Case Title: Human Rights Commission v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks

Citation: 176 Vt. 125, 2003 VT 104, 839 A.2d 576

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Human Rights Commission v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks (2001-495);
176 Vt. 125; 839 A.2d 576

2003 VT 104

[Filed 07-Nov-2003]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2003 VT 104

                                No. 2001-495

  Human Rights Commission, Waltraud	         Supreme Court
  Keiley, Marilyn McMillan, Jane Thibodeau
  and Mayleen Ventura	                         On Appeal from
       	                                         Washington Superior Court
      v.	

  Benevolent and Protective Order of             September Term, 2002 
  Elks of the United States of America and 
  B.P.O.E., Hartford, Vermont, Lodge No. 1541

  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Robert Appel, Executive Director, Vermont Human Rights Commission,
    Montpelier, and Edwin L. Hobson, Burlington, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  Norman E. Watts, Woodstock, for Defendant-Appellee Benevolent and
    Protective Order of the Elks, Hartford, Vermont.

  Robert Reis and Matthew Anderson of Webber, Reis, Holler & Urso, LLP,
    Rutland, and Elizabeth A. Knight of Knight, Hoppe, Fanning & Kurnik, LLC,
    Des Plains, Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee Benevolent and Protective
    Order of the Elks of United States.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse (FN1) and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen,
            C.J. (Ret.), Specially  Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.   This appeal arises out of the Washington
  Superior Court's summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs' claim that
  defendants, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of
  America ("National Elks") and Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks,
  Hartford, Vermont, Lodge 1541 ("Hartford Lodge"), discriminated against
  them on the basis of sex in violation of 9 V.S.A. § 4502(a) when
  plaintiffs' applications for membership in the Hartford Lodge were denied. 
  On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by: 1) ruling that
  the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act ("FHPA"), 9 V.S.A. §§
  4500-4507, does not bar membership discrimination by fraternal lodges; and
  2) granting summary judgment for defendants because genuine issues of
  material fact still remained.  We agree, and therefore reverse and remand
  for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

       ¶  2.  This case is not about whether a genuinely private club -
  fraternal or otherwise - can choose to discriminate on the basis of sex in
  membership selection.  That a private club can do so under our public
  accommodations statute - whatever one thinks of the merits of such a choice
  - is not open to doubt. See U.S. Jaycees v. McClure,