Case Name: D. T. CORPORATION et al., t/a the Godfather, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, Respondent, Robert W. Anderson et al., Intervenors
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1979-11-06
Citations: 407 A.2d 707
Docket Number: No. 12681
Parties: D. T. CORPORATION et al., t/a the Godfather, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, Respondent, Robert W. Anderson et al., Intervenors.
Judges: Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and MACK and FERREN, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 407
Pages: 707–714

Head Matter:
D. T. CORPORATION et al., t/a the Godfather, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, Respondent, Robert W. Anderson et al., Intervenors.
No. 12681.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued May 10, 1978.
Decided Nov. 6, 1979.
Benjamin B. Brown, Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
Leo N. Gorman, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom John R. Risher, Jr., Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., at the time the case was briefed, and Richard W. Barton, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent and intervenors.
Robert Allen Evers entered an appearance for intervenors.
Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and MACK and FERREN, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
MACK, Associate Judge:
This cause presents for our consideration an order of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the District of Columbia, denying the transfer of a Class C retailer's license. Petitioners argue that the Board erroneously 1) ruled the transfer of a liquor license from one corporation to another was inappropriate on the grounds that entertainment provided on the subject premises violated the law; 2) prohibited the transfer of a license in existence for six years to another corporation at the same location when the neighbors had never previously complained of the operation of the business; and 3) denied the transfer of the license because of the licensee's policy prohibiting the admission of minors to the premises. For the reasons stated below, we remand the case for further Board action.
I
D. T. Corporation is owned solely by Deh-nad Taiedi, who is also its president. Mr. Taiedi filed an application with the Board requesting approval of the transfer of a retailer's license, Class C, held by 4934, Inc. for a restaurant at 4934 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., to petitioner for a restaurant at the same address. The Board held a public hearing on the protested application in accordance with Section 14(b) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, D.C.Code 1973, § 25-115(b).
Petitioners seek this transfer to license a restaurant to be called the Godfather (also the trade name of the existing restaurant at that location). The new licensee would operate essentially the same type of business as the present licensee. The seating capacity would be 90-92, the hours of operation from 11:00 a. m. to 2:00 a. m. during the week, and from 11:00 a. m. to 3:00 a. m. on Friday and Saturday. Hot food such as hamburgers and pizzas would be served until 10:00 p. m., after which only cold sandwiches would be available. The entertainment would consist of a jukebox and nude go-go dancers. No provisions would be made for parking; patrons would have to use street meters.
Members of the community and representatives of community groups testified at the hearing in opposition to the granting of the application. They testified that the noise created by departing patrons of the present licensee disturbed the residents of the area, consisting largely of single-family dwellings with some family-oriented commercial establishments. These witnesses indicated that the departing patrons were drunk and unruly, that they shouted obscenities as they walked to their cars, threw bottles and litter along the street, and vomited and urinated in the yards and the doorways to other commercial establishments. The Board also heard general complaints of crimes and arrests in the area attributable to the presence of the original Godfather. According to the testimony, these problems stemmed in large measure from the inadequate parking which required patrons to travel through the neighborhood on their way to cars, a situation which would continue with the new Godfather. In the view of the neighbors, petitioner's operation of the establishment in the same manner would mean a continuation of these disturbances.
On September 19, 1977, the Board issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying the application on the grounds that the premises did not qualify as "appropriate" for the transfer of the retailer's license Class C. Following a denial of the petition for reconsideration by the Board, petitioners sought review.
II
A. Petitioners' first and second arguments are not persuasive. It is true that the Godfather could not suffer legal penalty for featuring exotic dancing.. 4934, Inc. v. Washington, D.C.App., 375 A.2d 20 (1977). However, despite petitioners' contention to the contrary, the Board in the instant case did not make a finding that the entertainment provided by the licensee was illegal, nor was the license denial based on the nature of the entertainment. Petitioners' second argument cites no authority for the assertion that neighborhood residents might be estopped from protesting reis-suance or transfer of a license by their prior silence.
B. In its decision denying petitioners' application, the Board found that the Godfather refused admittance to minors, and concluded that such a policy was contrary to § 47-2902(a) of the equal services laws, D.C.Code 1973, § 25-103(n) and -111(g) which define a "bona fide restaurant," and 34 DCRR 15-l(a) of the District of Columbia Human Rights Law barring discrimination based on age. It was the Board's opinion that the use of the words "persons" in the equal services law, and "public" in the statutes defining restaurants, coupled with the Human Rights Law gives minors a civil right to frequent places like the Godfather for the purpose of obtaining meals. Petitioners challenge this construction.
