Judge Rejects eHarmony Attempt to Dismiss Class Action

Oct. 22, 2009 - PRLog -- A California Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles cleared the way for a class action discrimination jury trial against the well-known on-line dating company eHarmony.com.  The jury trial will follow a series of rulings made by Judge Anne Jones, which rejected eHarmony’s attempt to dismiss the class action.  The jury trial is set to begin on February 1, 2009 and to end around Valentine’s Day.  It will take place in the Superior Court in Los Angeles, near eHarmony’s headquarters in Pasadena, Calif.

In the rulings, Judge Jones found that eHarmony had not established as a matter of law that the company’s ongoing refusal to serve gays and lesbians on its flagship dating site, eHarmony.com, was legal.  The Court further commented that the plaintiffs had presented competent evidence for a jury to find that eHarmony is intentionally excluding gays and lesbians from its services in order to appeal to other customers it believes are opposed to same-sex marriage.  

The Court, in its ruling found that:

Plaintiffs have adduced competent evidence that would support a reasonable inference from the trier of fact that defendants’ purported business justifications are really a pretext for intentional discrimination.  There is evidence adduced, from which a reasonable inference can be drawn, that eHarmony intentionally excludes gays and lesbians to appeal to a market segment that it perceives to be opposed to same-sex marriage.  See Opinion on eHarmony’s Motion at page 8

The Court further found that:
eHarmony's assertion that it has not denied persons seeking same-sex relationships "full and equal access" to its service within the meaning of the Act is legally flawed.   Defendant’s argument that eHarmony’s “service was available to all, regardless of their sexual orientation,” rests on a definition of “service” that is drawn entirely too finely.  Defining one’s business to incorporate a discriminatory purpose is not permissible, for example, a “whites-only” restaurant or a “straight’s only” dating service.  eHarmony is promoting a service that matches persons with compatible partners; not a service that matches persons with heterosexual partners.  It is well-established under California law that the Act mandates “equal treatment of patrons in all aspects of the business.”  See Opinion on Plaintiffs’ Motion at page 6, note 4.

Earlier this year, eHarmony disclosed that it had received more than 3,000 email complaints from individuals who had visited eHarmony.com to find a relationship with someone of the same sex, but were denied the opportunity to use the service because of their sexual orientation.  eHarmony made the disclosure after reaching a settlement in another matter with the New Jersey Attorney General in which the company agreed to serve gays and lesbians in a separate business establishment—a new dating website called “Compatible Partners”—that was launched in March 2009.  The plaintiffs in the California class action charge that the creation of the separate “gay site” was a cynical attempt to create a “separate but equal” dynamic in violation of the law.  Judge Jones is leaving that question for the jury to decide as well.

The lead plaintiff in the class action, Nate Cardin, is a graduate student in chemistry at Stanford University.  He attempted to use eHarmony’s matching services in September 2006, but was denied.  When he asked eHarmony why, he received a form email response telling him that the services were not made for people seeking same sex relationships, but that he could use them if he wanted to find a heterosexual relationship.  The class action was filed in 2007.  

“eHarmony has made me and many others feel like second class citizens,” said Cardin. “I hope this trial will inspire the company to follow the law and treat us with dignity.”

Cardin and the plaintiff class are represented by the civil rights law firm of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP and the Law Offices of Jeremy Pasternak, both based in San Francisco.  Additional information can be found by calling 415.421.7100, 415.693.0300, or by submitting an inquiry on www.schneiderwallace.com

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP represents workers and consumers in class action litigation matters around the country.  For 15 years, the firm’s attorneys have handled matters involving workplace benefits, disability rights, employment discrimination issues and consumer rights.  On the Web: www.schneiderwallace.com

The Law Offices of Jeremy Pasternak is a San Francisco-based firm focused on the representation of individuals in employment and other civil rights matters.  On the Web: www.pasternaklaw.com.