Procedural Posture

Petitioners, liquor license holders, sought a writ of mandate to prevent respondent, the department of alcoholic beverage control, from revoking their licenses because they hired women bartenders, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25656. The court took jurisdiction, not requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies, even though petitioners were not charged but wished to employ female bartenders and feared enforcement.

Overview

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25656 banned women who were not the licensee or the wife of the licensee, from tending bar. Res Ipsa Loquitur is a doctrine in the Anglo-American common law and Roman Dutch law that says in a tort or civil lawsuit a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. Petitioners, liquor license holders, claimed that it violated Cal. Const. art. XX, § 18, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2, and the equal protection clauses of U.S. Const. amend. XIV and Cal. Const. art. I, §§ 11, 21. The court found that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25656 violated Cal. Const. art. XX, § 18. The desire to protect women from occupational hazards was not a reason to exclude them. The court held that the statute violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was not a bona fide occupational qualification exception because bartending was neither dangerous nor required strength, unpossessed by women, to maintain order. The court held that the statute violated the equal protection clauses of United States and California Constitutions. It limited the fundamental right of women to pursue a lawful vocation. Courts were divided on whether classifications based on sex should be treated as suspect. The court held them suspect because sex was immutable and had a stigma of inferiority. The court applied strict scrutiny and held that the state had no compelling interest.

Outcome

A peremptory writ of mandate was issued in favor of petitioners, liquor license holders, compelling respondent, director of the department of alcoholic beverage control, to cease enforcement and license revocation proceedings based upon an unconstitutional ban on women bartenders. The ban violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clauses of federal and state Constitutions, and the California Constitution.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff consumer appealed the San Francisco Superior Court's (California) dismissal of his class action suit against defendant automobile rental company alleging that defendant's fuel service charge was excessive and punitive and its rental agreement was unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent within the meaning of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

Overview

Plaintiff consumer filed a class action complaint under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 seeking damages and injunctive relief against defendant automobile rental company alleging that defendant's fuel charges were excessive and punitive and its rental agreement was unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent. Defendant demurred on grounds that plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed. The court found that the fuel charges were avoidable and therefore lawful. This provision provided defendant a safe harbor as to the charge's lack of impropriety. However, a question of fact existed as to whether a reasonable customer would glean the rental agreement's fuel charge in the event he rejected the fuel purchase option. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of dismissal as to the latter claim and remanded the matter to the trial court.

Outcome

The court reinstated plaintiff's case as to his claim that defendant unfairly and fraudulently concealed or obscured the fuel service charge in its rental agreement because this claim was one which properly stated a cause of action.