Country Club Membership Challenge OKd

In the first ruling of its kind in California, a state Court of Appeal held Friday that a private country club could be barred under state anti-discrimination laws from denying membership to women.

The decision opened the way for a broader legal assault on private, members-only organizations that have already suffered major setbacks in the courts in recent years.

The three-judge panel unanimously concluded that a private golf club in Hillsborough could be deemed a business establishment and thus covered by the Unruh Civil Rights Act if shown at trial it has “businesslike characteristics.”

The act bars “all business establishments” in California from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, religion or physical disability.

In 1985, the state Supreme Court held that this provision of the statute applied to the Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz and that the organization could not bar girls from membership. The next year, another state appeals court ruled that under the law the Rotary Club of Duarte must admit women because it must also be considered a business.

On another front, the U.S. Supreme Court last year held that cities could require large private clubs to admit women and minorities if those organizations were more akin to business establishments than social groups.

An attorney for the woman who brought the discrimination suit against the Peninsula Golf and Country Club said Friday’s ruling represented an important extension of state anti-discrimination law to another type of private club that is widespread in California.

“This is the next step toward the goal of ending discrimination,” said Kevin R. McLean, a San Francisco lawyer. “We feel now we’ll be able to open up all such country club memberships to women and minorities.”

Appeal Possible

Attorneys representing the club in the dispute could not be reached for comment, but an appeal to the state Supreme Court is possible.

The suit was brought by Mary Ann Warfield, a real estate agent and ardent golfer whose family membership was revoked by the club after she was divorced from her husband in 1981. Such memberships carry full voting rights and are of high monetary value but, under club rules, they may be held only in the name of an adult male.

Warfield contended that she was illegally deprived of membership under the Unruh Act because the club was essentially a business--operating a restaurant, bar and recreational facilities for members and guests and leasing some of its facilities to outsiders. In effect, she said, the club was open to the public in the form of guest use and rentals.

The club replied that the act was never intended to cover private country clubs and argued that a court order requiring the admission of Warfield would violate members’ constitutional right to freedom of association.

A San Mateo County Superior Court judge upheld the club’s claims and dismissed the suit before it came to trial. But Friday, the appellate panel reinstated the suit, saying Warfield must be allowed to go to trial to try to prove her claim the club is a business and is improperly denying her membership.

Appellate Justice John T. Racanelli, joined by Appellate Justices William A. Newsom and John W. Holmdahl, said that if the club provides restaurant, recreational and other facilities to members, it “would appear to possess certain businesslike characteristics” that have subjected other types of private clubs to anti-discrimination laws.

The court said there are indications that the facilities would be used by members for “business meetings or entertainment with fees and related expenses paid or reimbursed by their employer.” As noted in previous cases, there are “substantial business benefits gained by belonging to an organization,” the panel said.

The court held also that Warfield may press her claim that withdrawal of membership violated her constitutional right to fair procedure when a valuable economic interest is at stake.

The panel dismissed as “wholly unpersuasive” the club’s assertion that the act was not intended to cover such organizations. Its further claim of free associational rights will depend on the proof it presents at trial on the “degree of exclusivity” it maintains and the “nature of the intimate or expressive” rights of its membership policy, the court said.

McLean, the attorney for Warfield, expressed full confidence the woman will be able to show at trial the club acts much like a business. “We’ll have no difficulty showing that at all,” he said. “The club has tried to cloak itself as a private concern, but the public is allowed to use its facilities.”