State High Court Upholds Fine in ‘Frivolous’ Bias Suit : Law: Justices uphold decision penalizing a man who challenged senior-citizen restaurant discounts.

The state Supreme Court, ignoring a rare plea from a former justice, on Thursday let stand an $8,600-penalty imposed by an appeal court on a man who challenged senior-citizen restaurant discounts.

Over two dissents, the justices refused to disturb an appellate panel’s ruling that an age-discrimination lawsuit filed by paralegal Andrew Exler of Riverside was “frivolous” and warranted punishment by the court.

Former Justice Joseph R. Grodin, now a professor at Hastings College of Law, sent a letter to the high court calling the panel’s action a “rank injustice” and saying Exler had raised a legitimate legal issue.

On Thursday, Grodin expressed dismay with the justices’ refusal to hear Exler’s appeal. “This is a very chilling message the court sent,” he said. “The last thing we want to do is deter people from raising valid claims, particularly in civil rights cases.”

Exler, a 31-year-old civil rights activist, in 1984 successfully challenged a ban at Disneyland on same-sex dancing. He also has represented himself in a variety of other cases alleging discrimination by California businesses.

In October, 1990, he filed a civil rights suit against Sizzler Family Steakhouses after he was denied a 20% discount that was being offered to patrons 55 and older at the chain’s Palm Springs restaurant.

A Riverside Superior Court judge dismissed the suit and last October a state Court of Appeal in San Bernardino upheld the dismissal and ordered Exler to pay $5,908.26 in court costs and $2,693.48 for the restaurant’s legal costs.

Appellate Justice F. Douglas McDaniel, in an opinion joined by Appellate Justices Manuel A. Ramirez and Robert J. Timlin, said the suit was based on the “most frivolous theory” he had encountered in 18 years on the appeal court bench.

The state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, while prohibiting discrimination by businesses based on race, religion and other categories, said nothing about age bias, McDaniel noted. Because most people reach age 55, there could be no age discrimination by Sizzler because it treated all citizens alike, the justice wrote.

A separate order signed by Ramirez instructed Exler to pay $8,601.74 for bringing “an appeal which any competent attorney would consider totally and completely devoid of legal merit.” Exler appealed to the state high court, drawing a rare letter of support from Grodin, who was voted out of office in 1986, and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California.

Grodin, while not taking sides in the case, said Exler had raised a legitimate legal question. He noted that another appeal court had taken the age-discrimination issue seriously when it ruled in a separate case that movie discounts to seniors and children were legal.

“The injustice is compounded by the (San Bernardino) court’s condescending and wholly inaccurate analysis of the merits (of the case),” Grodin wrote. The former justice pointed out that the state Supreme Court in 1983 had held that the state’s civil rights law, by implication, bars some types of age discrimination.

Attorneys for Sizzler urged the high court to uphold the appellate ruling, claiming the suit was frivolous and should not have been filed. The $2,693.48 the court ordered Exler to pay Sizzler was “significantly less” than the firm’s costs in defending the suit, the attorneys said.

Exler said Thursday he would consider an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and if that fails, return to the state Court of Appeal to ask that the penalty be lifted. “I don’t have the (money),” said Exler, who said he is able to find only part-time work assisting lawyers.

Will he be discouraged from bringing other civil rights suits? “Absolutely not,” said Exler. “I’m working on another one even as we speak.”