U.S. Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd.
| Citation | 465 N.Y.S.2d 871,59 N.Y.2d 401 |
| Parties | , 452 N.E.2d 1199 In the Matter of UNITED STATES POWER SQUADRONS, Appellant, v. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL BOARD, Respondent. In the Matter of GREAT NECK POWER SQUADRON, INC., Appellant, v. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL BOARD, Respondent. In the Matter of HEMPSTEAD BAY POWER SQUADRON, INC., Appellant, v. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL BOARD, Respondent. In the Matter of WESTCHESTER POWER SQUADRON, INC., Appellant, v. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL BOARD, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1983 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Petitioners appeal from orders confirming determinations that they have unlawfully discriminated against complainants.
It all started in 1973 when complainants Bertha Adler, Charlotte Arutt and Leslie Mayer, all interested in boating, sought to join petitioner United States Power Squadrons and one of its local squadrons, petitioners Hempstead Bay Power Squadron, Inc. (Arutt), Great Neck Power Squadron, Inc. (Adler), and Westchester Squadron, Inc. (Mayer). Complainants met every criteria for membership, save one; they were females and membership was open to males only. Their applications were denied and these proceedings followed.
The State Division of Human Rights found that complainants had been unlawfully discriminated against because of their sex and its determinations were affirmed by respondent Human Rights Appeal Board. Petitioners then instituted these four proceedings pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law seeking to reverse and vacate respondent's orders. The Appellate Division, 84 A.D.2d 318, 445 N.Y.S.2d 565, confirmed the orders and dismissed the petitions. We now affirm.
Petitioners do not contest the determinations that they have denied membership to women because of their sex and substantial evidence supports the finding that they have. They contend they are not subject to the provision of the Human Rights Law because (1) they are not "place[s] of public accommodation, resort or amusement" and (2) they are "distinctly private" clubs (see Executive Law, § 292, subd. 9; § 296, subd. 2, par. [a] ). They contend also that the statute as applied interferes with the constitutional rights of association and privacy of their members, that the remedy of the division is overbroad and they raise a number of procedural objections.
Petitioner United States Power Squadrons, founded 70 years ago, is a nonprofit, tax exempt, foreign corporation whose purposes include promotion of safety and skill in boating. It comprises over 650 local squadrons throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. Each local squadron is separately incorporated but is chartered by the United States Power Squadrons after proving it can conduct an education program approved by United States Power Squadrons. Local squadrons are grouped geographically into 33 districts which serve as liaisons between the squadrons and United States Power Squadrons. The current total membership is approximately 70,000.
Local squadrons have their own by-laws but are governed by the constitution and by-laws of United States Power Squadrons. These provide that "any male person 18 years of age or over, having sufficient nautical knowle who is a citizen of the United States of America and who passes the prescribed examination" may join a local squadron and United States Power Squadrons. Petitioners Great Neck Power Squadron, Inc., Hempstead Bay Power Squadron, Inc., and Westchester Power Squadron, Inc., are located in New York. Pursuant to the constitution of United States Power Squadrons each conducts and offers free every year to the public, including women, a course in boating or piloting which is designed by the United States Power Squadrons. The course is advertised, it is sometimes offered as part of the adult education program of a local school district, and it is usually taught in public school buildings.
For many years, any man 18 or over who passed the examination for the basic boating course would be invited to become a member of United States Power Squadrons and the local squadron. The United States Power Squadrons' membership manual at this time stated, "Ideally, every graduate of the Piloting Course should become an active member of USPS because [they] have shown an interest in boating education." The official publication of United States Power Squadrons urged local squadrons to recruit new members immediately after grading the examination. Membership in the United States Power Squadrons is unlimited and increase of membership is strongly encouraged.
Nonmembers may take the basic boating course but the division found that in the past the advanced course has been reserved for members. Other advantages of membership include reduced rates on boat insurance, free admission to boat shows, discounts on nautical equipment and reduced rates for United States Power Squadrons publications. Members also have the right to fly a United States Power Squadrons flag which identifies them as capable boaters.
The State Division found that membership in United States Power Squadrons is extended to all males who pass the basic piloting course, that there is no plan or purpose of exclusivity other than sexual discrimination, that the actual potential membership in the Power Squadrons is more public than private, and that the only real limitation to membership in the Power Squadrons is that the applicant be male. It concluded that petitioners' refusal to accept women for membership violated subdivision 2 of section 296 of the Human Rights Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodations. To remedy this illegality, it ordered petitioners to discontinue their male-only membership practices, to extend membership invitations to the female complainants and to submit annual statistical reports detailing the number of male and female members in the New York squadrons.
