Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

Word from the Street, from African Americans in the Fillmore: “WE ARE HERE … AND STILL MATTER”

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

Mural as seen on Fulton in the Western Addition:

Click to expand

Which is fair enough.

But I’ll tell you, there are certain people who seem to want only certain people to live in this particular part of San Francisco District 5.

I approve not.

And I’ll tell you, the primary thing preventing this kind of discrimination is our federal government.

Just as things were back in the 1800′s. To wit:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

That’s something for the London Breeds of the world to ponder…

Showdown at Masonic on the #5 Fulton Bus: Did a MUNI Driver Discriminate Against a Disabled Rider?

Monday, September 26th, 2011

It’s hard to say.

Famous San Francisco photographer Justin Beck was on the scene:

“Photo: #Muni rider who refused to leave the bike rack of the 5 Fulton bus, and the driver whom he called a motherfucker. http://pic.twitter.com/jIphZ9Cw

Via Justin Beck – click to expand

Here’s the prior scene.

And here’s the aftermath.

I don’t know what to make of this one…

“PREFERABLE ADULTS ONLY”: Spot the Housing Rights Violation in this Apartment Ad for 1324 Jackson

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011

[UPDATE: Turns out I'm not the only one to have been banned from posting comments at the SFAppeal.com. See Comments.]

Boy, I’ll tell you, right before I got banned, for life* from making comments at bloggish non-blog SFAppeal.com back in 2009, I made some comments about how some self-promotional attorneys over there were, ironically, misquoting Da Law. (That might have played a role in Eve Batey** banning me.*) But things are better now, cause they’ve stopped doing that and the one who’s still there, the attorney what discusses housing rights and rent control*** and whatnot actually quotes a certain Civil Code Section properly now. Not that it’s such a big deal, though. (Most people actually like being corrected, even if they later try shoot the messenger or something. Most people.)

Hey, speaking of CA housing rights ‘n stuff, what’s up with this from The Tender?

“PREFERABLE ADULTS ONLY”

Via The Tenderblog

Is that something that your California Department of Consumer Affairs would call unlawful discrimination?

“It is illegal for landlords to discriminate against families with children under 18.”

Just asking, bro.****

In my opinion, putting this kind of preference in a flyer promoting the rental of an apartment is a big no-no, one that can get your patootie sued.

But JMO.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking what if you put in a room-mate ad something about preferring females or “three young women seeking a fourth” kind of thing. I don’t know. I think the thinking at this point in time is that that’s in a different category, but I haven’t checked up on things lately. Back in the day, a woman somewhere in California (I forget exactly where) told a prospective tenant that she “didn’t feel comfortable” with the idea of having a black male room-mate. That ended up getting her in trouble and she ended up having to pay one or two thousand dollars for her transgression.

*FOR LIFE!!!

**What makes her better, in any way, than anybody else, probably dozens in all, who ever contributed to SFist.com over the years? The answer to this query completely escapes me. Oh, she helped you get a job. O.K., well there’s that.

***Competently, at the very least, it would seem. (I mean, I don’t think he’s telling people to travel from Europe to sue a shifty, crafty, somewhat bankrupt defendant in Small Claims, for example.) Now, if you appeal your rent control decision to the full board and your case could go either way, you probably don’t want your representative being on the record calling (all?) landlords “cheeseballs” or whatnot, ’cause that kind of thing could actually affect the vote of the non-tenant, non-landlord member who typically acts as the swing voter. It’s highly unlikely that this would occur, a once-in-a-lifetime kind of sitch, but this kind of thing has happened before at your San Francisco Rent Board, back in the day, back in the early aughts, actually. And raising the idea of renegotiating the rent on a rent-controlled unit without discussing the possible downsides seems reckless to me but oh well. Landlords can be sensitive beings, you know, so it might not be the best idea to nickel-and-dime them when their real estate empire has just gone underwater is all I’m saying. Bro. But the issue of how to handle a rent reduction (which, of course, could be a win-win) was not considered by the authors of San Francisco’s rent control law so it’s not a bad thing for an expert to report on these kinds of things, not at all…

****There are some nuances here, but check out that link and then You Make The Call. All the deets:

35 For example, the landlord may properly require that a prospective tenant have an acceptable credit history and be able to pay the rent and security deposit, and have verifiable credit references and a good history of paying rent on time. (See Portman and Brown, California Tenants’ Rights, pages 104, 106 (NOLO Press 2007).)
36 California Practice Guide, Landlord-Tenant, Paragraph 2:553.15 (Rutter Group 2009), citing Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 [278 Cal.Rptr. 614].
37 Government Code Section 12921(b).
38 Government Code Sections 12926(p), 12927(c)(1),(e), 12948, 12955(d); Civil Code Sections 51, 51.2, 55.1(b). See Moskovitz et al., California Landlord-Tenant Practice, Section 2.27 (Cal. Cont. Ed. Bar 2009).
39 Government Code Sections 12926(p), 12927(e), 12955(a),(d). See Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code Section 12900 and following; federal Fair Housing Act, 42 United States Code Section 3601 and following.
40 Civil Code Sections 51, 51.2, 53; Harris v. Capital Growth  Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 [278 Cal.Rptr. 614].
41 Government Code Section 12955(m), Civil Code Section 51.
42 Government Code Sections 12955(n),(o).
43 Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 [278 Cal.Rptr. 614].
44 Civil Code Section 1940.3; California Practice Guide, Landlord-Tenant, Paragraph 2:569.1 (Rutter Group 2009).
45 California Practice Guide, Landlord-Tenant, Paragraph 2.553 citing Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005) 36 Cal.4th 824 [31 Cal.Rptr.3d 565]. See Civil Code Section 1940.3.
46 42 United States Code Section 3607(b), Civil Code Section 51.3(b)(1). “Housing for senior citizens” also includes: Housing that is provided under any state or federal program that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has determined is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (42 United States Code Section 3607(b)); or a housing development that is developed, substantially rehabilitated or substantially renovated for senior citizens and that has the minimum number of dwelling units required by law for the type of area where the housing is located (for example, 150 dwelling units built after January, 1996 in large metropolitan areas) (Civil Code Sections 51.2, 51.3. Government Code Section 12955.9. See Marina Point Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721 [180 Cal.Rptr. 496]). While the law prohibits unlawful age discrimination, housing for homeless youth is both permitted and encouraged. (Government Code Section 11139.3.)
47 Government Code Sections 12927(a)(2)(A), 12955(c).
48 Civil Code Sections 51,51.2, Government Code Section 12948.
49 Government Code Section 12927(c)(2)(B).
50 Government Code Section 12980(b).

