Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club

Summary

The California Supreme Court considered whether the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits a country club from extending spousal benefits to married members while denying them to registered domestic partners. It held that, under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, registered domestic partners must be treated the same as spouses for purposes of the Unruh Act. The court also held that the club's pre-2005 policy was not facially unlawful based on marital status or sexual orientation, but that plaintiffs could proceed on a theory that the policy was discriminatorily applied.

Holdings

1. Registered domestic partners under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 are the equivalent of spouses for purposes of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. A business that grants benefits to spouses but denies the same benefits to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital-status discrimination.
2. Before the effective date of the current Domestic Partner Act, the country club's policy limiting spousal benefits to married couples did not, on its face, constitute impermissible marital-status discrimination under the Unruh Act because legitimate business interests facially justified the distinction.
3. The club's facially neutral spousal-benefit policy did not, on its face, constitute sexual-orientation discrimination under the Unruh Act.
4. Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on whether the club discriminatorily applied its facially neutral spousal-benefit policy before 2005.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits a business from treating registered domestic partners differently from spouses.
2. Whether the club's spousal-benefit policy facially constituted marital-status discrimination under the Unruh Act before the effective date of the 2003 Domestic Partner Act.
3. Whether the policy facially constituted sexual-orientation discrimination under the Unruh Act.
4. Whether evidence that the club applied its facially neutral policy inconsistently and with possible discriminatory animus created a triable issue on discriminatory application.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded