Petitioner
Board of Directors, Rotary International
Respondent
Rotary Club of Duarte
Petitioner's Claim
That a California law prohibiting gender discrimination in business organizations violates the First Amendment right to freedom of association.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Judith Resnik
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
William P. Sutter
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing forthe Court), William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None (Harry A. Blackmun and Sandra Day O'Connor did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
4 May 1987
Decision
A California law requiring full and equal accommodations to both sexes in business establishments is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment when applied to a broad-based business and professional organization.
Significance
The Court found that the law did not violate the right of club members to freedom of association. Further, that the organization in question had a broad and potentially large membership with high turnover, was inclusive by nature,frequently included strangers in its activities, and had a broad public purpose. Freedom of association goes to protect more intimate organizations, the Court said. The Court also found that the admission of women did not violate the First Amendment right of expressive association, since it would not affectthe purpose of the club.
Local California Rotary Chapter Creates "International" Incident
California adopted a law, popularly called the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that entitled all persons, regardless of sex, to equal accommodations, facilities,privileges, advantages, and services in business establishments. The local Rotary Club of Duarte, California, admitted women members in 1977. Rotary International, its parent organization, revoked its charter because the organization's rules state membership is limited to men.
The Rotary Club of Duarte and two of its women members sued Rotary International under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking an injunction to prevent the parent organization from enforcing the rules against women or revoking its charter. A California trial court found that neither Rotary International nor theRotary Club of Duarte were business establishments under the law, and ruledfor Rotary International. The Duarte club appealed, and the California Courtof Appeals reversed, finding substantial business benefits in the Rotary organization. The appeal court also concluded that membership in Rotary clubs wasnot a "continuous, personal and social" relationship taking place primarilyin private and that the admission of women would not interfere with the organization's purposes. It also found that the organization's exclusion of womenwas not protected by the First Amendment.
The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Subsequently Rotary International petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, since the case involved a federal constitutional question. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed theholding of the California Court of Appeals.
Membership Originally Open to Men Only
Rotary International was formed in 1905 as a worldwide organization of business and professional men who provided community service, promoted high ethicalstandards, and worked for world peace. Individual members join local RotaryClubs, and those clubs belong to the international organization. At the timeof the hearing before the Supreme Court in 1987, there were 19,788 Rotary Clubs with over 900,000 members in 157 countries.
Rotary Clubs invite members under a classification system listing different businesses and professions. An active member is elected for each category, andthat member may propose a second member in the same field, so that each classification can have two active members. Each club may adopt other requirements for membership. Although the rules provide that membership can only be extended to men, the organization does allow female relatives of members to be active in affiliated organizations.
The Supreme Court applied the reasoning of Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (1984), a case in which the Court upheld a Minnesota law requiring the Jaycee, to admit women. In Roberts, the Court found that the Constitution protects citizens against unjustified government interference with their right tointimate or private relationships, and that it protects their right to associate for expressive association such as religion or protected speech. To determine an individual's right to join a particular organization requires an assessment of where the organization falls on a scale from private relationshipsto very public ones, the Court said. Factors such as "size, selectivity, andwhether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship" are used to determine the extent of constitutional protection.
Court Found Female Membership Reduced Discrimination
"The evidence in this case indicates that the relationship among Rotary Clubmembers is not the kind of intimate or private relation that warrants constitutional protection," the Court observed. It noted that local Rotary clubs range in size from 20 to more than 900, and that there is about a ten percent turnover each year. New prospects are regularly reviewed, and the club is supposed to include members so as to be a "true cross-section of the business andprofessional life of the community." Even though membership is not open to everyone, the Court found that large, inclusive membership was encouraged, andconcluded that applying the Unruh Civil Rights Act and opening membership towomen would not interfere with Rotary members' right to private association.
The Court also said that the admission of women would not prevent Rotary Clubs from carrying out their purposes. It noted that the organization does not take political stands, though it does engage in community service. The Court found nothing in the Unruh Civil Rights Act that would prevent the groups fromcontinuing such services. And the Court further noted that "[e]ven if the Unruh [Civil Rights] Act does work some slight infringement on Rotary members'right of expressive association, that infringement is justified because it serves the state's compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against women." It went on to observe that in the Roberts case, "we recognized that the state's compelling interest in assuring equal access to women extendsto the acquisition of leadership skills and business contacts, as well as tangible goods and services."
