Denying Service to Patrons of Places of Public Accommodation (Hotels and Restaurants)

The question presented is whether a place of public accommodation, such as a hotel or restaurant, can deny service to a patron. This is important for HR consultants to understand, because it may impact whether your clients are sued for discrimination.

Take the example of a restaurant. This is clearly a place of public accommodation. In other words, the public may enter and use the facilities. In general, a place of public accommodation has the right to refuse service to a patron. But not on the basis of a protected class. In California, this includes: race or color, national origin or citizenship, religion or creed, sex, age, disability, pregnancy, genetic information, veteran status, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity, medical condition, HIV status, political affiliations or status as a victim of domestic violence, assault or stalking. It appears Kevin is not a member of any protected class.

But California goes even further. In 1959 it enacted the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51, which states:

(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

This prohibits any form of arbitrary discrimination, even if it is not included in the protected classes described above.  In Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 1152, it construed the Act to apply to several unexpressed classifications–namely, unconventional dress or physical appearance, families with children, persons under age 18, and homosexuality. (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1155).

This allows a restaurant to exclude if there is a showing of good cause. The court observed in Stoumen v. Reilly, 37 Cal.2d 713:

 

Members of the public of lawful age have a right to patronize a public restaurant and a bar so long as they are acting properly and are not committing illegal and immoral acts. The proprietor has no right to exclude or reject a patron except for good cause, and if he does so without good cause, he is liable in damages.” Clearly, the law does not allow a business to arbitrarily exclude a prospective customer. In order for courts to determine what constitutes arbitrary discrimination, the court must examine whether the action taken by a business owner is reasonable and for good cause. Good cause is established when there is evidence of improper, illegal or immoral conduct by the customer that occurs on-premises and that is contrary to the public’s welfare or morals.

 

Thus, the exclusion can be proper if it is based upon neutral or economic factors (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1148), namely preventing a patron from further harassment of an employee. Other examples would be a patron causing a disturbance or committing some kind of illegal act.

Note also that California Penal Code Section 602.1 allows a restaurant owner to exclude a patron if that person would disrupt the business:

 

(a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner’s agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner’s agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

 

Note also you do not need a sign to eject someone. Although it might be helpful from a practical standpoint, signs such as: “We reserve the right to refuse service at any time” are not technically required.

So as an HR consultant, bear these issues in mind and appropriately inform your clients.

 

National Lien Law can act as your virtual Human Resources Consulting Firm–either replace your existing HR Department or augment it with our ongoing human resources consulting services. And, we are equipped to prepare any documents required (for example, termination notices, warnings, employment agreements/confidentiality/noncompete, employee handbooks, write-ups, responses to claims, wage and hour disputes, legal memos to management, response to attorney demands, legal investigations, help with arbitrations or language used in your emails and communications with employees). Services can be on a retainer basis, hourly or flat fee. Our human resources consultants have law degrees and 20+ years’ experience in human resources consulting. Or, simply give us a call for a free initial consultation. (800) 995-9434. Info.NationalLienLaw@gmail.com.