Amicus Curiae Brief — Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1986

—— >

Ww

Board of Directors of Rotary International, et al.,

Appellants,

v.

Rotary Club of Duarte, et al.,

Appellees.

ra

a

Appeal from the Court of Appeal of the State of California,

Second Appellate District

si

ie

ne

a

rill

Of Counsel: Counsel of Record:

Lynn Hecht Schafran Lorraine L. Loder

Sarah E. Burns California Women Lawyers

NOW Legal Defense and 649 South Olive Street

Education Fund Suite 500

99 Hudson Street Los Angeles, CA 90014

New York, New York 10013 Telephone: (213) 624-8407

Telephone: (212) 925-6635 Attorney for Amici Curiae

(Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINT CO., (800) 225-6964

or call collect (402) 343 9kS4

my)

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 393-2000

Fredric D. Woocher

Center for Law In the

Public Interest

10951 W. Pico Boulevard,

Third Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90064-2166

T : (213) 470-3000

i -i—

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI

CURIAE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT

EST 7"

B. Application Of The Unruh Act To Rotary In-

ternational Serves The ‘‘Profoundly Impor-

tant’’ State Interest Of Ensuring Nondis-

criminatory Access To Commercial Oppor-

Ee

C. Application of the Unruh Act to Rotary In-

ternational Does Not Infringe The First

Amendment Rights Of Business-Related Clubs

EA

1. Enforcement of the Unruh Act Does Not

Abridge Club Members’ Freedom of In-

timate Association 0

2. Enforcement of the Unruh Act Does Not

Abridge Club Members’ Freedom of Ex-

pressive Association — 0

a. Rotary International and Its Mem-

bers Cannot Claim the Protection of

the Constitutional Right of oe

sive Association

b. Enforcement of the Unruh Act Would

Not Interfere With Any Expressive

Purposes or Activities of Rotary In-

ternational and Other Business-Relat-

ed Clubs

13

13

21

24

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

e. <Any Intrusion on Rotary’s or Its

Members’ Freedom of Expressive

Association Is Outweighed by the

Compelling State Interest in Ensur-

ing Non-Discriminatory Access to

Commercial Opportunities in Our So-

ciety 27

V. CONCLUSION —.. .

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CasEs :

Abrahams v. Baylor College of Medicine, 581 F.

Supp. 1570 (S.D. Tex. 1984) 26

California Federal Savings € Loan Ass’n v. Guerra,

— U.S. —, Slip. op. (1987) 10

Casey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678

(1977) 13

Fernandez v. Wynn Ou Co., 653 F.2d 1273 (9tu

Cir. 1981) 26

Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984) —. 23, 25

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) 22

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) 23

Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973) 26

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447

(1978) 23

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)... 13

Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609

(1984) Passim

Rotary Club of Duarte v. Directors of Rotary In-

ternational, 178 Cal.App.3d 1035, 224 Cal.Rptr.

213 (1986) 21

Rotary Club of Seattle-International District v.

Rotary International (W.D. Wash. No. C86-

1475M) 14

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) oO. 14, 25, 27

In Re U.S. Power Squadrons, 59 N.Y.2d 401, 452

N.E.2d 1199, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871 (Ct. App. 1983) 15, 16

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974)... 18

Wright v. Cork Club, 315 F.Supp. 1143 (S.D. Tex.

1970) 16

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) 13

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

TREATISES AND PERIODICALS

All Male Club of 60 Years Finally Relents, L.A.

Times, June 19, 1986, at 1 4

Ansberry, Board Games, Wall St. J., March 24,

1985, at 4D, col. 1 8

Avner and Bacharach, Let’s Make A Deal—When

Private Means Business, N.Y. St. Bar J., Oct.

1985, at 12 3

Bank of America, Expense Account Guidelines (1980) 12

Babeock and Kay, Statement Submitted to the

Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, June 23, 1979,

at 1-2 9

Bartlette, Poulton-Callahan & Somers, What's

Holding Women Back, Management Weekly,

Nov. 8, 1982 8

Lynton, Behind Closed Doors: Discrimination by

Private Clubs, A Report Based on City Commis-

sion on Human Rights Hearings 15 (1975) 200s #6

Bell, Power Networking, Black Enterprise 111

(Feb. 1986) 8

Bracewell, Sanctuaries of Power, Hous. City Mag.,

May 1980, at 50 3

Burns, The Exclusion of Women from Influential

Men’s Clubs: The Inner Sanctum and the Myth

of Full Equality, 18 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 321

(1983) 3, 19

C. Kleiman, Women’s Networks 2 (1980) 7

CBS Policy, Delegations of Authority, Reimburs-

able Business Expenses, Paragraph 16, adopted

January 31, 1981... ll

California Lawyers Move on All-Male Clubs, N.Y.

Times, Aug. 31, 1986, at 35A, col. 1 10

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Century Club’s Timesmen Stuck With the Tab,

N.Y. Post, December 12, 1983, at 6, col. 1

Page(s)

12

Club in Rhode Island to Let Women Join, N.Y.

Times, June 8, 1986, at 61, col. 1 .

