Do discounts for furloughed workers violate state civil rights laws? One lawyer says yes
Alfred G. Rava, the San Diego attorney who made headlines after claiming an Oakland A's Mother's Day promotion violated his civil rights -- has a new lawsuit on his hands. This time, it concerns a discount offered by a ski resort for furloughed state workers. According to L.A. Now:
Rava has requested that Squaw Valley discontinue the discounts, and he called on the resort to pay $4,049 for each of his clients, as well as $2,400 in attorney fees.
Rava's lawsuit is among more than 40 he has filed under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical conditions, marital status and sexual orientation. In 2006, Rava made headlines after filing lawsuits against several baseball franchises over their Mother's Day promotions, which offered free gifts for female fans.
Many fear that if Rava's new lawsuit is successful, it could open doors for more litigation against other businesses that offer discounts to furloughed state employees.
L.A. Now readers were quick to comment:
"This dude
gives the plaintiff's bar a bad name, which is a shame. The rights of
plaintiffs and legitimately aggrieved people have been whittled away,
and 99% of the plaintiff's bar works for the betterment of society.
This (insert perjorative) works for himself only, in the cracks of the
law than any decent person would never stoop do descend into. Way to go," wrote Josh.
"Only in America can you be sued for being generous," added RB.
Some readers defended Rava's lawsuit, arguing that all types of discrimination should be treated equally.
"You guys need to understand he is right. While I normally don't agree with these types of lawsuits, in this case he's right. Why should state employees be the only ones who get the discounts because of a reduction in work hours. If the resort we're simply saying this is our government rate, then OK, but its not," wrote Steve.
"I agree with this lawsuit 100%. I'd be outraged if I went snowboarding and I had to pay full price while some lazy, overpaid state worker with the best benefits and retirement on earth got a discount. The law should not allow businesses to treat people differently like that," said Fred943.
What do you think? Does Rava have a case? Does his lawsuit go too far?
-- Brendan Bigelow
Photo: Attorney Alfred G. Rava.
No he doesn't stand a chance. Employer and job types are not protected classes. Disparate and discriminatory treatment is only actionable if it is against a protected class. So that's why Chinese-Americas (race) and Moslems (religion) and the blind (disability) can sue. Because race, religion, and disability are protected classes. If employment were a protected class, then janitors could sue for not getting the same pay and benefits as doctors. But, as it is, we allow janitors to be paid and otherwise treated differently. If I own a bar and I want to have realtors night or active-duty military night, I can do it, and there's tons of published cases that say so. If you don't like realtors or active duty military getting a discount, you can go open your own bar. This lawyer is an idiot. If you want a legal opinion, you should ask lawyers who understand the law and not one lawyer who is out to make a name or random members of the public with no legal training.
Posted by: Dave | July 08, 2009 at 02:58 PM
I'd like to see the ski area give this clownshoe the finger by extending the discount to those with military service. That might be something that even conservative leeches with their persecution complexes (koff Fred943 koff koff) couldn't complain about.
Posted by: Dr. Squid | July 08, 2009 at 03:53 PM
The truth is that the courts of appeal have held that discrimination based on occupational status is a violation of the Unruh Act. The Unruh Act is not limited to the characteristics listed in the Act. Occupational status is a non-enumerated protected classification under the Unruh Act. Google "Sisemore v Master Financial" and see for yourself.
Posted by: Jesse Unruh | July 10, 2009 at 04:50 PM
What this article doesn't report on is that Squaw Valley's so-called "Furlough Friday" marketing promotion provided deeply discounted lift tickets at $39 each to all State of California employees, whether or not they were furloughed, and charged all other patrons over twice as much, $79, for their lift tickets, even if these other patrons had lost their jobs or were making minimum wage.
Plus, the article doesn't report that this bill will have absolutely no effect on Squaw's Furlough Friday promotion because discounts were not based on whether or not the customers were furloughed or laid off - it was based on whether or not you worked for the State of California. So about 250,000 consumers were eligible for the deep discount, which was denied to the other 36.5 million consumers who do not work for the State of California.
Finally, California law is clear: A business cannot discriminate against consumers based on employer or source of income.
Posted by: JIggy Hanz | July 21, 2009 at 07:51 AM