UC Hastings Throws Down: Defeats Christian Legal Society in U.S. Supreme Court

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Remember that whole thing with U.C. Hastings (the largest and oldest law school in the West) getting into it with the Christian Legal Society? Well, it’s over, with Hastings winning in a 5-4 decision.

(That means that there will be one less thing for incoming Dean Frank H. Wu to worry about when he takes over on July 1.)

Get all the deets, here and below, and see what the CLS has to say, after the jump, and oh, here’s a nice take already from fast-working Bob Egelko.

The flag of Victory, or something, flying above The Tower at 100 McAllister:

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms UC Hastings’ Policy in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, et al. Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, et al., signifying an important win in the country’s highest court for the College’s policy on recognition of student organizations and for higher education generally.

In the ruling authored by Justice Ginsburg, the decision stated: “Compliance with Hastings’ all-comers policy, we conclude, is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum.”

“We are very pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision.  The College’s intent has always been to ensure the leadership, educational and social opportunities afforded by officially recognized student organizations are available to all students attending public institutions.  The Court’s ruling validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness,” said Leo Martinez, Acting Chancellor and Dean, Hastings College of the Law.  

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer and Sotomayor joined.  Justices Stevens and Kennedy joined the majority opinion in full and filed concurring opinions.  Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined.  

COURT’S DECISION:        Available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/

BRIEFS:        Available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/april2010.shtml

As promised, the Christians Speak, after the jump.

(more…)

The U.S. Supreme Court Puts UC Hastings Law School on the Map – CLS vs. Hastings

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

The thing about college administrators is that they love attention. So yesterday’s news of the somewhat ridiculous lawsuit fighting the non-discrimination policies for student clubs at the University of California, Hastings College of Law is nothing but a good thing for the oldest and largest law school west of the Mississippi.

If I were running the Christian Law Society (CLS), I wouldn’t ask my fellow students and/or the taxpayers to fund my little $250/year transportation fund, but that’s me. In any event, let’s expect the Supremes to smack down the CLS with finality next year, and thereby make this matter crystal clear for All. (I mean, they’re looking at this case for a reason, right?)  

This was the scene last night, with the news vans parked betwixt the 200 McAllister Building and McAllister Tower (aka The Towers).

IMG_1059

See you next year, when this all gets sorted out.

Fiat Justitia!

City Attorney Dennis Herrera Acts to Prevent Sex Discrimination in Health Care

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed a lawsuit to prevent gender discrimination in health care premiums. 

Read about how the individual health care market fails women here. And read all about today’s suit below.

Dennis J., at it again:

Herrera Challenges Constitutionality of
Insurance ‘Gender Rating’ in California
Insurance Industry Practice of Charging Women Up to 39% More
for Health Care Coverage Called Discriminatory, Unconstitutional
SAN FRANCISCO (Jan. 27, 2009) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed
suit to strike down provisions of state law that permit gender rating, a
practice by health insurers and health care service plans that can force
women to pay a significant premium or price differential based solely on
their gender. The 13-page pleading filed in San Francisco Superior Court
this morning alleges that such rating practices by health insurers deny
women their right to equal protection under the California Constitution,
and asks the court to declare the discriminatory laws void and enjoin state
officials from enforcing them.
Today’s lawsuit makes good on a Dec. 18 notice of intent Herrera sent to
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., Insurance Commissioner
Steve Poizner and Department of Managed Health Care Director Lucinda Ehnes
informing them of the City’s plans to file the constitutional challenge.
On Jan. 14, State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced legislation
to prohibit gender rating by health insurance companies in California,
which could, depending on the outcome, obviate Herrera’s legal challenge.
“Women who are priced out of private health coverage by insurance
companies’ discriminatory practices are often forced to rely on public
hospitals and clinics instead,” said Herrera. “So, gender rating isn’t
simply unfair to women — it’s unfair to all taxpayers who are forced to
subsidize health insurers’ discriminatory pricing schemes. I am grateful
to Sen. Leno for his leadership in pursuing a legislative fix that can
hopefully remove the need for the City’s lawsuit. But it is clear we need
to act now to end a practice that imposes an unfair and unconstitutional
burden on too many women in California.”
“During these difficult economic times, when more women are losing their
jobs, and employers are likely to cut their health care plans, we must
protect fair access to health care in the individual market,” said Sen.
Leno. The Senator’s bill, SB 54, to end gender rating in California, could
be heard in the State Senate as early as February.
Both Herrera’s litigation and Leno’s legislation apply only to individual
health care service plans and policies; employer-sponsored plans are
already prohibited from charging men different premiums than women in
California. A report by the National Women’s Law Center issued last
September found that California women under the age of 55 pay up to 39
percent more for insurance than men. The study looked at insurance coverage
for women at ages 25, 40 and 55.