Summary
The California Supreme Court held that a landlord's blanket policy of refusing to rent apartments to families with minor children violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court interpreted the Act as prohibiting arbitrary discrimination by business establishments, including housing providers, even when the excluded classification is not expressly enumerated. The court reversed the judgment for the landlord and did not reach the tenants' constitutional claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Unruh Civil Rights Act protects children and families with children from arbitrary exclusion by a business establishment even though those classifications are not expressly enumerated in the statute.
- Whether an apartment complex may justify a blanket exclusion of all families with minor children as a reasonable regulation rationally related to quiet, safety, maintenance, or the nature of the facilities.
- Whether the tenants' state and federal constitutional claims should be decided.
Holdings
- The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects all persons from arbitrary discrimination by business establishments; its enumeration of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive.
- An apartment complex may not categorically exclude all children or families with children based on a generalized prediction that children as a class are more likely to be noisy, disruptive, mischievous, or damaging.
- The decision does not invalidate reasonable age limitations for specialized housing facilities designed to meet the needs of older citizens or other specially defined populations; such facilities differ from an ordinary apartment complex open to the general public.
Key quotations
“Under the act, however, an individual who has committed no such misconduct cannot be excluded solely because he falls within a class of persons whom the owner believes is more likely to engage in misconduct than some other group.” (30 Cal. 3d at 725-726)
“The Unruh Act does not permit a business enterprise to exclude an entire class of individuals on the basis of a generalized prediction that the class “as a whole” is more likely to commit misconduct than some other class of the public.” (30 Cal. 3d at 739-740)
“Entrepreneurs cannot pursue a broad status-based exclusionary policy that operates to deprive innocent individuals of the services of the business enterprise to which section 51 grants “all persons” access.” (30 Cal. 3d at 740)
Factual background
Marina Point operated an 846-unit privately owned apartment complex. Although it previously rented to families with children, in 1974 it adopted a policy of ultimately excluding all children and refused to renew the Wolfsons' lease solely because their son, Adam, lived with them. The landlord relied on generalized assertions that children were noisier, more mischievous, caused more wear and tear, and lacked suitable recreational facilities, but presented no evidence that Adam had caused any disturbance.
Procedural history
Marina Point refused to renew the Wolfsons' apartment lease solely because their family included a minor child and brought an unlawful detainer action when they failed to vacate. The municipal court held that the landlord's exclusionary policy did not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act or other asserted rights and entered judgment for Marina Point. The tenants appealed; the Supreme Court reversed on statutory grounds and did not reach the constitutional claims.