Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> CalBizLit

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Litigation

: CalBizLit

Misuse of Discrimination Laws: Lawyers With Too Much Time on Their Hands Division

By Bruce Nye

ADVERTISEMENTS

CalBizLit almost never blogs about unpublished decisions, because under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), they aren't citeable or otherwise authority for anything. And CalBizLit almost never blogs about lawyers and parties who stretch the limits of discrimination and other civil right laws. Here at CalBizLit, we believe these laws need vigilant and aggressive enforcement, and if a lawyer or plaintiff overreaches once in awhile, the courts are usually pretty good at slapping them down. We find that most if not all of our corporate clients agree.

However, the civil rights laws are not advanced by the sort of cynical and manipulative litigation demonstrated in Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, et al., (November 21, 2008, unpublished) Fourth District, G08338. And the Court's response to the case is a real breath of judicial fresh air. Plaintiff and his male friends went to an Anaheim Angels game (ok, "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim," give me a break), clearly for the express purpose of being refused give-away tote bags during a Mothers' Day promotion. The Angels complied with Plaintiff's intentions, declining to give the premium to the three gentlemen, who were manifestly not mothers. Since checking female attendees for off-spring status as they entered a ball game was clearly not practical, the Angels took the practical step of giving the tote bags to all females 18 and over.

Plaintiff contended that this violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code งง 51, 52, which provides, in ง 51(b):

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, 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.

The Court held that the Unruh act required "intentional" discrimination, and that this was not intentional discrimination:

We see no reason to inhibit the Angels?, or any other business?s, ability to bestow gifts upon its customers. Individuals are free to give to whomever they like. Gift giving is not the same as usurping rights. We therefore find the Angels? tote bag giveaway did not violate the Unruh Act.

Taking a swipe at the plaintiff, the Court also observed:

No other fans complained about the giveaway, and Cohn?s complaint only came after he went to the game to deliberately generate his ?injury.? Cohn?s complaint gathers further suspicion because Cohn, his friends, and his counsel have been involved in numerous of what have been characterized as ??shake down?? lawsuits. (E.g., Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 178.) They proclaim themselves equal rights activists, yet repeatedly attempted to glean money from the Angels through the threat of suit. The Unruh Act is a valuable tool for protecting our citizens and remedying true injuries. We are not convinced the Angels? tote bag giveaway was in anyway unreasonable, arbitrary, or invidious discrimination.

CalBizLit has recently blogged on attorneys' fees in "catalyst cases," and this subject came up as well. In order to prevent more suits, the Angels changed its policies and started giving its gifts to everybody on Mother's Day. So the plaintiff sought fees. But no dice:

[T]o award attorney fees, the court must determine whether the change was achieved ???by threat of victory,? not ?by dint of nuisance and threat of expense.?? [Citations.]? (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 575.) We do not find the Angels? change in policy was for any reason other than avoiding another costly and irksome lawsuit and, therefore, find an attorney fees award improper.

More on this (and other legal baseball news) at the Wall Street Journal's law blog and in the LA Times.

And finally, remember that pitchers and catchers report in just 12 1/2 weeks.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

Full post as published by CalBizLit on November 26, 2008 (boomark / email).