Allison v. Love Boutique-Vista CA4/1, D078445

Background

Love Boutique-Vista (Déjà Vu Love Boutique) is an adult store that ordinarily served adults of all sexes and sold sex toys, BDSM devices, pornographic videos, condoms, and lingerie.
On January 20, 2019 the store held a ticketed, four-hour, women-only “Ladies Night” advertised online and on Facebook as “Ladies 21+ ONLY,” promoted as a night of "fun and education" with toy & lingerie vendors present.
Plaintiff Rich Allison (male) visited the store during the event with three male companions, was refused entry because he was a man, and alleged other men/non-binary persons were similarly excluded.
Allison sued on behalf of classes under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code § 51) and § 51.5 asserting sex discrimination; the store demurred.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding the women-only educational event was not arbitrary or invidious discrimination; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a women-only, ticketed "Ladies Night" at an adult shop violates the Unruh Act	Allison: excluding men/non-binary persons from entry is arbitrary, unreasonable, and invidious sex discrimination	Love Boutique: event was an educational, women-targeted program about intimate products that interact with female physiology, so sex-based exclusion was relevant and reasonable	Court: No violation; limitation to women was not arbitrary or based on irrelevant differences and was justified by the event's educational purpose
Whether dismissal on demurrer (without discovery or leave to amend) was proper	Allison: factual issues (surveillance, presence of males, motives) require discovery; leave to amend should be allowed	Love Boutique: complaint and attached Facebook exhibits show the character of the event; facts suffice to decide the legal question on demurrer	Court: Demurrer properly sustained; exhibits govern and plaintiff failed to show a reasonable possibility of curing defects by amendment
Whether precedent supports treating the event as permissible sex-segregation	Allison: no controlling precedent justifies exclusion here	Love Boutique: analogous authority (e.g., Mother’s Day/sex-specific programs and cases permitting reasonable sex-based distinctions) supports the decision	Court: Relied on Cohn and related precedents, finding differential treatment reasonable here given subject matter and purposes

Key Cases Cited

Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc., 242 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (Unruh forbids only arbitrary/invidious discrimination; differential treatment may be reasonable given nature of enterprise).
Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 169 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (sex-specific giveaways honoring a biological role not unlawful where they do not emphasize irrelevant differences or perpetuate irrational stereotypes).
Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 40 Cal.3d 24 (Cal. 1985) (Unruh does not bar all sex-based distinctions; price discounts based on sex require compelling justification).
Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal.4th 160 (Cal. 2007) (sex-based price differentials violate Unruh absent compelling social policy).
Pizarro v. Lamb’s Players Theatre, 135 Cal.App.4th 1171 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (age-based discounts upheld where they served a legitimate social purpose and did not perpetuate irrational stereotypes).
Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, 52 Cal.3d 1142 (Cal. 1991) (Unruh issues may be decided on demurrer or summary judgment when policy is valid on its face).
Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, 30 Cal.3d 721 (Cal. 1982) (recognizes that compelling societal interests can justify differential treatment).
In re Cox, 3 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1970) (Unruh covers broad discriminatory practices but permits reasonable regulations rationally related to services/facilities).
Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2008) (federal decision recognizing constitutional liberty interest in private sexual conduct in context of sale of sexual devices).