4

Club Membership Practices of Financial Institu-

tions: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on

Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 96th

Cong., Ist Sess. (1979)

Clubs End Bar to Women, N.Y. Times, December

31, 1986, at D16, col. 2

Comments of the Nat’! Club Ass’n. Re Regulations

Proposed By the Dept. of Labor, Office of Fed-

eral Contract Compliance Programs Dealing

With Payments By Federal Contractors to Pri-

vate Organizations (March 24, 1980)

Council on Foundations, Counct! Policy on the Use

of Private Clubs, adopted October 19, 1981 0. 11

American Jewish Congress, Discrimination at

Private Clubs, Hotels, etc., adopted June 6, 1982... 11

Executive Compensation Services, Inc., Execu-

tive Perquisites Report 1986/87 (1986)

Executive Order No. 17, Governor Mario M. Cuomo,

May 31, 1983, ‘‘Establishing State Policy on

Private Institutions Which Diseriminate’’

Ginsburg, Women as Full Members of the Club:

——

An Evolving American Ideal, 6 Hum. Rts. 1 (1975). 3

Hager, Judges Vote to Avoid Discriminatory Clubs,

11

L.A. Times, Sept. 16, 1986, at 1, col. 2

Hollingsworth, Sex Discrimination in Private Clubs,

29 Hastings L.J. 417, 421 (1977)

Hymowitz & Schellhardt, The Glass Ceiling, Wall

St. J., March 24, 1986, at 1D, col. 1

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

IBM, Position of Non-Support for Organizations

or Service Clubs Which Exclude Persons on

the Basis of Race, Color, Sex, Religion or Nat-

ural Origin, adopted 1980 12

Jost, Judges Make Private Clubs a Public Wrong,

L.A. Daily J., Sept. 22, 1986, at 2, col. 4

L. Tribe, Constitutional Law (1978) 22

Letter of J. Wilson Newman (March 30, 1981)

Testimony of the New York City Comm’n. on

the Status of Women in Support of Intro. 513

Before the General Welfare Comm. (July 30,

1980)

**Male’’ Clubs: Bar Leaders Are Members, The

Recorder, July 22, 1986 8, 20

Memorandum from Lowdrick M. Cook, Chairman

and Chief Executive Officer of ARCO to ARCO

i)

senior management (May 28, 1986) ll

Memorandum of President C. Peter McGrath, June

1984, University of Minnesota ll

New York State Bar Association, Resolution adopt-

ed January 23, 1981 11

O’Brien, Women Helping Women, Det. Free Press,

Nov. 13, 1978 7

Philadelphia Club Drops All-Male Restriction,

N.Y. Times, May 22, 1986, at A.20 4

Columbia University, Resolution Concerning Unt-

versity Participation in Clubs with Discrimina-

tory Admissions Policies, adopted January 23.

1981 11

San Francisco Bar Ass’n. Resolution, adopted

June 11, 1986 10

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Schafran, Welcome to the Club! (No Women

Need Apply), Women and Foundations/Cor-

porate Philanthropy (1981) 3

The All-Male Clubs: Threatened On All Sides,

Bus. Wk., August 11, 1980, at 90 3, 20

American Bar Association, The Use of Private

Clubs for Association Functions, adopted Oc-

tober 1978 ll

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept of Labor,

Bull. No. 1886, Job Seeking Methods Used by

American Workers, Table 3 (1972) 7

Uhlig, Do Women Belong in Rotary? No, 150 The

Rotarian No. 1, at 15 (January 1987)

18

USC Transcript (Dec. 2, 1985) at 2 ll

15

Vital Statistics, 150 The Rotarian, No. 1 at 41

(January 1987)

Why Women Executives Stop Before The Top,

Newsweek (Dec. 29, 1986/Jan. 5, 1987) at72.00.~=©=— 7

2 Utilities Halt Dues for Detroit Men’s Club, N.Y.

Times, February 12, 1986, at 10, Col. 5 11

Srarutes anp Recuations

26 U.S.C. § 162 21

42 U.S.C. § 1981 25

Treas. Reg. § 1.274-2(e) (4) (iii) (1982) 21

The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51

(Deering 1986) passim

Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 3 (1982) 28

N.Y. City Admin. Code Ch. 1 § 8-102(9) (1984) _...._ 12

Philadelphia Code Ch. 17-400 § 20-307 (1980) 0... 12

’

1

j a

’

i]

L

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF

AMICI CURIAE

Amici are national and state organizations, open to

women and men, committed to achieving equal opportunity

for women and minorities in the business, professional

and civie life of our country. Amici’s individual state-

ments of interest appear in Appendix A. Amici’s mem-

bers are personally aware of the high level of business

activity at many of the country’s purportedly ‘‘private’’

clubs and organizations, such as Rotary International, and

of the lost business opportunities when women and minor-

ities are barred from membership at these business orient-

ed clubs. Because of the direct impact on women’s and

minorities’ full access to clubs and organizations which

are centers of bu_iness and decision making activity, amici

have closely followed the progress of the case at bar and

are deeply concerned with its outcome.

O-

Il

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Amici adopt the Statement of the Case set forth by

Appellee, Rotary Club of Duarte.

S

III.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Rotary International is a large, world-wide organiza-

tion of business and professional leaders which confers

significant business advantages on its members. Appli-

eation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to Rotary Interna-

tional narrowly serves the profoundly important state in-

terest of ensuring nondiscriminatory access to commercial

opportunities, including membership in business-related

clubs and organizations. Discriminatory membership pol-

icies at such organizations have a crippling effect on the

professional opportunities and advancement of women and

minorities.

Application of the Unruh Act to business-related clubs

and organizations like Rotary International does not in-

fringe their members’ First Amendment rights of either

intimate or expressive association. Rotary’s size, obses-

sion with growth and publicity, inclusion of non-members

in its activities, business purpose and its business-oriented

selection system deprive it of any constitutional right of

intimate association.

Nor does Rotary engage in the types of expressive

activities protected by the First Amendment. If there

is any intrusion on Rotary International’s or its members’

freedom of expressive association, it is outweighed by

California’s compelling interest in removing barriers to

the economic advancement and political and social inte-

gration of all of its citizens.

IV.

ARGUMENT

A. Introduction’

In recent years, wide attention has been given to the

impact on women and minorities of exclusion from clubs

and organizations that hold themselves out as private,

but are in fact centers of business activity.' Such exclu-

sion deprives women and minorities of equal economic op-

portunity, subjects them to personal humiliation and con-

firms a belief that women and minorities are inappropriate

participants in the exercise of power by barring them

from informal centers of power. The numerous res-

olutions, executive orders and personnel policies recently

promulgated which prohibit the conduct of official busi-

ness at discriminatory clubs and organizations implicitly

recognizes that such exclusion is harmful and that there is

Private Means Business, N.Y. St. Bar }., Oct. 1985, at 12;

Burns, The Exclusion of Women from Influential Men’s

4

extensive business activity at so-called ‘‘private’’ clubs

and organizations.’ See Part IV B.2 infra.

The Duarte Rotary Club seeks to acknowledge the

reality of its club’s purposes and practices by admitting

women who meet Rotary’s membership criteria as business

and professional leaders in the community. Rotary Inter-

national, however, resists this change, pretending that it

is solely an organization of intimates providing service

to the public, has no business purpose, provides no bus-

iness-related goods or services, and confers no commercial

advantage on its members. Rotary’s Manual of Proced-

ure and the testimony offered in this and another Rotary

ease tell a different story—the story of an immense inter-

national organization avid for publicity and growth, whose

members are chosen for their standing in the business

Despite Rotary’s protestations, the business advan-

tage conferred upon members of the organization are un-

deniable, and the loss to business and professional women

excluded from its ranks severe. The substantial busi-

2 Many targets of these actions have to these

external and to the of members by

their doors to women. the Univer-

sity of Pasadena, California and

Island 's Union League and the Detroit Athletic

ness activities engaged in by Rotary make application of

the California Unruh Act a constitutionally valid effort

to remove discriminatory barriers to women’s full par-

ticipation in the business, professional, civic and political

life of their community.

This case requires the court, as in Roberts v. United

States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 612 (1984), to “‘address a

conflict between a State's efforts to eliminate gender-

based discrimination against its citizens and the constitu-

tional freedom of association asserted by members of a

private organization.”’ California seeks to apply the

Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 (‘*Un-

ruh Act’’) to protect the right of women to non-diserim-

inatory access to commercial opportunities. The same ob-

jective was deemed to be a “‘compelling state interest!

of the highest order’’ in Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 624. “‘As-

suring women equal access to such goods, privileges, and

advantages clearly furthers compelling state interests.”’

Id. at 625-26 (citations omitted). Like Minnesota, Cal-

ifornia has enacted legislation to further the compelling

state interest of assuring women and minorities equal ae-

cess to the commercial advantages available through mem-

bership in ‘private’ clubs and organizations engaged in

substantial business activity.

At issue here is California's effort to protect women

and minorities from the harm that results from exclusion

from organizations that foster business opportunities for

their members.

It has been well documented that exelusive clubs and

organizations, like Rotary, afford their members unique

opportunities for business contacts and business deals. A

study sponsored by the American Jewish Committee re-

vealed that more than half of the corporate executives

interviewed believed clubs provided valuable business con-

tacts ; over two-thirds reported that such membership adds

to one’s status in his firm or community. Burns, supra

note 1, quoting R. Powell, The Social Milieu as a Force

of Executive Promotion 105 (1969). As the New York

City Commission on Human Rights concluded after hold-

ing extensive hearings on business-oriented private clubs:

man Rights Hearing 15 (1975); see also Club Membership

Practices of Financial Institutions: Hearings Before the

Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,

96th Cong., Ist Sess. (1979).

In essence, private clubs. provide members with an

entree to the “Old Boy Network,”’ which provides men

with knowledgeable allies who help them advance in their

careers, teach them the cast of characters, and advise them

of job openings, and business opportunities. The im-

portance of access to such networks cannot be over-

estimated. The Detroit Free Press has described the

Old Boy Network as ‘‘where the power really is

. .. the mechanism that gives men a chance to push the

right buttons and meet the right people at the right time.”’

O’Brien, Women Helping Women, Det. Free Press, Nov.

13, 1978. Promotions and high-level jobs are often based

on the personal relationships forged in the closed meetings

of private clubs. The Burean of Labor Statistics reported

that almost one-third of all jobs men hold come through

personal contacts. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept.

of Labor, Job Seeking Methods used by American Work-

ers, Table 3 (1972). Most people believe the percentage is

even higher for high-level positions. C. Kleiman, Wo-

MEN’s Networks 2 (1980).

Women need the access to career enhancing networks

as much as, or more than, men. Despite the gains that

women have made in the job market in the last 20 years,

they have not attained the same professional status as

their white male colleagues. For example, although women

now fill nearly one-third of all management positions, most

are in jobs which command little authority and relatively

low pay. Hymowitz & Schellhardt, The Glass Ceiling,

Wall St. J., March 24, 1986, at 1D, col. 1. Only two ner-

cent of the top executives surveyed in 1985 were women.

Id., col. 2. A recent survey of 1,362 senior executives in

positions just under chief executive tank at the nation’s

largest companies found only 29 women. Why Women

Executives Stop Before The Top, Newsweek, (December

29, 1986/January 5, 1987), at 72. Moreover, women hold

only three to four percent of Fortune 1000 directorships.

Ansberry, Board Games, Wall St. J., March 24, 1985, at

4D, col. 1.

Aspiration, drive and talent simply are not enough

for women seeking to equal the professional accomplish-

ments of their male counterparts. Women need the in-

formal contacts, networking, and professional support that

membership in private clubs, such as Rotary International,

offer. See Bartlette, Poulton-Callahan & Somers, What’s

Holding Women Back, Management Weekly, Nov. 8, 1982;

Hollingsworth, Sex Discrimination in Private Clubs, 29

Hastings L.J. 417, 421 (1977) (‘*The exelusion of a seg-

ment of the population from such private clubs works to

severely limit the economic mobility of that segment’’) ;

Bell, Power Networking, Black Enterprise 111 (Feb. 1986)

(**[T ]o to be truly successful, you have to become a part of

the internal, often invisible, old boy network, too’’).

These clubs often argue that they are not commercial

establishments. In fact, most men-only clubs, including

Rotary, serve to promote business activity of every con-

ceivable kind. For example, the President of the Bar Asso-

ciation of San Francisco recently conceded that important

legal business, both commercial and professional, is trans-

acted at private clubs, stating: ‘‘The exclusion of women

and minorities [from private clubs] operates as an impedi-

ment to their full participation in the legal profession.’’

**Male’’ Clubs: Bar Leaders are Members, The Recorder,

July 22, 1986.

Membership in a ‘‘service’’ club like Rotary is often

a prerequisite for those who want to be successful in the

business and political world, particularly in small com-

munities like Duarte. During the debate over the adop

tion by the California Judges Association of an ethics rule

barring judges from belonging to discriminatory clubs, one

judge candidly termed membership in service organiza-

tions like Rotary ‘‘an electoral necessity’’; another judge

admitted that he owed his election to belonging to Kiwanis

and the Elks Club. Jost, Judges Make Private Clubs a

Public Wrong, L.A. Daily J., Sept. 22, 1986, at 2, col. 4.

In the proceedings below, Jacob Frankel, president of

California State College at Bakersfield, testified that Ro-

tary membership was essential for a college president to

raise funds; all members of his cabinet were encouraged

to join Rotary as part of their jobs. (R.T. 70). [Jt. App.

34).

Besides depriving women and minorities of access to

professional development, discriminatory business-related

clubs have other negative ramifications as well. They per-

petuate the treatment of women and minorities as second-

class citizens. As two women law professors testified be-

fore the United States Senate :.

The existence of such clubs today is evidence that

there are still many who think that minorities are not

fit persons with whom to associate. The exclusion of

women from private clubs delivers a different but no

less offensive message. It, too, is a reminder that the

legal, political, and economic role assigned to women

throughout most of our history was a quite restricted

one.

Barbara Allen Babcock & Herma Hill Kay, Statement Sub-

mitted to the United States Senate Committee on the Judi-

ciary, June 23, 1979, at 1-2.

10

Society also suffers when women and minorities are

excluded from the opportunities presented by membership

in business-oriented clubs and organizations. This Court

has often condemned discrimination based on arcane and

stereotypical assumptions about the relative needs and

capacities of the sexes or races that bear no relationship

to the actual ability of individuals. See Jaycees, 468 U.S.

at 625; see also California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

v. Guerra, — US. —, slip. op. at 8 (1987). Not only does

the exclusion of women and minorities from discriminatory

clubs demean an enlightened society by its implicit deni-

gration of their worth and abilities, but it also tangibly in-

jures the commercial and non-commercial foundation of

our nation by depriving us of their full contribution. See

generally, Jaycees, supra.

Numerous organizations and entities have recently ree-

ognized the negative effect of discriminatory membership

policies on women and minorities and have enacted meas-

ures designed to prohibit such practices. For example, in

1986, both the Bar Association of San Francisco and the

California State Bar Board of Governors adopted resolu-

tions urging law firms and corporate legal departments to

refrain from scheduling meetings or reimbursing dues or

expenses at such clubs. California Lawyers Move on All-

Male Clubs, N.Y. Times, Aug. 31, 1986, at 35A, col. 1. The

Bar recognized that ‘‘continued adherence to those policies

and practices imposes an unfair and arbitrary professional

disadvantage on those members of the [Bar] Association

who are subjected to discrimination .. .’’ San Francisco

Bar Ass’n. Resolution, adopted June 11, 1986. The Cali-

fornia Judges Association amended its judicial code of

ethics and the Judicial Conference of the United States

ll

amended the commentary to Cannon 2 of its code of Judi-

cial Conduct to declare that it is ‘‘inappropriate’’ for mem-

bers of the judiciary to belong to discriminatory clubs.

Hager, Judges Vote to Avoid Discriminatory Clubs, L.A.

Times, Sept. 16, 1986, at 1, col. 2.

Further, the American Bar Association, the State Bar

of New York, American Jewish Congress, the Council on

Foundations and such academic institutions as Columbia

University, the University of Minnesota and the Univer-

sity of Southern California prohibit their committees,

sections and staffs from holding meetings and other of-

ficial functions at clubs that discriminate.’

Among corporations, ARCO, Michigan Consolidated

Gas Company, CBS, IBM, The New York Times and Bank

of America no longer pay for their employees to be mem-

bers of such clubs nor reimburse business expenses in-

curred there.‘

3 American Bar Association, The Use of Private Clubs for As-

sociation Functions, adopted October 1978; New York State

Bar Association, Resolution adopted january 23, 1981;

American Jewish Congress, Discrimination at Private Clubs,

Hotels, etc., adopted june 6, 1982; Council on Foundations,

Council Policy on the Use of Private Clubs, adopted Oc-

tober 19, 1981; Columbia University, Resolution Concern-

ing University Participation in Cl with Discriminatory

issions Policies, adopted January 23, 1981; Memoran-

dum of President C. Peter McGrath, June 1984, University

of Minnesota; USC Transcript, Dec. 2, 1985, at 2.

* Memorandum from Lowdrick M. Cook, Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer of ARCO to ARCO senior management

(May 28, 1986); 2 Utilities Halt Dues for Detroit Men's

Club, N.Y. Times, February 12, 1986 at 10, Col. 5; CBS

Policy, Delegations of Authority, Reimbursable Business

(Continued on following page)

12

Philadelphia has adopted legislation banning the city

from awarding contracts to any company that pays for

membership or expenses at such clubs and from reimburs-

ing public officials for expenses incurred at such clubs.

Philadelphia Code Ch. 17-400 and Sec. 20-307 (1980). New

York City has amended its definition of a public accommo-

dation to include any organization that has more than 400

members, regularly serves meals and regularly receives

payments from or on behalf of non-members in furtherance

of trade or business. New York City Admin. Code Ch. 1

§ 8102(9) (1984). And, Governor Mario Cuomo has is-

sued an Executive Order barring the conduct of official

New York State business at such facilities.*

These actions were taken after extensive debate on

the policies of private clubs and their discriminatory im-

pact. The conclusions of the states and cities which re-

viewed the matter were unanimous. All these new policies

embodied ‘‘a recognition . .. of the importance, both to the

individual and to society, of removing the barriers to eco-

nomic advancement and political and social integration

that have historically plagued certain disadvantaged

groups, including women.’’ Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 626.

(Continued from previous page)

Expenses, Paragraph 16, adopted january 31, 1981; IBM,

Position of Non-Support for Organizations or Service Clubs

Which Exclude Persons on the Basis of Race, Color, Sex,

Religion or Natural Origin, 1980; Century Club’s

Timesmen Stuck With Tab, N.Y. Post, December 12,

_— a5" Bank of America, Expense Account Guide-

ines (17 :

$ Executive Order No. 17, Governor Mario M. Cuomo, May

31, 1983, “Establishing State Policy on Private Institutions

Which Discriminate.”

Application of the Unruh Act to Rotary does not

abridge either of the two components of the First Amend-

ment right of association, intimate and expressive, identi-

fied in /aycees, 468 U.S. at 618.

1. Enforcement Of The Unruh Act Does Not

Abridge Club Members’ Freedom Of Intimate

Association.

In Jaycees, this Court explained that the concept of

constitutionally protected ‘‘freedom of association’’ ac-

tually incorporates two distinct. albeit sometimes coincid-

ing, components. The first, termed the freedom of inti-

mate association, protects *‘choices to enter inte and main-

tain certain intimate human relationships’’ against undue

intrusion by the State. 468 U.S. at 617-18. This Court has

limited the constitutional protection for intimate associa-

tions to ‘‘the formation and preservation of certain kinds

of highly personal relationships.’’ /Jaycees, 468 U.S. at

618. See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

(marriage); Casey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S.

678 (1977) (childbirth); Pierce wv. Society of Sisters, 268

U.S. 510 (1925) (child rearing and education).

In contrast, this Court has consistently refused to con-

fer special status upon those relationships that are re-

moved from the core concept of the home as the province

of constitutionally protected privacy. See, e.¢., Village of

Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) (court dismissed

associational freedom challenge to ordinance preventing

six unrelated individuals from living together). See also

14

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) (prohibiting

racially discriminatory admissions policies of private

school ‘‘does not represent governmental intrusion into

the privacy of the home or a similarly intimate setting’’).

Upon analysis of those features identified as typical of

relationships entitled to the constitutional protection of

intimate association—small size, selectivity and exclusivity

—this Court in Jaycees had no diffieulty concluding that

the Jaycees organization was ‘‘clearly . . . outside of the

category of relationships worthy of this kind of constitu-

tional protection.’’ 468 U.S. at 620. No different result

can be reached in this case. Rotary is an organization) of

enormous size, with an intense concern with growth and

publicity, whose members associate with hundreds of thou-

sands of Rotarians worldwide. It allows the participation

of non-members in most Rotary events, provides business

training and opportunities to its members, and bases

its selection system on business attributes. Given these

factors, Rotary’s members do not have any intimate asso-

ciation to protect.

(a) Size. In August 1982, Rotary had 907,750 mem-

bers making it three times the size of Jayeees. Appel-

lants repeatedly state that the average club membership

is only 46. (App. Brief at 7). Yet, this average is even

larger than the Jaycees’ average chapter. See Jaycees,

468 U.S. at 613. Some Rotary Clubs have several hundred

members. The Bakersfield, California Rotary Club, for

example, has 200 members. (Jt. App. at 34). A elub in the

Seattle area has over 750 members. Rotary Club of Se-

attle-International District v. Rotary International (W.D.

Wash. No. C86-1475M) Hough Deel. 9 3, 4.

15

Moreover, Rotary members do not associate only with

the members of their own club. Rotary requires members

to attend meetings every week wherever they may be. (Ro-

tary Basic Library, Vol. 1 at 67-69). [Jt. App. at 84-85].

Members are thus in association in varying degrees with

the more than 900,000 Rotarians worldwide.

Further, Rotary is engaged in the assiduous pursuit

of growth. Rotary’s Manual of Procedure gives explicit

directions to each club to recruit new members and main-

tain a constant ‘‘ pattern of growth’’ (1981 Manual of Pro-

cedure at 92-99, 134-46) [Jt. App. at 49-54, 61-67]; the

**Publie Relations”’ section of the Manual directs each club

to have a publie relations coramittee which is to use every

possible method to keep Rotary’s name before the public

to attract new members. 1981 Manual of Procedure at

166-68. [Jt. App. at 70-73]. Rotary’s success in achiev-

ing growth is evident; membership stood at 907,750 mem-

bers in 19,788 clubs when this suit commenced in 1982;

today there are 1,021,624 members in 22,470 clubs. Vital

Statistics, 150 The Rotarian, No. 1, January 1987, at 41.

This avid appetite for growth is incompatible with econ-

cepts of intimacy and seclusion.

(b) Selectivity. Rotary particularly argues that it is

distinguishable from Jaycees because Rotary has a ‘‘ selec.

tive’’ membership policy.

One repeatedly stated criterion for what makes a club

private is that members not only be selected, as opposed

to admitted wholesale, but that ‘‘membership is deter-

mined by subjective, not objective criteria.’ In Re

U.S. Power Squadrons, 59 N.Y. 2d 401, 452 N.E. 2d 1199,

16

465 N.Y.S8.2d 871, 876 (Ct. App. 1983); Wright v. Cork

Club, 315 F.Supp. 1143, 1153 (S.D. Tex. 1970).

Contrary to this standard of subjectivity, Rotary’s

‘*selectivity’’ is premised on objective business-related cri-

teria. Rotary’s selection process uses a business classi-

fication system, selecting members as representatives of

their business or profession. (App. Brief at 7). When a

new member is proposed, the classification committee first

ascertains that the proposed member holds a leadership

position in ‘‘an open classification of business or profes-

sion.’’ (Id. at 8). ‘‘The membership committee evaluates

the candidate from the standpoint of character, business

and social standing.”’ (App. Brief at 8, emphasis sup-

plied).

Thus, Rotary’s selection svstem is thoroughly tainted

by commercialism, which is en ugh to undermine its claim

to a right of intimate association and justify the state's

interest in ensuring nondiseriminatory access to the com-

mercial opportunities available in Rotary. Furthermore,

requiring Rotary to consider the admission of women on

their merits will not deprive the organization of its right

to choose members for their business/professional affilia-

tions or for their congeniality. Application of the Unruh

- Act will only bar the wholesale exclusion of women and

minorities on invidious discriminatory grounds. Such

grounds are not entitled to constitutional protection.

(ce) Publicity. Another criterion which has been men-

tioned in lower court cases in determining whether an

organization is ‘‘private’’ is whetner ite publicity is aimed

solely at its own members. See In Re U.S. Pow or Squad-

rons, supra; Wright v. Cork Club, supra. Rotary’s Manual

of Procedure reveals a virtual obsession with directing

17

publicity to the public and keeping Rotary constantly in

the public eye. The Manual of Procedure directs clubs’

public relations committees ‘‘to take a comprehensive ap-

proach to public relations’’ and ‘‘to utilize newspapers,

radio, television, magazines and firms in telling the Rotary

story.”’ 1981 Manual of Procedure at 166-67. |Jt. App.

at 70-72).

Rotary’s constant attention to publicity is another

means by which it confers a business advantage on its

members, who are regularly brought into the public eye

tion identified. Like its appetite for growth, Rotary’s

appetite for publicity is antithetical to any meaningful

concepts of intimacy and seclusion.

(d) Jnvolvement of Non-Members. Rotary’s claim

that its clubs ‘‘have well defined policies restricting par-

ticipation to members’’ (App. Brief at ii) is belied by its

Manual of Procedure. Individual members are urged to

make ‘‘a special effort’’ to invite guests to weekly meet-

ings ‘‘in order that non-Rotarian members of the com-

munity may be better informed about the function of the

Rotary Club and its aim and objects.’’ 1981 Manual of

Procedure at 35. [Jt. App. at 39]. Like Jayeees, Rotary

conducts a wide range of community service projects in

which members of the public of both sexes and other or-

ganizations participate. Jd. at 42-47. [Jt. App. at 40-45).

Further, non-Rotarians are invited to speak at business

relations conferences (Rotary International No. 540) [Jt.

App. at 14-17] and international conventions. 1981 Man-

ual of Procedure at 54. [Jt. App. at 45).

Appellants urge that, unlike Jayeees, Rotary has no

women’s affiliates, so that to introduce women into Rotary

would be a sharp break with tradition. Y-+, the Manual

of Procedure specifically commends the ‘‘fine work’’ per-

formed by ‘‘ladies committees or other associations com-

posed of women relatives of Rotarians cooperating with

and supporting them in service and other Rotary club

activities.” Id. at 47. [Jt. App. at 44-45]. A recent Ro-

tarian article names these groups as the Rotary Anns, In-

ner Wheel and Las Damas de Rotary. Uhlig, Do Women

Belong in Rotary? No, 150 The Rotarian at 15 ef seq.

(January 1987). Thus, members of the public, including

women, are regular participants in Rotary activities.

