Opinion ID: 2576193
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: BHCC's Other Arguments

Text: BHCC argues that section 297.5 has no impact on whether the Unruh Act bars discrimination against domestic partners. [6] It contends that section 297.5 extends to domestic partners only such rights and responsibilities as are granted to and imposed upon spouses and, because spouses are not protected under the Act, neither are domestic partners. This argument misses the point. As discussed, consistent with the first prong of Harris, discrimination against domestic partners is a type of discrimination that falls within the ambit of the Unruh Act. Nonetheless, BHCC, following Beaty, argues that special policy and practical considerations unique to marriage should preclude courts from interpreting the Unruh Act to prohibit discrimination that favors married couples over unmarried ones. As we have explained, these rationales do not justify discrimination between married couples and domestic partners registered under the Domestic Partner Act. BHCC embraces the view expressed by the Beaty court that the inclusion of marital status in antidiscrimination statutes other than the Unruh Act shows that the Legislature's failure to add that category to the Unruh Act implies a legislative intent that such discrimination not be included within the Act. ( Beaty, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1463, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 593.) Historically, however, the scope of the Act has been determined by both legislative amendments to the statute and judicial decisions, and the Legislature has not seen fit to continuously update the Unruh Act to include new forms of prohibited discrimination. (See Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 1154-1159, 278 Cal.Rptr. 614, 805 P.2d 873.) Moreover, we are not concerned at this point with marital status discrimination generally but the discrimination against domestic partners outlawed in the Domestic Partner Act. The Legislature's failure to amend the Act to expressly prohibit such discrimination is a particularly weak barometer of legislative intent. ( People v. Anderson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 767, 780, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 587, 50 P.3d 368.) For the same reason, we also reject BHCC's related argument that, because the only specific antidiscrimination provision in section 297.5 involves discrimination against domestic partners by public agencies (§ 297.5, subd. (i)), the Legislature did not intend to ban discrimination against domestic partners in public accommodations. No specific legislative declaration is required for this court to infer from the statements of legislative intent accompanying the Domestic Partner Act an intent that registered domestic partners should not be discriminated against in favor of married couples in public accommodations. BHCC also contends that, in order to qualify for protection under the Unruh Act, a category must involve a protected class under federal equal protection law. In a related claim, BHCC argues the enumerated categories have in common that they encompass a group broadly stigmatized by the wider society. But Harris did not hold that only classes protected under federal equal protection law were worthy of protection under the Unruh Act, nor did we require a history of stigmatization in order to bring a category within the ambit of the Act. Moreover, discrimination based on marital status implicates discrimination against homosexuals who, as the Legislature recognized in the Domestic Partner Act, have been subject to widespread discrimination. For example, in its findings with respect to section 297.5, the Legislature notes that gay, lesbian, and bisexual Californians have established lasting, committed, and caring relationships despite longstanding social and economic discrimination. (Stats.2003, ch. 421, § 1, subd. (b).) Additionally, the Legislature declared that one purpose served by expanding the rights of domestic partners is to combat such discrimination. ( Ibid. ) Citing subdivision (c) of Civil Code section 51, BHCC also argues that its policy passes muster under the Act because it applies equally to all unmarried couples and individuals across the enumerated categories of the Act, e.g., it applies equally without regard to race, religion, nationality, gender, etc. Subdivision (c) provides: This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition. A similar argument was made in Beaty which found that the Unruh Act was not intended to create a right of insurance access so long as the insurer's policy is applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc. [Citations.] ( Beaty, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1463, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 593.) [7] Because the defendant's denial of umbrella policies to unmarried couples was not based on the enumerated categories in the Act, the Court of Appeal concluded the plaintiffs had not been singled out for arbitrary treatment. ( Ibid. ) If Beaty meant to suggest by this observation that only the enumerated categories in the Act can provide a basis for a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Act, the observation was inaccurate. As Beaty elsewhere acknowledges, in Harris we declined to overrule our prior decisions that extended the Unruh Act to classifications not expressed in the statute. ( Beaty, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1462, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 593.) Thus, in Harris, we cited the statutory language relied on by Beaty for the limited purpose of showing that the Legislature's continued emphasis on the enumerated categories was evidence that it did not intend for the Act to ban all forms of arbitrary discrimination. ( Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1158-1159, 278 Cal.Rptr. 614, 805 P.2d 873.) We did not hold that this legislative activity foreclosed judicial expansion of the Act to include new categories. We merely cautioned that the addition of new categories would have to be consistent with legislative intent. ( Ibid. ) As discussed above, extending the Act to protect registered domestic partners goes no farther than the express and implied legislative mandate against discrimination found in the Domestic Partner Act. We conclude that the Unruh Act prohibits discrimination against domestic partners registered under the Domestic Partner Act in favor of married couples. Therefore, to the extent plaintiffs' marital status discrimination claim implicates the Domestic Partner Act, BHCC is not entitled to summary judgment.