4 F.4th 1149
11th Cir.2021Background
- Samantha Ring, who has severe allergies, trained a dog (Piper) as a service animal to retrieve her EpiPen and detect hazards; she sought to bring Piper into the Boca Ciega Yacht Club clubhouse despite the Club’s no-pets policy.
- Boca Ciega Yacht Club is a nonprofit, volunteer-run organization that leases property from the City of Gulfport, holds open membership meetings, runs public programs (sailing school, social events) and publicly posts a newsletter; membership applications are minimally screened and approval rates are very high.
- Club leadership denied Ring an accommodation, fined her, and after Ring filed an administrative complaint with the county human-rights office the Board suspended and later the membership expelled her, citing liveaboard status, alleged electricity theft, and lease violations.
- Ring sued under Title III of the ADA (failure to modify policy), Title V (retaliation), and the Florida Civil Rights Act; the district court granted summary judgment for the Club, concluding the Club was a private club exempt from Title III (and state law) and not covered by Title V.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated summary judgment on the discrimination (Title III and Florida) claims because the record did not establish private-club status as a matter of law, but affirmed summary judgment on the Title V retaliation claim because Ring failed to rebut the Club’s nondiscriminatory liveaboard justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Club qualifies for the ADA/Florida private-club exception (Title III) | Ring: Club is not private—open meetings, public programs, lax membership criteria—so ADA/Fla. CRA apply and Club had to accommodate her service dog | Club: It is a private club exempt from Title III under 42 U.S.C. §12187 and thus not required to modify its pet policy | Vacated summary judgment for Club on discrimination claims; record creates genuine factual disputes about seclusion/exclusiveness—remand for factfinding |
| Whether Club retaliated in violation of Title V by suspending/expelling Ring after her administrative complaint | Ring: Filing the county complaint was protected activity; the fine, suspension, and expulsion were retaliatory adverse actions | Club: Actions were for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (unsanctioned liveaboard status, alleged stolen electricity, lease violations) | Affirmed summary judgment for Club on retaliation because Ring failed to rebut the Club’s liveaboard justification (plaintiff must show pretext and did not) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (distinguishing profit-driven public enterprises from private clubs)
- United States v. Richberg, 398 F.2d 523 (defendant bears burden to prove private-club status; ‘‘club in name only’’ doctrine)
- Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass’n, 410 U.S. 431 (private-club status requires plan or purpose of exclusiveness)
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (exclusive, seclusive aspects of membership relevant to private status)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff must show defendant’s proffered reasons are false and that discrimination was real reason)
- Smelter v. S. Home Care Servs., Inc., 904 F.3d 1276 (failure to rebut even one nondiscriminatory reason warrants summary judgment)