Under New York law, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice "for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, because of the * * * sex * * * of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof" (Executive Law, § 296, subd. 2, par. [a] ). Petitioners contend that they are not within the proscription of this statute because they are not an owner or similar person and they do not operate a place of public accommodation.
The statutory definitions are set forth in section 292. Subdivision 9 defines "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement" inclusively and illustratively, not specifically and sets forth an extensive list of examples of places within the statute. 1
This definition has been expanded repeatedly over the years (compare L.1952, ch. 285 § 4, with L.1960, ch. 779; see, also, L.1962, ch. 370; L.1969, ch. 388). Originally, it included the phrase "and it is intended hereby to limit the procedures and jurisdiction of the commission to such places", but the phrase was deleted in 1960, a clear indication that the Legislature intended that the definition of place of accommodation should be interpreted broadly. It excludes from its terms schools supported by public funds and "any institution, club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private."
The statutory language states two concepts, the idea of public accommodation in the broad sense of providing conveniences and services to the public, and the idea of place.
The division found that petitioners are within the statute because they extend accommodations, facilities and privileges to members of the public. In doing so, it examined petitioners' goals and the several aspects of its activities, specifically the educational nature of the corporation and the extensive educational programs it offers to a large segment of the public. The evidence showed that petitioners offer courses in boat handling and safety at virtually all their locations to approximately 70,000 people a year. These are not incidental services but the principal function of the organization. Indeed, the ability to maintain an education program is a prerequisite of a new local squadron. Moreover, the United States Power Squadrons with its local squadrons has taken part in the annual boat show at the New York Coliseum, distributing to the public printed material describing United States Power Squadrons as a national educational organization whose backbone is its educational program, it promotes and takes part in National Safe Boating Week, it has taken part in offering the New York Young Boatmen's Course, it has sponsored and prepared a television program on boating in conjunction with the State of Georgia and it makes appearances at local schools. It also gives boating, fishing and tide reports on the radio. These widespread public activities to promote the Power Squadrons' goals and to solicit public interest and participation in its courses are, as the division found, the equivalent of systematically offering a service or accommodation to the public and bringing petitioners within the statutory definition.
Petitioners also contend that they are not subject to the law because they do not operate from a fixed place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock
...44 Cal.4th 1145, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 708, 189 P.3d 959, 965 (2008) (physician group); Matter of U.S. Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 N.Y.2d 401, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871, 452 N.E.2d 1199, 1203 (1983) (boating safety courses and membership); D'Amico, 652 N.Y.S.2d at 296, 235 A.D.2d 3......
-
Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James
...from regulation.13 N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9) ; N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40 ; see also U.S. Power Squadrons v. State Hum. Rts. Appeal Bd. , 59 N.Y.2d 401, 412, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871, 452 N.E.2d 1199 (1983).Nevertheless, Plaintiff asserts that the Accommodation clause is not the least restrictive mean......
-
Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America
...cases in which the state public accommodation statute was similar to Title II, see United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Board, 59 N.Y.2d 401, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871, 452 N.E.2d 1199 (1983); National Organization for Women v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 127 N.J.Super. 522, ......
-
Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, Inc.
...States Power Squadrons, a national boating safety and educational organization. (U.S. Power Squad. v. State iHuman R. App. Bd. (1983) 59 N.Y.2d 401, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871, 874-877, 452 N.E.2d 1199, 1202-1205.) These principles and authorities persuade us that the Boys' Club of Santa Cruz is a "p......
-
Does Membership Have Its Privileges? the Limits on Permissible Discrimination in Private Clubs
...(1988); United States Jaycees v. McClure, 305 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1981); United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Board, 59 N.Y.2d 401, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871, 452 N.E.2d 1199 (1983); Lloyd Lions Club of Portland, Oregon v. International Association of Lions Clubs, 81 Or. App. 151......
-
§7.1 II. The Relevant Guidance— A Divide In Need Of A Bridge
...20, 674 N.E.2d 274, 276 (1996) (Simons, J.) (citing, inter alia, Exec. Law § 300; U.S. Power Squadrons v. State Human Rts. Appeal Bd., 59 N.Y.2d 401, 452 N.E.2d 1199 (1983)); Williams v. N.Y.C. Trans. Auth., 171 A.D.3d 990, 992, 97 N.Y.S.3d 692, 695 (2d Dep't 2019); see also Mohammed v. Gre......