State Justices Refuse to Hear Case Over Male-Only Clubs

The state Supreme Court, sidestepping a hotly debated civil rights issue, on Thursday dismissed a potentially far-reaching legal challenge to the male-only policies of private clubs.

The justices dropped from their docket a case that the court under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird had agreed to hear in which a Santa Clara County businesswoman, participating in a golf tournament sponsored by a local firm, was denied admission to the Men’s Grill of the Los Altos Golf and Country Club.

The state attorney general’s office, joining with women’s legal groups, had urged the court to hold that a private club that allows non-members to use its facilities for revenue-generating activities is a “business establishment” and thus subject to state civil rights laws barring sex discrimination.

On the other side, the California State Club Assn., representing more than 120 private organizations, had asked the court to rule that even though they may occasionally allow outsiders to use their facilities, such groups remain essentially private and thus are not covered by civil rights laws.

Golf tourneys and other events allowing outsiders temporary admission as guests are common at private clubs throughout the state.

In Thursday’s action, the court, while not deciding on the merits of those contentions, reinstated a state appellate court ruling that upheld a jury’s rejection of the woman’s $600,000 discrimination claim against the club.

The justices, in a brief order, said they were declining to hear the case on narrow procedural grounds “that preclude us from reaching underlying issues of substance.”

The new court, now led by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, also dismissed a free-speech challenge to a state election law that permits judges to delete statements they find false on a political candidate’s ballot argument. The Bird court had agreed to hear the case.

Ruling Reinstated

The justices reinstated a ruling by the state Court of Appeal in Santa Ana that found that the government could lawfully bar false statements from pamphlets mailed to registered voters. But the appellate court also held that another part of the law requiring deletion of “misleading” statements was excessively vague and violated the First Amendment.

The appellate ruling had upheld a decision by an Orange County Superior Court to remove parts of a statement submitted by Linda Calligan, a candidate for sheriff in June, 1986.

In all, the new court dismissed five cases Thursday, bringing to 23 the number of disputes it has dropped without deciding from the crowded docket it inherited when three new justices appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian took office in March, replacing Bird and two other court members defeated in the Nov. 4 election.

Lucas, discussing the court’s heavy caseload with reporters earlier this month, said the justices would be dismissing an undetermined number of such cases for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, he explained, an issue has become moot in light of new legislation or other new developments in a case, or the court considers the question not ripe for decision or the justices find that they generally agree with a lower court decision in the case.

“Hopefully, these issues will return to us if they are significant,” he said. “Just because we dismiss a case as improvidently granted, doesn’t mean the issue is forever relegated to the dust bin.”

In other action Thursday, the court:

- Let stand an appellate court ruling that upheld a law that makes it a crime to privately possess photographs of children engaging in sex acts. The law was enacted in 1981 at a time that the non-commercial distribution of child pornography was not outlawed.

The justices, without dissent, rejected a petition for review by John Robert Duncan of Los Angeles, who was convicted of violating the law after police found seven photographs showing children in pornographic poses and photo duplicating equipment in his home.

Duncan’s lawyer acknowledged that it was “despicable” for child pornographers to induce children to engage in such activities and then photograph them. But the state, under the constitutional guarantees of free speech and privacy, should not be able to bar mere possession or private reproduction of such material, he said.

- Refused to review the case of Norma Jean Almodovar, a one-time Los Angeles police traffic control officer who became a call girl and ran for lieutenant governor in 1986 on the Libertarian ticket. A state appellate panel ruled in March that Almodovar had been improperly sentenced to probation for felony pandering and should be sent to prison for a minimum three years under state law.

The sex discrimination case arose in September, 1979, when Billye B. Ericksen, an executive in an electronics firm, was invited to join the company’s golf tournament at the club. The club received a fee for use of the course.

Ericksen sought to enter the male-only grill but was refused admission and later took a table on the patio with a group of men participating in the tournament.

But later she brought suit, contending that after the incident she brooded and was plagued by “self-doubt” that affected her work, causing her to lose $50,000 in bonuses she otherwise would have earned. As the trial began, Ericksen bought the firm and became its president--but then claimed that she had lost business clients as a result of the controversy.

The jury ruled in favor of the golf club and an appellate court upheld the verdict, saying there was “ample evidence” to support a finding that the incident at the club did not affect her economically.

Ericksen’s lawyers appealed to the state Supreme Court in 1985, saying the judge and not the jury should have determined whether she was a victim of discrimination and was entitled to damages. The court, then under Bird, agreed to hear the issue.

The new court, however, dismissed the case Thursday on technical grounds, saying that Ericksen, in effect, had waived at the trial stage the legal issue she was appealing to the justices.

Reaction to the dismissal was mixed. Gail Y. Norton, the San Francisco attorney who represented the club, called the action “very appropriate and the right result.”

Turner H. McBaine, attorney for the California State Club Assn., expressed some disappointment that the court had not reviewed the case and issued a decision in favor of the club that would be binding throughout the state.

“But it’s still good news for the club itself,” he added.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Marian M. Johnston noted that the action itself would have only a narrow impact and observed that other precedent-making decisions expanding the coverage of state civil rights laws remained intact.