 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Born v. Haverhill Golf & Country Club6/13/2003
Suffolk.
December 19, 2002
Anti-Discrimination Law, Sex, Prima facie case, Burden of proof, Damages, Attorney's fees. Constitutional Law, Sex discrimination. Practice, Civil, Instructions to jury, Directed verdict. Evidence, State of mind, Emotional state. Damages, Remittitur, Punitive, Attorney's fees. Injunction. Contempt.
Nine women members of the Haverhill Golf and Country Club, Inc. (the "Club"), filed a complaint on August 10, 1995, with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, alleging that the Club, a place of public accommodation, discriminated unfairly against them on the basis of their sex. See G. L. c. 272, § 98, and G. L. c. 151B, § 4. See also 804 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.07(1). The Attorney General filed a complaint against the Club on behalf of the Commonwealth and the two complaints were consolidated for trial. Proceedings on those complaints culminated in a judgment against the Club, based on jury findings, that aggregated $1,967,400 in damages. The Superior Court judge who presided at the trial also ordered permanent injunctive relief requiring cessation of the unlawful discriminatory acts that the jury had found the Club had been practicing. From the various judgments, including injunctions and judgments of contempt of court against it, the Club appeals. We affirm.
1. Facts. Trial lasted for twenty-two days and there are twenty-six volumes of transcript, but the gender-related indignities that vexed women at the Club and goaded them to seek legal redress are susceptible to distillation. In summarizing the facts, we rely on what the jury could have found, given the state of the evidence read in a light favorable to the plaintiffs.
a. Place of public accommodation. Whether the Club is a place of public accommodation was in dispute at trial, but on appeal the Club does not challenge the determination by the jury that it is. The Club makes its facilities available for hire by the general public for social functions. See generally G. L.
c. 272, § 92A.
b. Manipulation of membership categories. There were two major membership categories at the Club: primary and limited. Primary members had the broadest range of access to the golf course and facilities. The access of limited members was . . . well . . . limited. In 1993, there were 325 primary members, of whom seven were women and 318 were men. Among the ninety limited members, eighty-four were women. As women lobbied to change their memberships to primary, the Club rules for making such a change, such as what payment needed to be made with an application, underwent frequent revision, and places on the waiting list for primary membership fluctuated without explanation. For example, one woman limited member seeking primary status began the process as number nine on the waiting list but after some additional months had fallen to number eighteen. Some women candidates unaccountably disappeared altogether from the waiting list for primary membership. Men leapfrogged over women to primary membership. Male junior members, when they turned age twenty-two routinely received the opportunity to become primary members; women junior members did not.
c. Limits on access of women to the golf course. For limited members, starting time on the golf course -- referred to in the record generally as "tee time," -- was restricted. On Wednesdays, women limited members could not tee off from 10 A.M. to 2 P.M.; on Saturdays and Sundays women limited members could not play until after 11:30 A.M.; if the course was closed for a men's guest day, women could not play at all; male junior members could play during prime time, female junior members could not. Male limit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|