California's Unruh Act -- The Law Against Arbitrariness

    Last week, California’s Sixth Appellate district issued a decision in Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc., H029138.  The case appears at first blush to deal with some issues involving the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s prohibition of lender discrimination on the basis of income source.  Interesting subject, but not something this blog’s target audience normally worries about.  But wait, there’s more.  The case gives a good summary of the working’s of California’ Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51 et seq. Subpart (b) of the statute provides: 

“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.”

    At first blush, that looks like a fairly typical list of protected categories, and a law against discrimination by businesses against those enumerated categories.  That's what the defendant in Sisemore thought;  it refused to finance the purchase of a home because the home was to be used as a day care facility.   It then argued that since the statutory list didn’t include this form of discrimination, the act didn’t apply.  This defense didn’t work. 

    The California cases make it pretty clear that the protection is much broader than that: “The Act expresses a state and national policy against discrimination on arbitrary grounds.  [Citation.]  Its provisions were intended as an active measure measure that would create and preserve a nondiscriminatory environment in California business establishments by ‘banishing’ or ‘eradicating’ arbitrary, invidious discrimination by such establishments.  [Citations.]”  Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) ___Cal 4th ___, ___ [2007 WL 1557339. at p. *2].

    In earlier cases, the courts have held the act to prohibit business discrimination based on :

• A customer’s association with a male with long hair and “unconventional” dress; 
• Having children; and
• Status as a police officer (when the ACLU tried  to kick a cop out of a meeting).

    Sisemore has a good discussion of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases demonstrating the very broad application of the act.

    Some other time, when I'm feeling like writing an off-topic post, I'll talk about Jesse Unruh, the act's primary author.  One of the last great characters in California politics.  But like I said, that's for another day.