Country club must pay $500,000 for discrimination against women

[Dogfish Head]

The Spokane Country Club in Spokane, Wash., must pay $500,000 after a court found that the club had discriminated against four women members, according to The Spokesman-Review newspaper.

A Spokane County Superior Court jury Thursday ruled in favor of four women who argued they were denied the full benefits of club membership simply because of their gender. The unanimous verdict caps a five-year legal battle that exposed multiple examples of the club’s practice of allowing its male members the premium tee-times for golfing and bars women from certain areas of the restaurants.

Attorney Mary Schultz, who represented the four women, said in closing arguments Wednesday that the club’s board of directors has been continuing a 115-year tradition of giving men premium tee-times on Wednesdays and Saturdays while women must play on Tuesdays or Thursdays.

“The world has moved on,” Schultz argued to the jury. “Washington has moved on. Discrimination is not controlled by the majority or who plays more rounds. It’s against the law to establish gender-based practices.”
​

Spokane Country Club's lawyers argued the club had already begun to comply with the women's requested changes like renaming the "men's grill," but that wasn't enough to sway the jury, whose decision was unanimous.

Source: Country club must pay $500,000 for discrimination against women

 

[eclark53520]

Dumb

 

[Dogfish Head]

The unanimous verdict caps a five-year legal battle that exposed multiple examples of the club's practice of allowing its male members the premium tee-times for golfing and bars women from certain areas of the restaurants.

If this is true I don't think it is dumb that they were awarded damages.

 

[eclark53520]

If this is true I don't think it is dumb that they were awarded damages.

Yes, it is.

 

[Dogfish Head]

Yes, it is.

Alright, if they were denied access to parts of the restaurant and limited in other ways because of their race, would it be dumb as well?

You can feel free to actually explain why if you want.

 

[eclark53520]

Alright, if they were denied access to parts of the restaurant and limited in other ways because of their race, would it be dumb as well?

You can feel free to actually explain why if you want.

Yes, it would be.

Nobody has a right to patronize a business. That's why.

 

[Dogfish Head]

Yes, it would be.

Nobody has a right to patronize a business. That's why.

So much for people being created equal. America, where business and money trump all.

 

[TEA Time]

If this is true I don't think it is dumb that they were awarded damages.

I think it's dumb they were awarded damages. Why is a Wednesday tee time more "premium" than a Thursday tee time? And as far as we know, the women were barred from going into the men's locker room.
Unless proved otherwise: frivolous lawsuit is frivolous.

 

[BigJim13]

I think it's dumb they were awarded damages. Why is a Wednesday tee time more "premium" than a Thursday tee time? And as far as we know, the women were barred from going into the men's locker room.
Unless proved otherwise: frivolous lawsuit is frivolous.

I'd say it was proved otherwise, there was a unanimous decision-article didn't say who made that decision though, jury? Maybe but doubt it.

 

[BigJim13]

I think the point that was being made is that you can't have a coed club and restrict access to one gender or another.

 

[Dogfish Head]

I don't this falls into frivolous. Especially considering a jury found in their favor. It's a touchy subject and there is a lot of gray area, I agree on that.

To simply say that it is ok to deny a person access to a building based on their race or gender because we aren't guaranteed the right to patronize a business is very dangerous and non productive to the topic. It's comments like those that make having discussions like these damn near impossible on a forum.

 

[TEA Time]

So much for people being created equal. America, where business and money trump all.

Also, so much for a business being able to run their own business. Reminds me of the "no women at Augusta" BS.

I hated the service I was getting from Comcast, so I switched to DirecTv. I didn't sue Comcast stating that they didn't give me extra special consideration... I just went somewhere else.

 

[Dogfish Head]

Also, so much for a business being able to run their own business. Reminds me of the "no women at Augusta" BS.

I hated the service I was getting from Comcast, so I switched to DirecTv. I didn't sue Comcast stating that they didn't give me more extra special consideration... I just went somewhere else.

Businesses are allowed to run their business as they see fit, under the laws of the United States. This means adhering to a law that has existed for decades in regards to discrimination.

Your example does not compare. You were not discriminated against by Comcast. You chose to leave because you were unhappy with the quality of their service.

 

[TEA Time]

I don't this falls into frivolous. Especially considering a jury found in their favor. It's a touchy subject and there is a lot of gray area, I agree on that.

To simply say that it is ok to deny a person access to a building based on their race or gender because we aren't guaranteed the right to patronize a business is very dangerous and non productive to the topic. It's comments like those that make having discussions like these damn near impossible on a forum.

You know what, you're right. It's a lose-lose and we're definitely not going to solve it here. I have nothing further to add.

 

[Dogfish Head]

I don't see it as a lose-lose, I just think it is hard to take extreme views that businesses should be allowed to discriminate because you can just go somewhere else seriously. In the case of this particular lawsuit, it's not like this was a McDonalds where there are 17 within a 10 mile range.

Why should these women be forced to go elsewhere when the people that are running the club are breaking federal law by discriminating?