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

    CalBizLit almost never blogs about unpublished decisions, because under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), they aren't citeable or otherwise authority for anything.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sort of cynical and manipulative litigation demonstrated in Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, et al., (November 21, 2008, unpublished) Fourth District, G08338.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 §§ 51, 52, which provides, in § 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.

Comments

[Bradley Bostick]

Good to see that the Angels didn't get their wings clipped on this transparent shakedown lawsuit.

[Dipak Kumar Adhikari]

Dear Sir/Madam,
We got Married 05/03/2002, and have a daughter born 09/07/2005. My wife and she’s family given me 498a/34 IPC, FIR NO.276, date 31/08/2009, P.S.: BAGUIATI, it’s not true case, believe me. My wife are engaged/Affair with a boy (Sandip Samanta, S/O. Shankar Kumar Samanta S.B.I. Manager) his house front of my house, all the matters are know every person in my village, and also they given me written about my character. When my wife goes outside form my house near about many vory gold and cash 1.20 lack Indian rupees taken. Not taken my daughter, daughter is now in my house. My wife doing the 498a case’s date 31/08/2009 and I arrest 06/09/2009, court give me bail at 19/09/2009 my 1st court date is 16/10/2009 done. 2nd court date is 04/01/2010 done. Next court date is 07/07/2010 at Barasat court. Some proof (20 pcs. s.m.s., picture with the boy and a c.d.) has me about my wife and the boy that they are in illegal relation. Believe me I and my family love much more to my wife. They (My wife family) are very very poor and live in a bosti Address: 70/H/8 Manicktolla Main Road, Kolkata – 700054, Beside 5 Star Club, my mother see 1st time and she arrange my marriage, and Mother told me they are very poor so what? After marriage she is my family member, believe me not a single word is wrong. Before marriage my family not see my wife’s family, now we understand/also see that she’s family are very bad. My wife, she’s family and the boy they are misusing this law. Now my wife’s family understands all the affair matter. But my wife still now not agree she wants to marry to the boy. My wife left our only solitary daughter to me who is 4 years old having severe "Ashtama Disease, depends on INHEALER, here political Hide & seek game is going on & the father of the parents (THE FATHER OF THE BOY WHO HAS ILLICIT RELATIONS WITH MY WIFE) are rich, so they are spending money to everywhere with a view to be escaped. Now I decided that I’m not taken back my wife. I take a lawyer his name Mr. Kamelash Nandi. I don’t know what happened next? Now I went to punishment the boy. If possible please help me. Please investigate the matter and relief/save me and my family. And . My wife given me U/s. 125 Cr. P. C. Case NO.167/2009, date 16/12/2009. 1st Class Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah. 1st court date is 15/01/2010 done, 2nd court date is 12/02/2010.
Thanks
Dear Sir/Madam,
Actually I’m 100 percent victim, so I went to knowing my matter all the Indian and others. I write my matter to our local P.S., Local Councilor, all M.P., M.L.A., Minister in W.B, C.M. in W.B., CBI in W.B, CID in W.B, Governor in W.B, and President in India. P.M. in India, Human rights department, AAP KI KACHEHRI – KIRAN KE SAATH, Kolkata Police, my nation, all of the news channels, and all press, and many more, (anybody can’t help me/proper investigation) absolutely you also, I think you can help me, so I write to you. I’m Punishment + harassment Without Crime.

With kindest regards,
Dipak Kumar Adhikari
Tegharia(Dhali Para),NandanKanan. P.S.: Baguiati.
P.O. Hatiara. Kolkata-700059 Email: dipakadhikari_59@yahoo.com PH. 9836149983
W.B. India.