Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc.
242 Cal. App. 4th 1386
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Western Athletic Clubs (WAC) operates luxury fitness clubs in the Bay Area and offered a "Young Professional" discounted membership for ages 18–29 (reduced monthly dues and lower initiation fees; some peak-hour restrictions).
- WAC also offers other discounted programs (corporate, family, and senior discounts with off-peak limitations).
- Daniel Javorsky, a former member, sued asserting the Young Professional discount unlawfully discriminated on the basis of age in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and alleged a derivative UCL claim.
- At summary judgment, WAC submitted demographic evidence (Dr. Lapkoff) showing median incomes for 18–29-year-olds were significantly lower than for persons 30+ in relevant counties; plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Manuel) challenged the methodology and argued age is an imprecise proxy for income.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for WAC; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the discount was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or invidious under the Unruh Act, and thus the UCL claim failed as derivative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WAC’s age-based pricing violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act | Javorsky: Any age-based discrimination is unlawful absent a "compelling societal interest" or legislative support; the Young Professional discount is arbitrary and unjustified | WAC: Age-based discounts are permissible if reasonable; discount increases access and targets a group with lower median income | Held: Unruh bars only arbitrary, invidious, or unreasonable discrimination. WAC’s discount was reasonable and not arbitrary given the social benefit and evidence of lower median incomes for 18–29s, so no Unruh violation |
| Whether legislative enactment is required to justify age-based disparate treatment | Javorsky: Disparate treatment must be supported by strong public policy or statute | WAC: No such strict requirement; context and societal benefit suffice | Held: Legislative evidence may help but is not required; courts assess whether the classification is arbitrary based on context and policy considerations |
| Whether WAC’s stated justification (promoting access for lower‑income young adults) raises triable fact issues (pretext / improper motive) | Javorsky: WAC’s CEO couldn’t explain original basis; evidence suggests post hoc litigation justification and age is a poor proxy for income | WAC: Subjective motive is immaterial; the relevant inquiry is whether the classification is arbitrary and the group as a whole is disadvantaged | Held: Motivation is immaterial for Unruh analysis; plaintiff failed to raise a triable factual dispute about arbitrariness |
| Whether the derivative UCL claim survives if the Unruh claim fails | Javorsky: UCL claim independent? | WAC: UCL claim rests on Unruh violation | Held: UCL claim was derivative and fails because Unruh claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, 30 Cal.3d 721 (Cal. 1982) (Unruh Act protects against all arbitrary discrimination; legislative policy can justify age-based qualifications in specialized facilities)
- Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 40 Cal.3d 24 (Cal. 1985) (price differentials can violate Unruh if arbitrary; recognized permissible age‑based discounts for children/elderly in some contexts)
- Starkman v. Mann Theatres Corp., 227 Cal.App.3d 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (upheld discounts for children and seniors; test focuses on whether classification is an arbitrary, class‑based generalization)
- Pizarro v. Lamb’s Players Theatre, 135 Cal.App.4th 1171 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (upheld a generation-based ticket discount; discounts that increase access to beneficial activities may be permissible)
- Sargoy v. Resolution Trust Corp., 8 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (age-based financial preferences can be lawful where not arbitrary and serve beneficial policy)
- Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2000) (pricing disparities that are reasonable do not violate Unruh)
- Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (Cal. 2005) (clarifies Unruh’s scope beyond enumerated categories)
- Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, 52 Cal.3d 1142 (Cal. 1991) (framework for when non‑enumerated classifications are cognizable under Unruh)
- Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal.4th 160 (Cal. 2007) (addressed Unruh claims in pricing context; recounts Koire’s treatment of age discounts)