Angelucci v. Century Supper Club

Find Your State

Know the laws in your state that protect LGBT people and people living with HIV.
Status: Closed
Court:
California Supreme Court
Issues: Anti-LGBT Rulings, Laws and Amendments, Employment and Rights in the Workplace

(Amicus) Case arguing for a customer's right to equal treatment

Read more

Summary

In June 2005, the California Court of Appeal issued a published court decision stating that customers cannot sue to enforce their right to equal treatment by businesses unless they were treated unequally, protested the unequal treatment and again were denied equal treatment. Lambda Legal and co-counsel filed an amicus brief pointing out that the law contains no “confrontation” requirement and arguing that businesses should have to follow the law as written. If people who are treated unequally cannot sue to enforce the law without first having to confront those who have discriminated against them, ask for equal treatment, and again be refused, then the law fails in its stated goal of requiring that all customers be treated the same in the first place. We are awaiting oral argument and decision.

Context

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act requires that businesses treat all customers equally, without discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex (including gender identity), sexual orientation, marital status, religion and numerous other personal characteristics. This fundamental guarantee ensures that public accommodations — from restaurants and rental housing to doctors’ offices and schools to night clubs and even country clubs — are open to everyone without arbitrary socially destructive bias.

Lambda Legal's Impact

If the Unruh Act is interpreted to require that a victim of discrimination must identify a business’s authority figure and confront that person directly, making a personal request for equal treatment, this important law will become a toothless tiger for many. This is especially true for LGBT people, many of whom are not accustomed to being public about their sexual orientation, do not consider themselves gay activists and lack confidence that the law really does protect them.