We agree the Board erred in concluding that § 47-2902(a) mandates nondiscriminatory treatment based on age. This section of the equal services laws was part of an 1870 Act of the City of Washington, directed solely at remedying racial discrimination in the District of Columbia. See Tynes v. Gogos, D.C.Mun.App., 144 A.2d 412, 414-15 n. 4 (1958); see generally District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953). It cannot be construed as requiring equal services to minors.
Moreover, the Board's reading of the Human Rights Law, 34 DCRR 15.1, as prohibiting age discrimination in establishments such as the Godfather is also incorrect. That section while prohibiting age discrimination in public accommodations, defines "age" as "18 years of age or older." 34 DCRR 3.1. Therefore, this section would not apply to limitations on minors' access to the Godfather.
Absent these two foundations for the Board's decision, there is no independent basis for its interpretation of the phrase "held out to the public" in § 25-103(n) as prohibiting the exclusion of minors. To the contrary, another section of the same title regulating alcoholic beverages, § 25-121, specifically places limitations, through the licensing process, on minors' access to alcoholic beverages. The sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages are highly regulated areas of commercial activity. Public concern with alcohol abuse by teenagers is reflected in our drinking age laws. To undermine these efforts by requiring admission of minors to establishments serving meals as well as alcohol would fly in the face of these policies.
We conclude that the Board's finding, that the Godfather's policy of refusing admission to minors is contrary to law, was not in accordance with a reasonable construction of the law. D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1 — 1510(3)(A).
Ill
Because of our conclusion regarding the minors issue, we are compelled to remand the instant case. In reaching this decision, we do not imply that the Board's determination as to the inappropriateness of the transfer of the Godfather's Class C license must necessarily fail. It is unclear whether the same determination would have been reached by the Board absent its findings relative to the barring of minors. Since an initial determination of the appropriateness of a liquor license transfer is committed to the expert discretion of the Board, we are not free to state whether the Board's determination in the instant case would have been different had the erroneous findings not been made. Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, D.C.App., 407 A.2d 595 (1979). See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943); Jameson's Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, D.C.App., 384 A.2d 412 (1978); Dietrich v. Tarleton, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 47, 473 F.2d 177 (1972).
We therefore remand this case so that the Board may determine whether its decision regarding the inappropriateness of the transfer of the Godfather's liquor license ought to stand, absent consideration of the minors issue.
So ordered.
. The present licensee, 4934, Inc., petitioned the court to review the Board's refusal to permit it to intervene in its petition for reconsideration. Subsequently 4934, Inc. challenged in this court the legal sufficiency of an Order of the Board denying its application for renewal of the license. See 4934, Inc. v. D. C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., No. 13867, remanded November 6, 1979 in light of the instant decision.
. According to D.C.Code 1973, § 25-111(g), a retailer's license, Class C, shall be issued for, inter alia, a bona fide restaurant, hotel or club, and authorizes the holder to sell spirits, wine and beer for consumption on the premises.
. D.C.Code 1973, § 47-2902(a) states:
It shall not be lawful for the keeper, proprietor, or proprietors of any licensed hotel, tavern, restaurant, ordinary, sample-room, tippling-house, saloon, or eating-house, to refuse to receive, admit, entertain, and supply any quiet and orderly person or persons, or to exclude any person or persons on account of race or color.
. The statute includes the following:
The word "restaurant" means a suitable space in a suitable building, approved by the Boards, including such suitable space outside of the building and adjoining it as may be approved by the Board, kept, used, maintained, advertised, or held out to the public to be a place where meals are served [Emphasis added.]
. Section 25-111(g) entitles the Board to issue a Class C license to a "bona fide restaurant"— "[one] held out to the public" pursuant to § 25-103(n).
. 34 DCRR 15.1(a) states in part that
it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice [for a public accommodation] to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the age . of any individual:
(1) To deny, directly or indirectly, any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation .
.D.C.Code 1973, § 25-121 states in part:
Licenses issued hereunder shall not authorize the sale or delivery of beverages, with the exception of beer and light wmes, to any person under the age of twenty-one years, or beer or light wines to any person under the age of eighteen years, either for his own use or for the use of any other person .
*
No person being the holder of a license issued under section 25-111(1) shall permit on the licensed premises the consumption of alcoholic beverages, with the exception of beer and light wines by any person under the age of twenty-one years, or permit the consumption of beer and light wines by any person under the age of eighteen years .