57 Cal.App.5th 367
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Petitioner (autistic) sued his public school district alleging disability discrimination and asserted a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act; the district demurred and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
- The court of appeal considered two threshold legal questions of first impression in California appellate courts: (1) whether a public school district qualifies as a “business establishment” under Civil Code § 51 (Unruh Act); and (2) whether Civil Code § 51(f) (the 1992 ADA-incorporation provision) makes any violation of the ADA by any entity automatically a violation of the Unruh Act.
- The opinion analyzes Unruh’s historical origins, legislative history (including the 1959 enactment and the 1992 ADA-conforming amendments), and California Supreme Court precedent interpreting “business establishment.”
- The court emphasized that the Unruh Act and its predecessors were directed at private entities providing goods or services to the public (public accommodations), not state actors performing constitutional public-education duties.
- Concluding that school districts act as state agents fulfilling a constitutional obligation to provide public education, the court held such districts are not “business establishments” under the Unruh Act and that § 51(f) only makes ADA violations by business establishments Unruh violations.
- The court denied the writ challenging the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer to the Unruh claim; it distinguished other statutory and constitutional remedies available against public school districts (e.g., Ed. Code anti-discrimination provisions, Gov. Code § 11135, Title II ADA, § 1983, § 504).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public school district is a “business establishment” under the Unruh Act | Brennon: prior drafts of the Unruh Act referenced “schools,” so districts should qualify | District: Unruh targets private business/public-accommodation activity; public schools are state actors providing constitutionally mandated services | No — public school districts are not business establishments under § 51 |
| Whether § 51(f) makes any ADA violation (including Title II public-entity violations) a per se Unruh Act violation, thus allowing suit against school districts | Brennon: § 51(f) makes any ADA violation a violation of Unruh, so Title II violations by districts are actionable under Unruh | District: § 51(f) incorporated ADA only insofar as ADA violations fit within Unruh’s preexisting scope (i.e., ADA violations by business establishments); it does not convert Unruh into a general anti-discrimination statute covering state employment or public-entity duties | No — § 51(f) makes ADA violations by business establishments Unruh violations; it does not render every ADA violation by any entity a violation of Unruh |
Key Cases Cited
- Burks v. Poppy Constr. Co., 57 Cal.2d 463 (Cal. 1962) (interprets “business establishments” broadly under Unruh)
- O'Connor v. Village Green Owners Assn., 33 Cal.3d 790 (Cal. 1983) (nonprofit condominium association can be a business establishment when serving economic interests)
- Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, 40 Cal.3d 72 (Cal. 1985) (Unruh covers nonprofit organizations that function as public accommodations)
- Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club, 10 Cal.4th 594 (Cal. 1995) (club’s regular business transactions with nonmembers made it a business establishment)
- Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts, 17 Cal.4th 670 (Cal. 1998) (expressive/charitable organizations not functioning as public accommodations are not business establishments)
- Alcorn v. Anbro Eng'g, Inc., 2 Cal.3d 493 (Cal. 1970) (Unruh does not apply to employment discrimination)
- Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661 (Cal. 2009) (§ 51(f) makes ADA access violations by business establishments actionable under Unruh without intent requirement)
- Jankey v. Lee, 55 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2012) (describes overlap of Unruh and Disabled Persons Act and confirms 1992 amendments’ effect for business-establishment ADA claims)
- Bass v. County of Butte, 458 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006) (rejects reading that § 51(f) incorporates ADA in its entirety to expand Unruh beyond business establishments)
- Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65 (Cal. 1990) (reaffirms Unruh’s limited scope re employment)