Findling v. T.P. Operating Co.
Decision Date | 07 January 1985 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 74684 |
Citation | 361 N.W.2d 376,139 Mich.App. 30 |
Parties | David FINDLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T.P. OPERATING COMPANY, d/b/a Dillon's or Dillon's Disco, Defendant-Appellee. 139 Mich.App. 30, 361 N.W.2d 376 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[139 MICHAPP 32] Michael J. Hubbard, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker by Sharon M. Woods and Gayle B. Tanenhaus, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before V.J. BRENNAN, P.J., and ALLEN and GRIBBS, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an Oakland County Circuit Court order issued on October 8, 1983, which dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1).
In a series of amended complaints filed between August 25, 1982, and April 26, 1983, plaintiff alleged that he was denied admission to defendant's "disco" because he was under the age of 21 at the time he sought admission and that this denial violated his civil rights. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant's refusal to admit him injured his feelings and "caused him" humiliation and mental suffering. As a result of the "outrage to his moral sense", plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to exemplary damages.
As an affirmative defense to plaintiff's allegations, defendant asserted that by virtue of the Liquor Control Act, M.C.L. Sec. 436.1 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 18.971 et seq., defendant was entitled to make reasonable [139 MICHAPP 33] rules and regulations which would include excluding persons between the ages of 18 and 21 from its establishment.
On September 28, 1983, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1). According to defendant, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. Sec. 37.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 3.548(101) et seq., did not proscribe forms of discrimination which are "permitted by law". Defendant asserted that the alleged refusal to admit plaintiff into its establishment was permitted by M.C.L. Sec. 436.33b; M.S.A. Sec. 18.1004(2) which prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under 21 years of age.
The hearing on defendant's motion was held on October 7, 1983. Defendant argued that establishments such as defendant's have the right to institute reasonable policies in an attempt to conform to the strict alcohol-related regulations and laws.
Plaintiff argued that the statutory phrase which allowed discrimination "where permitted by law" in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act only referred to laws which expressly allowed discrimination on the basis of age. Since there was no law in Michigan which expressly prohibited or limited access to bars by persons over 18 but under 21 years of age, plaintiff contended that such discrimination was not "permitted".
In an opinion issued from the bench, the trial court ruled that the prohibition against selling alcohol to minors provided a sufficient legal basis to justify the refusal of admission by defendant to patrons between the ages of 18 and 21. The court also concluded that the form of age discrimination as alleged by plaintiff was "permitted by law" and, as such, it was not improper under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
The issue for our consideration is whether the [139 MICHAPP 34] trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint.
The standard of review for determining whether summary judgment has been properly granted under GCR 1963, 117.2(1) is set forth in Reed v. St. Clair Rubber Co., 118 Mich.App. 1, 5, 324 N.W.2d 512 (1982):
Plaintiff argues that the absence of both case law and statutory authority for defendant's alleged refusal to admit adults under the age of 21 indicates that plaintiff has a colorable claim for violation of his civil rights under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff's claim for relief rests entirely upon the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. No constitutional issue has been raised by plaintiff.
[139 MICHAPP 35] The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act sets forth the rights to which an individual is entitled and proscribes conduct which would interfere with those rights. Section 102 of the act provides that individuals have a right to equal utilization of places of public accommodation and services regardless of age:
"The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and other real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized and declared to be a civil right." M.C.L. Sec. 37.2102(1); M.S.A. Sec. 3.548(102)(1).
Section 301 of the act defines the term "Place of public accommodation" as follows:
" 'Place of public accommodation' means a business, or an educational, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public." M.C.L. Sec. 37.2301(a); M.S.A. Sec. 3.548(301)(a).
Section 302 of the act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age unless otherwise permitted by law:
"Except where permitted by law, a person shall not:
"(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status." M.C.L. Sec. 37.2302(a); M.S.A. Sec. 3.548(302)(a) (emphasis added).
If defendant's refusal to admit plaintiff on the [139 MICHAPP 36] basis of plaintiff's age is "permitted by law", then plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for violation of his civil rights under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. See Cheeseman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 108 Mich.App. 428, 310 N.W.2d 408 (1981), lv. den. 413 Mich. 890 (1982).
M.C.L. Sec. 750.141; M.S.A. Sec. 28.336 provides in part "A minor child under 17 years of age shall not be permitted to remain in a dance hall, saloon, barroom or anyplace" where intoxicating liquor, wine, or beer or beverages containing intoxicating liquor or spirits is sold, given away or furnished for a beverage, unless the minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian.
No statute exists which prohibits persons over 17 from being present in such establishments. Defendant claims, however, that the statutory prohibitions against serving alcohol to persons under the age of 21 permits defendant by law to deny admission to persons 18 to 21 years of age. In support of its argument, defendant cites the Liquor Control Act, M.C.L. Sec. 436.1 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 18.971 et seq., and specific provisions in the act where the Legislature has established Michigan's legal drinking age at 21 years of age.
M.C.L. Sec. 436.33; M.S.A. Sec. 18.1004 states in part:
M.C.L. Sec. 436.20; M.S.A. Sec. 18.991 provides for fines of up [139 MICHAPP 37] to $300 in addition to or in lieu of either suspension or revocation of a liquor license if any provisions of the Liquor Control Act are violated.
Under M.C.L. Sec. 436.33b; M.S.A. Sec. 18.1004(2):
Likewise, under M.C.L. Sec. 436.33a; M.S.A. Sec. 18.1004(1), a person under the age of 21 who knowingly transports or possesses alcoholic liquor in a motor vehicle is guilty of a misdemeanor "unless the person is employed by a licensee under this act, the liquor control commission" or its agent and the person "is transporting" or has the liquor in the vehicle "under the person's control during regular working hours and in the course of the person's employment".
Finally, under the dramshop act, M.C.L. Sec. 436.22; M.S.A. Sec. 18.993, for purposes of that provision of the Liquor Control Act, a minor is defined as "a person to whom alcoholic liquor shall not be sold pursuant" to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kassab v. Michigan Basic Property Ins. Ass'n
...to services or goods on the discriminatory basis of the plaintiff's membership in an identified class. Findling v. T.P. Operating Co., 139 Mich.App. 30, 361 N.W.2d 376 (1984); Cheeseman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 108 Mich.App. 428, 431, 310 N.W.2d 408 (1981) (the plaintiffs had no caus......
-
Harris v. City of Detroit
...for recovery, Tobias v. Phelps, 144 Mich.App. 272, 375 N.W.2d 365 (1985), lv. den. 424 Mich. 859 (1985); Findling v. T.P. Operating Co., 139 Mich.App. 30, 34, 361 N.W.2d 376 (1984), lv. den. 422 Mich. 966 (1985); quoting Reed v. St. Clair Rubber Co., 118 Mich.App. 1, 5, 324 N.W.2d 512 (1982......
-
Tobias v. Phelps
...furnish a basis for recovery. Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 418 Mich. 311, 323-324, 343 N.W.2d 164 (1984); Findling v. TP Operating Co, 139 Mich.App. 30, 34, 361 N.W.2d 376 (1984); Blake v. Consolidated Rail Corp, 129 Mich.App. 535, 543, 342 N.W.2d 599 In Count I of the complaint, plaintiff asse......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Insurance Exchange
...statute, enacted subsequent to a more general statute and covering the same subject matter, prevails. Findling v. T.P. Operating Co., 139 Mich.App. 30, 361 N.W.2d 376 (1984); Sutton v. Cadillac Area Public Schools, 117 Mich.App. 38, 323 N.W.2d 582 Finally, we note that adoption of Allstate'......