(e) Purpose. One of the most salient factors in an-

alyzing an organization's ability to claim the protection of

freedom of. intimate association is its purpose. If the

foundation and focus of an association is to any substan-

tial extent commercial or professional, as is Rotary’s,

then that association does not possess the requisite at-

tributes of intimacy to bring it within the relationships

entitled to special constitutional consideration.* Although

Rotary engages in a variety of community service pro-

jects, service to the public is only one of its purposes.

Rotary's Basic Library states that Rotary's founder, Paul

Harris, ‘‘had an idea that friendship and business could

be mixed and that doing so would result in more business

and more friendship for everyone involved."’ (Rotary

Basie Library, Vol. 3, Vocational Service, at 5). (Jt. App.

at 89).

Sy ened RD pe = fay 4 B-3)), even though

the Court of that “finding” was not

by the evidence and is therefore of no import Cali

fornia law. See jt. App. C-26.

19

Concern for members’ business success continues to

be a prime feature of Rotary activities. Rotary Inter-

national No. 540, describing Rotary ‘‘ Business Relations

Conferences,’’ states :

One of the most satisfying vocational service pro-

grams for the Rotarian is the business relations con-

ference. The Rotarian learns management techniques

that help improve his own business or professional

skills. He receives the inspiration of discussing busi-

ness problems with experts in his own or related

fields.

[Jt. App. at 14]. The Manual of Procedure, under “‘ Bus-

iness Advice and Assistance to Rotarians’’, urges each

elub to establish committees to provide confidential bus-

iness advice for members and to hold ‘‘clinies’’ for mem-

bers to discuss problems of an economic nature. 1981

Manus! of Procedure at 38. [.Jt. App. at 40].

The trial court record disclosed that Rotary members

often deduct their dues as a business expense or obtain

reimbursement from their emplovers. At least three wit-

nesses testified that either their employers paid their

dues (R.T. 20, 32, 69) or that the Internal Revenue Ser-

vice allowed the deduction during income tax audits. (R.T.

4, 20). A former treasurer of the Bakersfield Rotary Club

testified that, out of the club's 200 members, the dues of

all but eight or ten were paid by their companies or bus-

nesses, (R.T. 70).

Deduction of members’ dues and club-related ex-

penses in private clubs is pervasive. One survey found!

that 58% of the banks and 53% of the savings and loan

associations contacted regularly paid membership dues in

private organizations for their executives. Burns, supra,

18 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. at 329, 2.22. A recent compre.

2

hensive survey of executive perquisites showed substan-

tial percentages of each of the seven industry groups

studied paying for luncheon and supper club dues for one

or more management levels. Executive Compensation Ser-

viees, Inc.. Executive Perquisites Report 1986 87 (1986) at

66-69. In 1980, the National Club Associations estimated

that fully half of the approximately 300,000 federal con-

tractors paid or reimbursed certain dues or expenses of

their employees at private clubs. Comments of the Nat’l

Club Ass’n. Re Regulations Propesed By the Dept. of La-

bor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs,

Dealing With Payments By Federal Contractors to Pri-

vate Organizations (March 24, 1980). Many law firms re-

imburse lawyers for dues and, even these that do not, repay

client entertainment charges «pent at such clubs. See

**Male"’ Clubs: Bar Leaders are Members, The Recorder,

July 22, 1986. The extent of this practice can best be seen

in a letter sent by the former president of New York City’s

University Club to its membership: ‘‘A recent analysis of

dues and expense payments showed that nearly 40% of re-

ceipts were paid by checks drawn on business accounts:

this is only part of the total since many persons pay on their

ers.”’ Letter of J. Wilson Newman (March 30, 1981) Tes-

timony of the New York City Comm'n. on the Status of

Women in Support of Intro. 513 Before the General Wel-

fare Comm., (July 30, 1980). The National Club Associa-

tion reported that 37% of city clubs’ and 26% of country

elubs’ total income came from company paid memberships.

The All.Male Clubs: Threatened on all Sides, Bus. Wk.,

August 11, 1980, at 90.

Such practices clearly contradict any argument that

21

deduction constitutes a representation to the government

that club actvities are business-related. The federal In-

ternal Revenue Code provides that only ‘‘the ordinary and

necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable

year in carrying on any trade or business’? may be de-

ducted from income taxes. 26 U.S.C. 4 162. For the dedue-

tion to be allowed for a club-related expense, federal tax

regulations further require that a club be used for business

purposes at least 50% of the time. Treas. Reg.

§ 1.274-2(e) (4) (iii) (1982). Treating club-related expenses

as a business deduction is thus prima facie evidence that

membership serves a business purpose or confers a pro-

fessional advantage.

Thus, the Court of Appeals properly concluded:

The evidence simply does not support the trial court’s

finding that the business advantages are merely inci-

dental. By limiting membership in local clubs to busi-

ness and professional leaders in the community, Inter-

national has in effect provided a forum which encour-

ages business relations to grow and which enhances

the commercial advantages of its members.

Rotary Club of Duarte v. Directors of Rotary Interna-

tional, 178 Cal. Apn.3d 1035, 1058, 224 Cal.Rptr. 213 (1986).

When the indicia of intimate association—size, selec-

tivity, publicity, seclusion, and purpose—are examined, it

is clear that Rotary does not merit the protection of a right

of intimate association.

2. Enforcement Of The Unruh Act Does Not

Abridge Club Members’ Freedom Of Expres-

sive Association.