Related Cases
Board of Directors, Rotary International
Respondent
Rotary Club of Duarte
Petitioner's Claim
That a California law prohibiting gender discrimination in business organizations violates the First Amendment right to freedom of association.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Judith Resnik
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
William P. Sutter
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing forthe Court), William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None (Harry A. Blackmun and Sandra Day O'Connor did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
4 May 1987
Decision
A California law requiring full and equal accommodations to both sexes in business establishments is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment when applied to a broad-based business and professional organization.
Significance
The Court found that the law did not violate the right of club members to freedom of association. Further, that the organization in question had a broad and potentially large membership with high turnover, was inclusive by nature,frequently included strangers in its activities, and had a broad public purpose. Freedom of association goes to protect more intimate organizations, the Court said. The Court also found that the admission of women did not violate the First Amendment right of expressive association, since it would not affectthe purpose of the club.
Local California Rotary Chapter Creates "International" Incident
California adopted a law, popularly called the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that entitled all persons, regardless of sex, to equal accommodations, facilities,privileges, advantages, and services in business establishments. The local Rotary Club of Duarte, California, admitted women members in 1977. Rotary International, its parent organization, revoked its charter because the organization's rules state membership is limited to men.
The Rotary Club of Duarte and two of its women members sued Rotary International under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking an injunction to prevent the parent organization from enforcing the rules against women or revoking its charter. A California trial court found that neither Rotary International nor theRotary Club of Duarte were business establishments under the law, and ruledfor Rotary International. The Duarte club appealed, and the California Courtof Appeals reversed, finding substantial business benefits in the Rotary organization. The appeal court also concluded that membership in Rotary clubs wasnot a "continuous, personal and social" relationship taking place primarilyin private and that the admission of women would not interfere with the organization's purposes. It also found that the organization's exclusion of womenwas not protected by the First Amendment.
The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Subsequently Rotary International petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, since the case involved a federal constitutional question. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed theholding of the California Court of Appeals.
Membership Originally Open to Men Only
Rotary International was formed in 1905 as a worldwide organization of business and professional men who provided community service, promoted high ethicalstandards, and worked for world peace. Individual members join local RotaryClubs, and those clubs belong to the international organization. At the timeof the hearing before the Supreme Court in 1987, there were 19,788 Rotary Clubs with over 900,000 members in 157 countries.
Rotary Clubs invite members under a classification system listing different businesses and professions. An active member is elected for each category, andthat member may propose a second member in the same field, so that each classification can have two active members. Each club may adopt other requirements for membership. Although the rules provide that membership can only be extended to men, the organization does allow female relatives of members to be active in affiliated organizations.
The Supreme Court applied the reasoning of Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (1984), a case in which the Court upheld a Minnesota law requiring the Jaycee, to admit women. In Roberts, the Court found that the Constitution protects citizens against unjustified government interference with their right tointimate or private relationships, and that it protects their right to associate for expressive association such as religion or protected speech. To determine an individual's right to join a particular organization requires an assessment of where the organization falls on a scale from private relationshipsto very public ones, the Court said. Factors such as "size, selectivity, andwhether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship" are used to determine the extent of constitutional protection.
Court Found Female Membership Reduced Discrimination
"The evidence in this case indicates that the relationship among Rotary Clubmembers is not the kind of intimate or private relation that warrants constitutional protection," the Court observed. It noted that local Rotary clubs range in size from 20 to more than 900, and that there is about a ten percent turnover each year. New prospects are regularly reviewed, and the club is supposed to include members so as to be a "true cross-section of the business andprofessional life of the community." Even though membership is not open to everyone, the Court found that large, inclusive membership was encouraged, andconcluded that applying the Unruh Civil Rights Act and opening membership towomen would not interfere with Rotary members' right to private association.
The Court also said that the admission of women would not prevent Rotary Clubs from carrying out their purposes. It noted that the organization does not take political stands, though it does engage in community service. The Court found nothing in the Unruh Civil Rights Act that would prevent the groups fromcontinuing such services. And the Court further noted that "[e]ven if the Unruh [Civil Rights] Act does work some slight infringement on Rotary members'right of expressive association, that infringement is justified because it serves the state's compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against women." It went on to observe that in the Roberts case, "we recognized that the state's compelling interest in assuring equal access to women extendsto the acquisition of leadership skills and business contacts, as well as tangible goods and services."
Related Cases
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).
- Beynon v. St. George-Dixie Lodge No. 1783, Benev. & Protective Order of Elks, 854 P.2d 513 (1993).
- South Boston Allied War Veterans Council v. City of Boston, 875 F.Supp. 891 (1995).
Further Readings
- Baldwin, Gordon B. "The Library Bill of Rights--A Critique." Library Trends, summer 1996, p. 7.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
User Comments Add a comment…