Page 1
California Supreme Court:
School District Can’t Be Sued Under Unruh Civil Rights Act
Only ‘Business Establishments’—Which Excludes Governmental Entities—Face Liability Under
Civil Code §51 et seq., Justice Groban Writes, in Opinion for Unanimous Court
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A developmentally disabled man who claims to have been sexually assaulted while in high school by classmates and a staff member cannot maintain an action against the school district under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Supreme Court held yesterday in a unanimous opinion.
The opinion by Justice Joshua P. Groban affirms the Nov 13, 2020 denial by Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal of a petition for a writ of mandate filed on behalf of a man identified as Brennon B.
The act provides, in Civil Code §51(b), that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their…disability are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
Unruh Act Remedies
Groban declared:
“The question before us is whether a plaintiff who asserts such claims can hold a public school district liable under the Act and thus avail him- or herself of the enhanced remedies—particularly statutory penalties and attorney fees—it makes available….[W]e hold that Unruh Civil Rights Act liability is not available in such circumstances.…
“The statutory text of the Act, its purpose and history, and our prior caselaw all indicate that public schools, as governmental entities engaged in the provision of a free and public education, are not ‘business establishments’ within the meaning of the Act….To the contrary, they make clear that the Act was not enacted to reach this type of state action. Accordingly, we conclude that the District was not a ‘business establishment’ for purposes of the Unruh Civil Rights Act under the circumstances alleged here.”
He went on to say that “a school district’s provision of public education is not generally understood as being carried out in the commercial, transactional manner that is characteristic of a ‘business establishment.’ ” The justice declared:
“While the phrase ‘all business establishments of every kind whatsoever’ must be interpreted as broadly as reasonably possible, its scope remains limited to entities acting as private business establishments.”
Minimum Statutory Damages
In in Civil Code §52(a), the act prescribes damages, per violation, “up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto.”
Groban said that “[t]he dispute here is not about whether Brennon and other plaintiffs who prove discrimination are entitled to relief—they clearly are” but the question was whether such plaintiffs “are entitled to pursue the specific remedies made available under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.”
The justice said in a footnote:
“The District argues that even if the Unruh Civil Rights Act applies, treble damages would not be available against a public-entity defendant. We need not decide that issue here.”
ADA Violations
Brennon argued that even if the defendant school district is not a business, liability lies based on Civil Code §51(f), added in 1992, which specifies that “[a] violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990…shall also constitute a violation of this section.” The appellant contended that this subdivision does not limit liability to business establishments.
Groban responded:
“Neither the language of the subdivision nor its legislative history indicates it was intended to bring about the monumental change suggested by Brennon: that any entity (public or private) that violates the ADA could be held liable under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (for acts of discrimination based on disability, but not other protected classes). And we do not think the Legislature—especially after more than three decades of history to the contrary (and almost a century of contrary history since the enactment of the Act’s predecessor statute)—would have made such an enormous change to the reach of the Unruh Civil Rights Act in the absence of clear statutory language and without any discussion of such a modification in the legislative history.”
He said the Court of Appeal “was correct to conclude that subdivision (f) makes ‘any violation of the ADA by a business establishment’ a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.”
The California Supreme Court, like the Court of Appeal, addressed the issues notwithstanding mootness. The lawsuit has been settled.
The case is Brennon B. v. Superior Court, 2022 S.O.S. 3451.
Douglas J. Collodel and Alison Katherine Beanum of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Clyde & Co. US LLP, joined by Contra Costa lawyers Timothy P. Murphy and Cody Lee Saal Edrington of Contra Costa’s Schirmer & Murphy, represented the school district. Oakland attorney Micha Star Liberty and Napa lawyer Alan Charles Dell’Ario argued for Brennon B.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company