishment with business associates. He testified to discussing business at the Club with friends, guests and members.

Guests could pay with cash at cash registers throughout the club and at the bar. In fact, members regularly sought reimbursement from employers for business entertainment occurring at the club itself.

Numerous other professionals (members of the Club) testified to the business benefits they received while entertaining business associates at the Club.

A travel agency owner regularly booked vacations and commercial travel for fellow members at the club.

Doctor members of the club indicated under oath that they joined the club primarily because of the benefits of meeting potential patients while there.

In sum, realtors, doctors, travel agents, and others, all testified that membership in the Club provided them with distinct business advantages not available non-members of the club.

Not surprisingly, tax deductions were taken for expenses incurred at the Club while entertaining clients. Additionally, businesses paid for members" membership at the club.

Lastly, non-members could actually obtain and pay for tennis, golf and other lessons while at the club, paying directly with cash. (The club thereby profited from the general public's use - which was not significantly restricted.)

Accordingly, the question was posed: Was this a "truly" private club under the Unruh Act, or a business establishment in which discrimination was proscribed?

Supreme Court Decision

Ultimately, the California Supreme Court agreed with Mrs. W and the position asserted at trial. The Club was a business establishment under the Unruh Act. Mrs. W's membership was denied solely based on her sex. Violation thus occurred.

In announcing the law in this area, the Court was clear: Sexual discrimination would not be allowed in business establishments.

Tags:  California Sexual Discrimination Lawyers - San Francisco Discrimination Attorneys california civil rights lawyers san francisco discrimination attorneys gender discrimination race profiling mass torts injury attorneys personal injury civil rights lawyers age discrimination attorneys traumatic brain injury lawyers professional negligence legal malpractice california civil rights scarlett law group aviation accidents environmental disasters catastrophic personal injury