6 ms·

To require a transaction would mean you can discriminate based on anything and everything. Exclude black people from entering your store? no problem because the

To require a transaction would mean you can discriminate based on anything and everything. Exclude black people from entering your store? no problem because they haven't bought anything. That's so obviously wrong and exactly what civil rights legislation was created to address, that I feel like the lower courts made a big mistake and this should have never reached the SC. There's nothing surprising in the CA SC ruling.. I'm surprised Harvard Law Review decided to write an article on it.

ueudrjjj 7y ago
While not an invalid point, it's worth noting that this case deals mostly with occupational discrimination and not racial discrimination which is arguably a red herring here. Debt collectors for example, from my reading, were among certain groups barred from accessing Square.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
netcan 7y ago
Well, that seems to be the analogy the judge saw... and common law works by analogy. Analogies and metaphors break though.. when stacked too high or precariously. Here we stack the segregation analogy and the metaphor of "corporation are people, with rights." So, discriminating against a class of corporations is a violation of civil rights. In this case, the civil rights of bankruptcy attorneys & collection agencies... who probably do unsavoury things with square's service.
- klipt 7y ago
  > discriminating against a class of corporations is a violation of civil rights This seems obviously true if eg the class in question is the corporation owner's race or sex.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Corporations frequently do not have a single owner. How does the logic work in that case?
    - jayd16 7y ago
      You would need to show intent either way. If the intent is proven to discriminate based one of several owners I think the protection would still apply.
      - ineedasername 7y ago
        Under "disparate impact" [0], intent is not required. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      Suppose I make it a known policy to reject as client all companies with at least one Asian owner, Asian major shareholder or Asian board member. If my company is a major market player (or if this policy were widespread) then this creates an incentive for companies to avoid having Asians in those positions, and puts all Asians at a disadvatage. That seems like a civil rights issue to me.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        That’s a fairly absurd example all around. As a practical matter, any public company of any size will probably have at least one Asian shareholder.
        wongarsu 7y ago
        85 years ago such policies existed in Europe with Jews instead of Asians as the target, in the current climate you might instead substitute "Asian" with "Chinese". The race doesn't really matter, it's the concept that matters.
- rgbrenner 7y ago
  The CA SC didn't address that.. our opinion does not preclude Square from disputing White’s factual allegations. ... Nor do we express any view on whether a defendant violates the Act by discriminating on the basis of occupation or on White’s adequacy as a representative for a class of bankruptcy attorneys excluded from Square’s services. The question of an individual plaintiff’s standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is distinct from the question of that plaintiff’s ability to serve as a representative for a class of allegedly aggrieved individuals.[0] White only won standing to bring his case. He's still prohibited from using Square; and he needs to win his case against Square before that'll change. 0. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2019/s249248.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2019/s...
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Precisely. This is a "win" in terms of providing standing to litigate issues that previously would have been precluded under arbitration clauses, or through lack of transaction per the Surrey v. TrueBeginnings precedent, which is what was overturned. It get's around the arbitration clause by overturning Surrey, so plaintiffs who are not a party to the arbitration clause can be found that may (through class representation) act for those who are subject to the arbitration clause.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  An interesting example of this I'll mention that I have personal experience with (I know someone processing these complaints). In New York City, there is a law against advertising for jobs with gender-specific terms. So the terms "busboy", "waitress", etc... are not permitted - you must use both gendered terms or a gender neutral term. Some enterprising people decided to file complaints each week against restaurants and bars for their gender-based job postings online. The restaurants and bars would get fined, and the complaintee would be given a portion of the fine. Some folks are earning a steady income filing these complaints - never having any intention of even applying for any of those jobs. This practice continues even today - courtesy of the New York City Human Rights Commission. Ironically, the City advertises the number of "actions" against bars and restaurants as a metric that it is doing good in the community.
ineedasername 7y ago
This is what I came away with as well. I really don't understand how Surrey v. TrueBeginnings became relevant jurisprudence outside of its own idiosyncrasies.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 7y ago
This isn't about civil rights per se, it's about a definition of "standing" in a particular context (the Unruh Act).

ueudrjjj 7y ago

While not an invalid point, it's worth noting that this case deals mostly with occupational discrimination and not racial discrimination which is arguably a red herring here. Debt collectors for example, from my reading, were among certain groups barred from accessing Square.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

netcan 7y ago

Well, that seems to be the analogy the judge saw... and common law works by analogy. Analogies and metaphors break though.. when stacked too high or precariously. Here we stack the segregation analogy and the metaphor of "corporation are people, with rights." So, discriminating against a class of corporations is a violation of civil rights. In this case, the civil rights of bankruptcy attorneys & collection agencies... who probably do unsavoury things with square's service.

klipt 7y ago
> discriminating against a class of corporations is a violation of civil rights This seems obviously true if eg the class in question is the corporation owner's race or sex.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Corporations frequently do not have a single owner. How does the logic work in that case?
  - jayd16 7y ago
    You would need to show intent either way. If the intent is proven to discriminate based one of several owners I think the protection would still apply.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      Under "disparate impact" [0], intent is not required. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    Suppose I make it a known policy to reject as client all companies with at least one Asian owner, Asian major shareholder or Asian board member. If my company is a major market player (or if this policy were widespread) then this creates an incentive for companies to avoid having Asians in those positions, and puts all Asians at a disadvatage. That seems like a civil rights issue to me.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      That’s a fairly absurd example all around. As a practical matter, any public company of any size will probably have at least one Asian shareholder.
      - wongarsu 7y ago
        85 years ago such policies existed in Europe with Jews instead of Asians as the target, in the current climate you might instead substitute "Asian" with "Chinese". The race doesn't really matter, it's the concept that matters.
rgbrenner 7y ago
The CA SC didn't address that.. our opinion does not preclude Square from disputing White’s factual allegations. ... Nor do we express any view on whether a defendant violates the Act by discriminating on the basis of occupation or on White’s adequacy as a representative for a class of bankruptcy attorneys excluded from Square’s services. The question of an individual plaintiff’s standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is distinct from the question of that plaintiff’s ability to serve as a representative for a class of allegedly aggrieved individuals.[0] White only won standing to bring his case. He's still prohibited from using Square; and he needs to win his case against Square before that'll change. 0. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2019/s249248.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2019/s...
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Precisely. This is a "win" in terms of providing standing to litigate issues that previously would have been precluded under arbitration clauses, or through lack of transaction per the Surrey v. TrueBeginnings precedent, which is what was overturned. It get's around the arbitration clause by overturning Surrey, so plaintiffs who are not a party to the arbitration clause can be found that may (through class representation) act for those who are subject to the arbitration clause.
koheripbal 7y ago
An interesting example of this I'll mention that I have personal experience with (I know someone processing these complaints). In New York City, there is a law against advertising for jobs with gender-specific terms. So the terms "busboy", "waitress", etc... are not permitted - you must use both gendered terms or a gender neutral term. Some enterprising people decided to file complaints each week against restaurants and bars for their gender-based job postings online. The restaurants and bars would get fined, and the complaintee would be given a portion of the fine. Some folks are earning a steady income filing these complaints - never having any intention of even applying for any of those jobs. This practice continues even today - courtesy of the New York City Human Rights Commission. Ironically, the City advertises the number of "actions" against bars and restaurants as a metric that it is doing good in the community.

ineedasername 7y ago

This is what I came away with as well. I really don't understand how Surrey v. TrueBeginnings became relevant jurisprudence outside of its own idiosyncrasies.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rhizome 7y ago

This isn't about civil rights per se, it's about a definition of "standing" in a particular context (the Unruh Act).