Cal. Civ. Code § 51

Section 51 prohibits arbitrary age-based pricing that relies on generalizations about customers’ incomes, absent a strong public policy justification.

Candelore v. Tinder, Inc. · filed 2018-01-29(b)

A blanket, class-based pricing model like this, when based upon a personal characteristic such as age, constitutes prohibited arbitrary discrimination under the Unruh Act.

Section 51 permits an age-based health club discount when the age group has lower income and the pricing is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or invidious.

Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. · filed 2015-12-11

Under these circumstances, WAC met its burden to demonstrate that its pricing program does not constitute arbitrary, unreasonable or invidious discrimination, the program does not reflect an arbitrary, class-based generalization, and, indeed, public policy supports the disparate pricing.

Section 51(b) permits a bank to apply federal minimum identification standards that differ for United States citizens and foreign nationals when doing so is not arbitrary.

Howe v. Bank of America N.A. · filed 2009-11-16(b)

Thus, the issue in this case boils down to this: did Bank of America act “arbitrarily” when it required United States citizens to provide a Social Security number to open a credit card account, while allowing foreign nationals to open one using an alternative form of identification? We heartily agree with the trial court’s conclusion it did not.

Section 51 permits a promotional gift intended as a genuine gift rather than a way to evade the ban on gender based discounts.

Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. · filed 2008-11-21(b)

We are not implying that all promotional gifts are per se exempt from the Act. This is not a situation where the Angels gave money to all women in attendance, which would be a de facto discount and, therefore, violate the Act. The crucial differentiating factor is intent. If the intent is for the item to be a gift, rather than an attempt to circumvent the ban on gender based discounts, then such a gift is permissible.

Section 51 permits a bona fide eating place to segregate patrons under 21 when necessary to prevent underage drinking.

Reilly v. Stroh · filed 1984-10-23

By the same reasoning, they may be segregated in “bona fide eating places” if, as petitioner asserts, underage drinking cannot otherwise be controlled.

Section 51 permits a cemetery to hold private funerals and exclude uninvited attendees as a reasonable regulation of its services.

Ross v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park · filed 1984-03-08

Given the sensitive nature of the services offered by the cemetery, a policy permitting private funerals by which those who are not invited may not attend is a reasonable regulation “rationally related to the services performed. ”

Section 51 bars hotels from classifying and isolating guests according to their perceived social or political philosophies.

Gray v. Kircher · filed 1987-05-15

Hotel owners cannot classify and isolate their guests according to their perceived social or political philosophies. Such discrimination by a provider of public accomodations runs afoul of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51).

Section 51(b) does not prohibit a county fair from denying admission to a patron who refuses to remove motorcycle club insignia under its dress code.

Gatto v. County of Sonoma · filed 2002-05-23(b)

For the foregoing reasons, enforcement of the dress code against Gatto did not violate his right to full and equal accommodations under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51 prohibits an apartment owner from excluding families with children solely because the owner believes children are more likely to misbehave.

Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson · filed 1982-02-08

Under the act, however, an individual who has committed no such misconduct cannot be excluded solely because he falls within a class of persons whom the owner believes is more likely to engage in misconduct than some other group.

Section 51 protects a person's equal privilege to associate with others in a business establishment, including people of another race.

Winchell v. English · filed 1976-09-20

It is thus manifested by section 51 that all persons are entitled to the full and equal privilege of associating with others in any business establishment. And section 52, liberally interpreted, makes clear that discrimination by such a business establishment against one’s right of association on account of the associates’ color, is violative of the Act. It follows, responding to the appeal’s only issue, that discrimination by a business establishment against persons on account of their association with others of the black race is actionable under the Act.

Section 51 does not prohibit a business from refusing to deal with a particular person for reasonable reasons based on that person’s conduct.

Frantz v. Blackwell · filed 1987-01-08

The Unruh Act seeks to remedy arbitrary discrimination. It does not seek to remedy traditional wrongs arising out of tort or breach of contract, nor does it seek to remedy discrimination based on purely personal grounds.

Section 51 permits a landlord to limit office leases by profession unless the policy disguises discrimination based on protected personal characteristics.

Roth v. Rhodes · filed 1994-05-31

We therefore conclude discrimination in leasing office space based on profession, as long as it is not a strategem designed to disguise discrimination based on personal characteristics protected under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, is not prohibited under the act.

Section 51(f) incorporates the ADA’s protections against retaliation and interference into the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Wilson v. Murillo · filed 2008-06-10(f)

As we will discuss in greater detail below, by incorporating the ADA, both the Act and the Disabled Persons Act prohibit retaliation or interference against any individual who exercises his or her rights under the ADA.

Section 51 does not create a general protected class of civil rights litigants or a general claim for retaliatory exclusion.

Gayer v. Polk Gulch, Inc. · filed 1991-06-21

Appellant has asked us to expand coverage of the Act to retaliatory discrimination. We refrain from amending the Act to so expand coverage thereunder, whether that expansion is based on individualized discrimination, a never before protected class of litigants, or on asserted needs of the statutory scheme.

Section 51 does not prohibit a medical group from terminating care for patients who sue its physicians for malpractice on that basis.

Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court · filed 2003-04-17

We find that retaliatory discrimination against patient litigants does not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Section 51 requires medical providers serving the public to provide equal services regardless of sexual orientation; physicians have no religious exemption from that requirement.

North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court · filed 2008-08-18(a), (b)

As relevant in this case, it requires business establishments to provide “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services” to all persons notwithstanding their sexual orientation. (Civ. Code, § 51, subds. (a), (b).) Accordingly, the First Amendment’s right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the Act’s antidiscrimination requirements even if compliance poses an incidental conflict with defendants’ religious beliefs.