Club Owners, Some Patrons Assail Ruling

At Jezebel’s nightclub in Anaheim, Thursday night was supposed to be ladies’ night, and Dawn Rees, 19, one of the regulars, was counting on getting in free.

But doorman Terry Koepke had bad news for her and for all Jezebel’s female customers Thursday.

Jezebel’s, along with a dozen other establishments and companies in Orange County, had been sued for allegedly discriminating against men because of its ladies’ nights.

---------------------------------------------------------------------State Supreme Court bans “Ladies’ Night” discounts. Part I, Page 1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court had considered the issue, and “we lost,” Koepke told Rees of Fullerton. Rees would have to pay the $3 cover charge just like the men.

“But everybody else has ladies’ nights,” Rees protested.

Koepke was firm. “Not no more,” he said. “Nobody has ladies’ nights anymore.”

But if a five-year tradition at Jezebel’s had ended with the stroke of a pen, there were plenty of protests.

“I think it stinks!” Rees said as she shelled out her $3 and stepped inside.

“It was only one night out of the week that the girls get in free,” added Charlotte Kramer, 19, of Garden Grove. “I don’t see why that’s such a problem.”

“We’ve never had to pay before,” said Jillian Schnitzler, 22, of Newport Beach. “I think it’s stupid.”

Free admission for women also attracted a sizable crowd of men to the bar and disco, said Jezebel’s owner, Jeff Lebrun, and--with the exception of Anaheim resident and plaintiff Dennis Koire--no one had seemed to mind.

“It was never intended to be discriminatory,” Lebrun said. “We have never gotten complaints. I would think the Supreme Court would have something better to do than a case like this.”

Other businessmen around the county agreed.

“This is pretty ludicrous,” said Dana Swanson, manager of Metro Car Wash in Santa Ana, which offers discounts on car washes to women on certain days.

Swanson, like Malcolm Cobrink, who owns four Metro carwash operations in Orange County and was named in Koire’s suit, said the discounts were begun as business promotions and not as a form of discrimination.

“Now, we’ll have to do it some other way,” he said. “I’m disappointed.”

Koire, 25, a clerk in a retail store, originally sued eight discos and nine carwashes in 1979 after they offered special rates to women on so-called “ladies’ days.”

What effect Thursday’s decision will have on businesses that continue offering the special discounts may not be known for some time. Most businesses contacted Thursday said they didn’t know about the ruling and were hesitant to talk about any future changes in plans.

However, business attorneys said the ruling will affect many establishments competing with others who rely on patronage for profits.

Koire filed a $380,000 lawsuit in July, 1979, against 17 businesses claiming that their policies violated the state civil rights laws. Settlements and other procedural problems left eight defendants--Jezebel’s and seven carwashes--when the case went to trial. Koire lost in a trial court decision handed down Jan. 24, 1983, and again in December, 1984, when a state appellate court in Santa Ana upheld the lower court’s decision.

On Thursday, many businessmen, like Jezebel’s Lebrun, hurried to contact their attorneys for a legal opinion.

Even before the state Supreme Court ruling, the club had been warned against any kind of price discrimination by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, said Cynthia Garrett, the nightclub’s attorney.

That department has been enforcing its policy against sex-based discounts for some time.

“Historically, the problem has been ladies’ nights--all drinks for women 50 cents, or a cover charge for men and no cover charge for women,” said Carl Falletta, Los Angeles-based deputy district supervisor for the department.

Falletta said the department’s policy, dating back to at least 1977, has been to act against any bar or club that has “a program including a special inducement to ladies at reduced prices.”

He said department inspectors can enforce the law only after they receive a complaint. “We don’t have enough staff to curtail it at random,” he said.

Alex Liao, who owns Lincoln & Knott Car Wash in Buena Park, bought the business after it was sued. The suit did not sway an earlier decision to discontinue the ladies’ day and men’s day discounts, he said; rather, he made the decision on his own because “there were some complaints.”

“But I still have one day for senior citizens,” Liao said. “And I don’t care who sues me.”

The Followme Charlie Carwash in Santa Ana, one of the initial defendants, has changed hands since the suit was filed to become Waterworks. But the business still boasts a $1 discount off its normal $1.75 car wash on ladies’ day (Wednesday) and men’s day (Tuesday).

“We’re not trying to discriminate against nobody,” manager Robert Anthony said. “There’s two types of people, men and women.”

So the practice goes on. At the Comedy & Magic Club in Hermosa Beach, an employee who didn’t want to give her name said Thursday that the club has a ladies’ night on Tuesdays, when tickets for women are half-price, but it has a men’s night, too, on Wednesday’s, with the same discount. “Isn’t that fair?” she asked.

Down at the San Pedro Car Wash the reaction was about the same. Manager Nielson Lasse said women get a $4.75 wash and wax for $3.95 on Wednesdays and that men get the same discount on Tuesdays. “The idea is to get more business in the middle of the week,” he said. “We’ve been doing it that way for years, and it seems fair.”

George Voigt, executive director of the San Marino-based California Car Wash Assn., thinks the whole question matters very little.

“I don’t see any significant affect on the carwash business,” he said. “Those doing it will have to stop, of course, but carwashes are using a whole variety of promotions to attract customers--coupons, special discount days that don’t have anything to do with sex, and some have even started to give away lottery tickets.

“Though I personally think the court’s decision is silly, I don’t see where it would create a hardship for us.”

Times staff writer Steve Emmons contributed to this story.