Proof of Intentional Disability Discrimination Unnecessary Under Unruh Act
By Candice Boyd
In Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a plaintiff who seeks damages under California Civil Code Section 52 (Civ. Code sec. 52), claiming the denial of full and equal treatment on the basis of disability in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code sec. 51) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. sec. 12101 et seq.), does not need to prove "intentional discrimination". Based on its ruling, the Court did not address the second issue regarding the meaning of "intentional discrimination".
During a visit to a Del Taco restaurant, Plaintiff Kenneth Munson ("Munson"), whose disability requires the use of a wheelchair, was unable to access the restaurant's parking lot and restrooms because of architectural barriers. Munson filed suit against Del Taco in the Central District of California. Munson alleged violations of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. sections 121010-12213, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code sec. 51. Munson sought injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees under California Civil Code sec. 52 for the alleged Unruh Act violations. The District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Munson because there was no genuine issue of fact that an ADA violation had occurred. The District Court found Del Taco liable under the Unruh Act and determined that Munson was entitled to pursue statutory damages. The parties stipulated to $12,000 in damages under the Unruh Act. Del Taco appealed the District Court's grant of Munson's motion for partial summary judgment. Del Taco argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because Munson was required to allege evidence that Del Taco had intentionally discriminated against him. Munson argued that no such requirement existed.
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.548, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit requested that the California Supreme Court decide whether a plaintiff seeking damages under Civ. Code sec. 52 needs to prove "intentional discrimination" and, if the answer is yes, provide the meaning of "intentional discrimination".
Despite its decision in Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, Cal. 3d 1142, 1175 (1991), in which the California Supreme Court ruled that proof of intentional discrimination was necessary to establish a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Court determined that based on the Legislature's addition of subdivision (f) to Civ. Code sec. 51, which was subsequent to the Harris decision, as well as the Legislature's intent in adding subdivision (f), a plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination in order to obtain damages under Civ. Code sec. 52.
The California Supreme Court also concluded that the Federal Court's interpretation of Civ. Code sec. 51 in, Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 846-847 (9th Cir. 2004) was right - section 51, subdivision (f) added ADA violations, whether or not involving intentional discrimination, to the class of discriminatory acts for which the Unruh Civil Rights Act provides remedies. Moreover, the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal's decision in Gunther v. Lin, 144 Cal. App. 4th 223 (2006), which was in direct contrast to the Federal Court's interpretation of Civ. Code sec. 51 in Lentini. The California Supreme Court also overruled, Coronado v. Cobblestone Village Community Rentals, 163 Cal. App. 4th 831 (2008).
This ruling will encourage more plaintiffs to bring more disability lawsuits alleging violations of the Unruh Act and will make it easier for them to prevail. Employers should seek legal counsel in order to ensure they are operating in full compliance with disability laws.