HARRIS v. MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING Docket No. B089062.
40 Cal.App.4th 16 (1995)
46 Cal. Rptr.2d 833
CAROL HARRIS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six.
November 14, 1995.
Thomas P. Moos for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Borton, Petrini & Conron and Judith J. Propp for Defendants and Respondents.
[Opinion certified for partial publication.
A child died as the result of a motor vehicle accident caused by a drunk driver. The child's parents became involved with Mothers
The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents on the grounds that the Act is inapplicable to M.A.D.D. It ruled that M.A.D.D. is not a "business establishment" within the meaning of the Act. [[/]]
The facts in the record are insufficient to determine the legal question of whether or not M.A.D.D. is a business establishment under the Act. [[/]]
M.A.D.D. is a national nonprofit corporation whose mission is to stop drunk driving and to support victims of this crime. [[/]]
The Harrises sued respondents for, among other things, violation of the Act. The Act states, in pertinent part, "[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion ... or disability are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." (Civ. Code, § 51.)
The Harrises' suit alleged, inter alia, that M.A.D.D. is a business establishment which arbitrarily discriminated against them. [[/]]
Respondents moved for summary judgment. They contended that M.A.D.D. is not a "business establishment" within the meaning of the Act. They also asserted that even if M.A.D.D. were a business establishment, it did not violate the Act because it banned the Harrises for their disruptive conduct, and not for being members of any protected class under the Act.
The Harrises argued that because the listing of protected classes in the Act is illustrative only, and because the Act does not preclude suits against nonprofit organizations, they may sue M.A.D.D. for refusing membership to them. They denied engaging in "conduct or activities that could be considered disruptive to the organization."
Standard of Review
Whether M.A.D.D. Is a Business Establishment Under the Act
In O'Connor v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1983)
An organization is not excluded from the ambit of the Act simply because it is private or nonprofit. (O'Connor v. Village Green Owners Assn., supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 795-796.) For example, the Boys' Club and the Rotary Club are business establishments under the Act. (Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 76, 91; Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors (1986)
The Boys' Club is a private charitable nonprofit organization which charges nominal fees for use of its recreational facilities. (Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 76.) Its members have no power over club affairs or its membership policies. Nonetheless, because the Boys' Club is a corporate entity with a paid staff operating an extensive physical plant open to the public, our Supreme Court concluded that it has sufficient "businesslike attributes" to fall within the ambit of the Act. (Id. at pp. 77, 82-83.)
The Rotary Club is a nonprofit "`organization of business and professional men united worldwide who provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world.'" (Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors, supra, 178 Cal. App.3d at p. 1044.) Because it has a vast staff, disseminates publications with members' advertising cards and charges licensing fees for use of its emblem, the Rotary Club is a business establishment under the Act. (Id. at pp. 1053-1055.)
Although it has been broadly construed, the Act has its limits. In Isbister, our Supreme Court said "[w]e emphasize the limited scope of our holding. Nothing in our analysis necessarily extends to organizations which ...
A thoroughly private social club would not fall within the ambit of the Act. (Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995)
M.A.D.D.'s purpose seems to be educational in nature. Its bylaws provide for annual contributions, which are $20 per year, but it is unclear what percentage of members actually pay dues. Dues are waived for victims of drunk drivers.
Although one must fill out an application for approval by the national board of directors to become a member of M.A.D.D., applications are not always forwarded to the national or state office for approval. Individuals may become members even if their applications are not forwarded to the national office. Local chapters have some autonomy to exclude people from membership. M.A.D.D. has excluded prostitutes and drunk drivers.
Because M.A.D.D. proffered insufficient facts, it has not met its initial burden to show that it falls outside the ambit of the Act. Among other things, the record does not establish facts regarding the number of paid officers and staff, whether the operation of its physical facilities is merely incidental to the maintenance of its objectives and programs, whether the payment of dues is common or unusual and what benefits may accrue to M.A.D.D. members.
[[Whether M.A.D.D. May Bar Membership Due to Disruptive Conduct]]
Regardless of whether or not M.A.D.D. is a business establishment under the Act, summary judgment as to Carol Harris is proper because of her disruptive conduct. We affirm the summary judgment as to her. Because there is no evidence that James Harris engaged in disruptive conduct, M.A.D.D. may deny membership to him only if it is not a business establishment within the meaning of the Act. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion as to James Harris. The parties are to bear their own costs.
Gilbert, J., and Yegan, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 12, 1995, and appellants' petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 15, 1996.
- No Cases Found