SR-703-002
.
-:rt?3-0~2-
~8
Santa Monica, California
.
CA:RMM:jldl05/hpc
city council Meeting 9-13-88
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
City Attorney
Ordinance Adding Chapter 9B to Article IV of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code Prohibiting
Discrimination by Clubs or organizations Which
Are Not Distinctly Private and prohibiting
City Employees from Attending Meetings and/or
Programs of Organizations Which Have
Discriminatory Membership policies
TO:
SUBJECT:
At its meeting on January 13, 1987, the city Council
directed the city Attorney to draft an appropriate resolution for
later consideration in public session to the effect that city
employees shall not be permitted to appear before organizations
on work time while on the City payroll if those organizations
discriminate against women or minorities in membership or
admissions policies.
In addition, with respect to public
officials, the city council directed the City Attorney to include
a provision that City officials be similarly obligated and that
if they appear before such discriminatory bodies, they should
indicate that they are appearing on their own behalf and not on
behalf of the City.
At its meeting on June 2, 1987, the city Council directed
the city Attorney to prepare an ordinance similar to the Los
Angeles ordinance which prohibits discrimination at private clubs
in Santa Monica.
- 1 -
e-c
SEP 1 3 1988
.
.
In response to these directions, the accompanying ordinance
has been prepared and is presented to the City Council for its
consideration.
The accompanying ordinance combines both City Council
directions by adding Chapter 9B to Article IV of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code. The ordinance prohibits any club or organization
which is not distinctly private from denying any person entry to
its facilities, membership in the club, or full enjoyment of the
club1s or organization's amenities.
In addition, the ordinance prohibits City employees, while
on City time and on the city payroll, from attending any meeting
or program offered by any organization or club that discriminates
against persons on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), or disability in its membership or
admission policies, and prohibits the City from paying any city
employee's membership dues for such clubs or organizations. The
City councilmembers are also discouraged from attending meetings
and/or programs of such organizations and if any Councilmember
does attend such a meeting or program, the Councilmember is
required to indicate that he or she is in attendance in an
individual capacity and not on behalf of the city. The ordinance
does not prevent employees of the city from responding to
emergency requests for assistance which affect the pUblic welfare
or safety.
The
accompanying
ordinance
contains
provisions
for
enforcement of the ordinance and penalties for violation thereof.
Any person and the City of Santa Monica may enforce the
- 2 -
.
.
provisions of the ordinance by means of a civil action.
Violators of this ordinance may be enjoined from activities which
violate this ordinance by any court of competent jurisdiction and
any action for injunction may be brought by any aggrieved person
or the city Attorney. Furthermore, any person who violates the
provisions of this ordinance is liable for a minimum of $250.00
plus attorney's fees per occurrence.
Laws of this type have been upheld by the united states
Supreme Court. See New York state Club Assoc., Inc. v. City of
New York,
u.s.
,
56 U.S.L.W.
4653
(1988); Board of
Directors of Rotary International V. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481
u.s.
107 S.ct. 1940 (1987); Roberts v. united states
Jayce~s, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).
While state law also concerns
itself with the issue of club discrimination, Isbister v. Boys
Club of Santa Cruz, Inc., 40 Cal. 3d 78, 707 P.2d 212, 219 Ca1.
Rptr. 150 (1985), there are no preemption concerns since the
state's Unruh civil Rights Act, civil Code Section 51, is not
intended to fully occupy this field to the exclusion of local
ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinance be introduced for first reading.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, city Attorney
Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney
- 3 -