Minnesota has just joined more than a dozen other U.S. states as well as Denmark in holding that "ladies nights" constitute illegal sex discrimination, reports law professor John Banzhaf, the public interest lawyer who has successfully led the battle against this and other forms of illegal gender-based discrimination, including charging women more to launder shirts or for simple hair cuts, as well as excluding them from private "men's clubs" and military colleges.
This new ruling is not surprising, says Banzhaf, since more than a dozen states have reached the same legal conclusion about ladies nights. These states include: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.
"This ruling and others like it opens the door to massive law suits, including class actions, against many bars and nightclubs which feature ladies' nights," says Banzhaf, noting that in such cases any male attorney could clean up by seeking a refund for the overcharge on every drink purchased by every male patron for many years.
Unfortunately many bars and nightclubs continue to engage in this form of sex discrimination despite an unbroken string of rulings that it is illegal. Since such discriminatory practices can bring in so much money for a bar or night club, it may take a few big-buck class action law suits to persuade the owners that it is not profitable to discriminate on the basis of gender, says Banzhaf, especially if local authorities decline to take effective enforcement action.
In outlawing ladies nights, authorities have repeatedly rejected arguments that the lower charges for females are justified because they are intended to compensate for the generally lower salaries women are said to be paid, and arguments that charging women less also benefits men by attracting more women to bars.
"Would we long tolerate a situation where a stadium presenting a horse show or a ice skating exhibition charged men only half price because far fewer men than women typically come to the event, and the females who do attend would like to see more male patrons enjoying what is often seen as a women's event?
Moreover, notes Banzhaf, while some bars may wish to have an all-white clientele, or at least avoid appearing to be "too black" in order to attract more customers, this would not justify charging whites less than blacks for admission or for drinks, and the same principle applies to discrimination based upon gender.
Also, a desire to charge less to a group simply because it makes less money on the average than another group would certainly not justify bargain prices for Catholics, Hispanics, etc. Moreover, the fact that bars don't do this undercuts their arguments that ladies nights are designed to make up for lower salaries.
Years earlier, Banzhaf and his law students -- often dubbed "Banzhaf's Bandits" -- used legal actions to end ladies nights by bars in the District of Columbia. Collectively, they have won more than 100 legal actions against various forms of gender-based discrimination by bars, dry cleaners, and hair cutters, and Banzhaf also ended sex discrimination by the District's Cosmos and Metropolitan Clubs, and helped get the first female cadet admitted to the formerly all-male Citadel.
In Banzhaf's case the D.C. Office of Human Rights ruled that Ladies Nights "results in undue and unjustified financial detriment to men by giving preferential treatment to women." Thus, it ruled, "Respondent has denied males equal privileges and advantages offered to females."
Since that time New Jersey officials have reached the same conclusion, and in a 2007 ruling, California's highest court held that a male plaintiff could file and win a sex discrimination law suit even if he didn't request equal treatment -- i.e. a similar discount -- at the time the discrimination occurred.
The Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that probable cause of a violation exists, relying upon an earlier resolution in which it "strongly" discouraged ladies nights. "The commission ... recommends instead that establishments consider neutral promotions involving perhaps free or reduced admissions to a limited number of customers who appear before a certain time," the resolution reads.
Denmark's National Social Appeals Board, speaking through its Board of Equal Treatment, has ruled that clubs, restaurants, and similar establishments cannot offer special deals for women and not include men since this violates the legal principle of equal treatment regardless of gender.
The ruling is particularly persuasive because the arguments made for the lower female rates were much more reasonable than simply trying to please male customers looking for drunken women. Men simply wishing to meet women regardless of their state of sobriety may, of course, simply go to flower shows, ballroom dancing classes, fashion shows, and other places where women tend to outnumber men.
Two of the Danish cases involved a discotheque and a strip club where women -- but not men -- were admitted free. The latter is interesting, says Banzhaf, because the argument could be made that women generally derive little enjoyment -- and certainly less enjoyment in general than men -- from seeing other women strip, a possible justification for charging them less for admission to such a performance.
The third Danish case involved an inn which charged women less for its Christmas buffet. Although the inn argued that the lower price for women was reasonable because women usually eat far less than men, the Board ruled that the practice of charging one gender more than another was illegal -- regardless of this justification.
Banzhaf's legal complaints had argued that, in addition to the financial discrimination against men, ladies nights also stigmatize and degrade women by implying that they were not equally capable of buying drinks for themselves, and by using women who have been drinking as lures and bait to attract men into the bar.
Banzhaf added that permitting blatant discrimination on the basis of gender to continue when we would never tolerate similar discrimination based on race, religion, and other protected categories wrongfully suggests that sex discrimination is not as wrong or as unlawful as other kinds. "How long would we tolerate an 'African-American Night' or a 'Catholic Night'?," he asks, even if it brought in more business.
"Just because ladies nights are favored by cheap women and horny men does not make then lawful," argues Banzhaf, noting, tongue in cheek, that men's alleged preferences for drunken women is not protected by guarantees based upon the "Pursuit of Happiness" clause in the Declaration of Independence.
In a few additional jurisdictions ladies nights have also been prohibited, not primarily because they discriminate on the basis of gender, but rather because such practices -- like 2-for-1 nights, all-you-can-
"It's time for bars to recognize that women no longer need men to buy drinks for them, and that facilitating a bevy of drunken women for lustful men is not providing a valuable public service which protects it from laws which clearly prohibit discrimination based upon sex," argues Banzhaf.
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
FELLOW, World Technology Network
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/
