On August 1, 2005, the California Supreme Court (the "Court"), held that business establishments that grant privileges to spouses must now extend those same privileges to registered domestic partners. The decision came out of a case brought against the Bernardo Heights Country Club (the "Club"), by Birgit Koebke, a member of the Club. Koebke argued that the membership policies of the Club, which allowed the spouse and qualifying children and grandchildren of married members to play for free, were discriminatory because the Club did not extend those same membership privileges to Koebke's registered domestic partner.
The Court ultimately concluded that the membership policies of the Club violated the California Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (the "Domestic Partner Act") In reaching its decision, the Court noted that in passing the Domestic Partners Act, which took effect on January 1, 2005, the California Legislature made it clear that one of its purposes was to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses. The Court interpreted the legislative intent behind the Domestic Partner Act to mean that there can be no distinction in the rights, privileges and benefits offered to registered domestic partners and spouses by California businesses. Based on this understanding of the legislative intent behind the Domestic Partner Act, the Court held that "a business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination." As such, the Court concluded that the membership policies of the Club violated the Domestic Partner Act. It is important to note that the Court's ruling only extends to registered domestic partners under the Domestic Partner Act and not to unregistered same sex couples.
In light of this decision, California clubs that are business establishments should review their bylaws, rules and regulations and governing policies to confirm whether registered domestic partners of club members are afforded the same membership privileges that are granted to spouses of club members. Similarly, all California business establishments that grant spousal privileges should review this case, as well as their governing policies, to determine whether this decision may have an impact on how they conduct business.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
