Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Okay, so its a straight person, not a member of any gay groups, who didn't get a discount. Big deal.
Isn't this just like someone getting a discount because they are a member of, say, a certain insurance company? I don't see the issue.
Okay, so its a straight person, not a member of any gay groups, who didn't get a discount. Big deal.
Isn't this just like someone getting a discount because they are a member of, say, a certain insurance company? I don't see the issue.
The Unruh Act in California prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and a bunch of other things, of any kind in California, which makes this a big deal. Avis will either settle or lose.
Okay, so its a straight person, not a member of any gay groups, who didn't get a discount. Big deal.
Isn't this just like someone getting a discount because they are a member of, say, a certain insurance company? I don't see the issue.
The Unruh Act in California prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and a bunch of other things, of any kind in California, which makes this a big deal. Avis will either settle or lose.
Except no one is being "discriminated" against because they're not gay - they're being "discriminated" because they're not a member of an organization partnered with Avis.
The Unruh Act in California prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and a bunch of other things, of any kind in California, which makes this a big deal. Avis will either settle or lose.
Except no one is being "discriminated" against because they're not gay - they're being "discriminated" because they're not a member of an organization partnered with Avis.
Except that the court, which actually understands the law, disagrees.
I agree.Okay, so its a straight person, not a member of any gay groups, who didn't get a discount. Big deal.
Isn't this just like someone getting a discount because they are a member of, say, a certain insurance company? I don't see the issue.
The Unruh Act in California prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and a bunch of other things, of any kind in California, which makes this a big deal. Avis will either settle or lose.
Except no one is being "discriminated" against because they're not gay - they're being "discriminated" because they're not a member of an organization partnered with Avis.
Except no one is being "discriminated" against because they're not gay - they're being "discriminated" because they're not a member of an organization partnered with Avis.
Except that the court, which actually understands the law, disagrees.
The fact that they didn't dismiss the case outright doesn't mean that they've decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Am I being "discriminated" against because an airline doesn't let me fly for free, like it does for Medal of Honor recipients?
I agree.Except no one is being "discriminated" against because they're not gay - they're being "discriminated" because they're not a member of an organization partnered with Avis.The Unruh Act in California prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and a bunch of other things, of any kind in California, which makes this a big deal. Avis will either settle or lose.
It would be one thing if they simply gave gay people a better price, however that's not what they are doing. I rent a car, I don't get the AARP discount because I'm not an AARP member, that doesn't mean I'm being discrimnated agaisnt.
The salient allegation of the Complaint is that AVIS charged Plaintiff more money for her car rental than it would have charged Plaintiff if Plaintiff had been a member of the favored gay and lesbian groups. This is sufficient to plausibly allege a violation of [the Unruh Civil Rights Act]....
If this woman had been a member of the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce - and straight - would she have gotten the discount?
If those groups in question are NOT open to non-LGBT people, then that would violate the Unruh Act.I agree.Except no one is being "discriminated" against because they're not gay - they're being "discriminated" because they're not a member of an organization partnered with Avis.
It would be one thing if they simply gave gay people a better price, however that's not what they are doing. I rent a car, I don't get the AARP discount because I'm not an AARP member, that doesn't mean I'm being discrimnated agaisnt.
Another person that did not read the OP link. In order for that argument to stand up under California law membership in those groups would have to be open to non LGBT people.
Let me make it easier for you since clicking on a link is too hard.
The salient allegation of the Complaint is that AVIS charged Plaintiff more money for her car rental than it would have charged Plaintiff if Plaintiff had been a member of the favored gay and lesbian groups. This is sufficient t plausibly allege a violation of [the Unruh Civil Rights Act]....
If this woman had been a member of the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce - and straight - would she have gotten the discount?
What makes you think the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce allows straight people to join? Are there white people in the Congressional Black Caucus?
Okay, so its a straight person, not a member of any gay groups, who didn't get a discount. Big deal.
Isn't this just like someone getting a discount because they are a member of, say, a certain insurance company? I don't see the issue.
California Civil Code § 52(a) creates a private right of action against anyone who denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51. Stevens v. Optimum Health Inst., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (Hayes, J.). The California Supreme Court has made it clear that a customer does not have to make an express demand for equal treatment in order for a business to violate the Act. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal. 4th 160, 164 (2007) (concluding that a valid claim for relief under the Unruh Act does not require customers who are discriminated against when they present themselves at a business establishment and pay the price of admission [to] also [] demand equal treatment and be refused). Finally, the Act must be construed liberally to carry out its purpose of creating and preserving a nondiscriminatory environment in California business establishments.
http://ia600809.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.casd.373518/gov.uscourts.casd.373518.19.0.pdf
I agree.Except no one is being "discriminated" against because they're not gay - they're being "discriminated" because they're not a member of an organization partnered with Avis.
It would be one thing if they simply gave gay people a better price, however that's not what they are doing. I rent a car, I don't get the AARP discount because I'm not an AARP member, that doesn't mean I'm being discrimnated agaisnt.
Another person that did not read the OP link. In order for that argument to stand up under California law membership in those groups would have to be open to non LGBT people.
Let me make it easier for you since clicking on a link is too hard.
The salient allegation of the Complaint is that AVIS charged Plaintiff more money for her car rental than it would have charged Plaintiff if Plaintiff had been a member of the favored gay and lesbian groups. This is sufficient to plausibly allege a violation of [the Unruh Civil Rights Act]....
I agree.Except no one is being "discriminated" against because they're not gay - they're being "discriminated" because they're not a member of an organization partnered with Avis.
It would be one thing if they simply gave gay people a better price, however that's not what they are doing. I rent a car, I don't get the AARP discount because I'm not an AARP member, that doesn't mean I'm being discrimnated agaisnt.
Another person that did not read the OP link. In order for that argument to stand up under California law membership in those groups would have to be open to non LGBT people.
Let me make it easier for you since clicking on a link is too hard.
The salient allegation of the Complaint is that AVIS charged Plaintiff more money for her car rental than it would have charged Plaintiff if Plaintiff had been a member of the favored gay and lesbian groups. This is sufficient to plausibly allege a violation of [the Unruh Civil Rights Act]....
I wonder how many people aren't going to actually read this before they post.
The Volokh Conspiracy » Case Alleging Discrimination Against Straight Car Renters May Go Forward
