State High Court Allows Woman to Sue Private Club for Sex Bias

The California Supreme Court on Thursday opened the way for women and minorities denied membership in a private country club to sue for discrimination under the state civil rights law.

In a brief order, the justices refused to hear claims by attorneys for a Northern California golf club that it was not a “business establishment” subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the civil rights law, known as the Unruh Act.

The club also argued that government intrusion into its membership policies that would prohibit it from barring women threatened its members’ constitutional rights to privacy and free association.

Only Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas voted to hear a bid to overturn a trailblazing decision last October by a state Court of Appeal that gave a legal green light to a suit by a Hillsborough woman against the Peninsula Golf and Country Club in San Mateo County. Four votes from the seven-member court are required to grant review.

The appellate court ruling now becomes binding on trial courts throughout California.

Robert F. Kane of Redwood City, the club’s attorney, said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be considered.

“When the government seeks to override the rights of free association, I view this as pretty fascistic,” he said. “We now have examples in Eastern Europe of what happens when the government tries to tell you how to run your life.”

The state high court’s action was welcomed by Kevin R. McLean, who represents Mary Ann Warfield in her suit against the club. Permitting such suits will force discriminatory country clubs to revise their policies or become “cloistered groups,” he said.

He added that the Peninsula club “should get into the 20th Century and allow women to have full membership.”

Warfield, a real estate agent and ardent golfer, filed her suit when her family membership in the club was revoked after she and her husband divorced. Under club rules, full membership may be held only in the name of an adult male. She asked for a court order barring the club from terminating her rights and privileges.

The suit contended that the membership revocation violated Unruh Act provisions barring discrimination by business establishments in California on the basis of sex, race, religion or national origin.

Warfield said that despite its contentions, the club was essentially a business--operating a restaurant, bar and recreational facilities for members and guests that also were leased or rented to outsiders. The fact that the dues for some members were paid by employers further proved the club was used for business contacts and activities, she said.

A San Mateo Superior Court judge dismissed her suit, but last fall an appeals court in San Francisco reinstated the case, saying the club could be deemed a business establishment--and thus covered by the Unruh Act--if the club had “businesslike characteristics.”

Warfield must be allowed an opportunity to prove her claim that the club was not truly private but instead a business--and that she was the victim of unlawful discrimination, the appellate panel said.

Club’s Argument

In their petition to the state Supreme Court, lawyers for the club argued that the Legislature never intended the Unruh Act to be applied to “truly private” organizations, such as the club.

They sought to contrast the country club with organizations like the Rotary Club, a group with nearly 20,000 members that the courts have deemed a business and thus subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Allowing suits against private social and recreational groups like the country club would threaten the “very existence” of fraternities, sororities, all-male or all-female schools and religious and ethnic groups, the club lawyers said.