Unruh Act Defense Class Action Lawyer
It is the California’s legislature intent in enacting the Unruh Act to strengthen California law in areas where it is weaker than the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Legislature affirms that the bases of discrimination prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act. By specifically enumerating discrimination bases in the Unruh Act, the Legislature intends to clarify the existing law, rather than to change the law, as well as the principle that the bases enumerated in the act are illustrative rather than restrictive.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act was enacted to provide broader, more effective protection against arbitrary discrimination. California’s interest in preventing that discrimination is longstanding and compelling.
Even prior to passage of the Unruh Act, California law afforded broad protection against arbitrary discrimination by business establishments.
This article highlights Unruh Act class action defense cases that raise the most common issues involving Unruch Act class actions.
Free legal advice. Call now: 800-484-4610
Nakase|Wade law firm represents companies, businesses, and employers – exclusively.
We invite your attention to our disclaimer.
Older Writers Class Action
In a class action lawsuit brought by television writers alleging age discrimination, allegations that talent agencies systematically refused to represent older writers seeking television writing opportunities were cognizable under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC § 51, as well as under CC § 51.5. Alch v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 14, 2004), 122 Cal. App. 4th 339.
US Citizens Class Action Claiming Discrimination Under Unruh Act
Plaintiffs, U.S. citizens who paid nonresident tuition for enrollment at California’s public universities/colleges, who brought a class action lawsuit challenging the validity of Ed C § 68130.5 failed to show that trial court committed reversible error in dismissing their claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC § 51 et seq. Martinez v. Regents of University of California (Cal. App. 3d Dist. Sept. 15, 2008), 166 Cal. App. 4th 1121.
Age Based Preference Does Not violate Unruh Act
The trial court did not err in sustaining, without leave to amend, the demurrer of a savings and loan association and its branch manager to a class action complaint which alleged that defendants’ practice of offering higher interest rates to senior citizens violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (CC § 51).
The act prohibits only arbitrary, invidious, or unreasonable discrimination. Both the Legislature, through numerous enactments, and the courts have recognized that age–based preferences are justified by compelling state interests and are consistent with the public policy favoring assistance to the elderly. An age–based preference need not be specifically exempted by statute in order to be valid under the act. Further, the purpose of the act is to eliminate antisocial discriminatory practices, not to eliminate socially beneficial ones. Prohibiting defendants’ practice would pervert the good intentions of the act. Sargoy v. Resolution Trust Corp. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 12, 1992), 8 Cal. App. 4th 1039.
Business Refusal to Rent Cars to Persons Under Age 25 Not Violation of Unruh Act
Plaintiff filed a class action complaint for damages and injunctive relief against four rental car companies alleging they refused to rent automobiles to persons under age 25 or unreasonably restricted such rentals. The trial court properly sustained defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s cause of action for unfair competition since defendant’s actions were not unlawful under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (CC § 51), and the actions of the rental companies was also specifically lawful under CC § 1936. Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Feb. 17, 1999), 69 Cal. App. 4th 1494.
No Unruh Violation for Class Action When Business Discriminate on Basis of Gender
CCP § 382 provides that a class action may be brought when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court. The party seeking certification as a class representative must establish the existence of an ascertainable class and a well–defined community of interest among the class members. The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.
However, the class action statute is based on the equitable doctrine of virtual representation which rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and it was adopted to prevent a failure of justice. In the present action based on a merchandiser’s “ladies day” promotional discount for oil change service, allegedly in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (CC §§ 51 and 51.5) and of the Gender Tax Repeal Act (CC § 51.6), the trial court did not err in denying class certification.The trial court properly cited and used the appropriate standard in its ruling. Reese v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Cal. App. 3d Dist. Aug. 3, 1999), 73 Cal. App. 4th 1225.
Unruh Act Does Not Apply to Labor Laws Employment Class Action
In a class action filed by hearing-impaired employees who alleged that the employer’s safety qualification hearing standard violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., the district court erred in concluding that the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC § 51, served as a basis for relief against the employer because the Unruh Act did not incorporate the employment provisions under Title I of the ADA. Bates v. UPS (9th Cir. Cal. Dec. 28, 2007), 511 F.3d 974, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29870.
Disable Person Act and Unruh Act
Plaintiff, a disabled customer, brought a class action against defendants, a store and the lessor, alleging the store’s design created access barriers in violation of H & S C §§ 19955 et seq., the California Disabled Persons Act, CC §§ 54 et seq., and the Unruh Act, CC §§ 51 et seq.; the district court granted the store’s motion to dismiss some of plaintiff’s claims as precluded or released by the final settlement and judgment in a similar class action suit.
The district court held that plaintiff was adequately represented in the prior class action, because the representative secured injunctive relief requiring substantial alteration to all thirty-three stores in California and nothing suggested that plaintiff could secure a better resolution of the claims. Moralez v. Whole Foods Mkt. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2012), 897 F. Supp. 2d 987, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136842.