Supreme Court of California

In order to state a claim under Civil Code section 52(a), the relevant remedial provision of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate that they affirmatively requested nondiscriminatory treatment and were refused. In an action brought by male patrons of defendant-club who paid a higher admission fee than female patrons, a court of appeals' judgment against plaintiffs is reversed where the court of appeals erred in holding that section 52(a) provides a remedy only to those plaintiffs who request nondiscriminatory treatment and are refused.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/31/2007
• Published 05/31/2007

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• The Rava Law Firm, Alfred G. Rava, San Diego;  Law Offices of Morse Mehrban and Morse Mehrban for Plaintiffs and Appellants., The Sturdevant Law Firm, James C. Sturdevant and Monique Olivier, San Francisco, for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants., Jennifer C. Pizer;  Christine P. Sun, Hector P. Villagra;  David Blair-Loy;  and Tamara Lange for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants., Harry Crouch for National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles Chapter, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Law Offices of Steven L. Martin and Steven L. Martin, Santa Monica, for Defendant and Respondent., Payne & Fears, Daniel L. Rasmussen, Irvine, and Julie J. Bisceglia for Corinthian Colleges as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent., Deborah J. La Fetra and Timothy Sandefur, Sacramento, for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.