The second aspect of the constitutional right of associa-

tion identified in Jaycees is the ‘‘freedom of expressive

22

association.’’ 468 U.S. at 622. Rotary International and

its individual club members cannot claim immunity from

California’s anti-discrimination law by relying on this

component of freedom of association.

a. Rotary International And Its Members

Cannot Claim The Protection Of The Constitu-

tional Right Of Expressive Association.

The right to associate for expressive purposes, while

not itself explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, is

a necessary concomitant of an individual’s liberty to en-

gage in protected expressive activities. 468 U.S. at 622.

As such, the right applies only to those organizations

whose purpose for associating is ‘‘the advancement of be-

liefs and ideas.”” NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460

(1958). Appellants’ theory of freedom of association

would uproot the right to expressive association from its

First Amendment moorings. Rotary claims constitutional

immunity from California’s anti-discrimination law for

an organization whose primary purposes and activities are

commercial rather than expressive. Under the cireum-

stances, acceptance of appellants’ claim of free association

would trivialize and even denigrate the First Amend-

ment’s protection of free expression.

Discriminatory conduct is not entitled to constitution-

al protection simply because it is practiced by a group,

rather than by individuals. Rather, the Court must first

determine whether Rotary’s activities can appropriately

be characterized as protected expression. See Jaycees,

468 U.S. at 635-36; see generally, L. Tribe, Constitutional

Law §§ 12-23, at 702 (1978) (defining the First Amend-

ment freedom of association as ‘‘a right to join with others

to pursue goals independently protected by the First

Amendment—such as political advocacy, litigation (re-

garded as a form of advocacy), or religious worship’’)

(footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original).

Groups whose activities are not inherently expressive

have received mixed treatment. For example, in NAACP

v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429-30 (1963), the Court struck

down a state statute restricting the associational freedom

of a law firm engaged in ‘‘ political expression’’ to achieve

social goals. Yet, a law firm engaged in an ordinary com-

mercial practice is afforded no special First Amendment

associational protection. See, e.g., Hishon v. King and

Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984); see also Ohralik v. Ohio

State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447, 459 (1978) (‘A law-

yer’s procurement of remunerative employment is a sub-

ject only marginally affected with First Amendment con-

cerns’’).

The right of free speech is at the heart of the Court's

willingness to extend constitutional protection to an asso-

ciation’s internal affairs. Accordingly, Rotary can claim

special First Amendment protection under the banner of

freedom of association only if it can show that it truly has

the purpose of advancing beliefs or ideas. No such show-

ing can be made here. There is no indication in the ree-

ord, and no suggestion in Appellants’ brief, that protected

expression is even an ‘‘insubstantial part’’ of Rotary’s

purposes and activities.

Moreover, like the Jaycees, Rotary has chosen to

“enter||the market place of commerce in a[] substan-

tial degree,’’ and, in so doing, it has forfeited ‘‘the com-

plete control over its membership that it would otherwise

enjoy if it confined its affairs to the marketplace of ideas.’’

Id. at 636. (O’Connor, J., concurring). As the previous

sections demonstrate, Rotary has a commercial purpose

and engages in substantial business activity. According-

ly, the Court should not allow Rotary’s sweeping invoca-

tion of associational freedom to insulate it from coverage

under California’s anti-discrimination law.

b. Enforcement Of The Unruh Act Would

Not Interfere With Any Expressive —

Of Activities Of Rotary International And

Other Business-Related Clubs.

Even if Rotary and other business-related clubs en-

gaged in activities that invoked the protection of the First

Amendment right of expression, Rotary ‘‘ha[s] failed to

demonstrate that [the Unruh Act] imposes any serious

burdens on the male members’ freedom of expressive as-

sociation.’ Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 626. In particular, there

is ‘‘no basis in the record for concluding that admission

of women as full voting members will impede the organiza-

tion’s ability to engage in [] protected activities or to dis-

seminate its preferred views.”’ Jd. at 627.

There is no conceivable ground for positing that the

consideration of women for membership in Rotary would

somehow interfere with the organization’s stated objec-

tive: to ‘‘provide humanitarian service, encourage high

ethical standards in all vocations and help build goodwill

and peace in the world.’’ 1981 Manual of Procedure, at 7.

[Jt. App. 35]. Rendering civie services and responding to

community needs do not in any way require a single-sex

membership. To the contrary, the record established that

many Rotary clubs, with the encouragement of Rotary

International, seek the close cooperation and support of

women in their service and other club-related activities,

25

even establishing auxiliary women’s committees for this

very purpose. /d. at 47. [Jt. App. 44-45].’ Cf. Jaycees,

468 U.S. at 627. (participation of women in many of Jay-

cees’ activities dispels claim that admission of women will

impair organization’s symbolic message). In short, as in

Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. at 78, appellant

‘thas not shown how its ability to fulfill such a function

would be inhibited by a requirement that it consider [a

women] for |membership] on her merits.’

7 This is typical of most of the so-called “private” business

clubs —— Se throughout the country.

Women are often al (and sometimes encouraged)

to participate in the club’s activities as wives, guests or af-

filiates, while being denied the commercial opportunities

and advantages that first-class membership would provide.

* Rotary International and other ciubs cannot shield them-

selves from application of the Unruh Act vy claiming that

a belief in its male-only membership policy is one of the

fundamental tenets of the organization, and hence is it-

does not always enjoy constitutional protection. This dis-

tinction was the basis for this Court's holding in Runyon

vs. McCrary, supra, that radically discriminatory admission

practices of private nonsectarian schools were unlawful

under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

It is conceivable, , that for some types of organiza-

tions, such as the Ku Klux Klan, the expressive content of

its discriminatory membership criteria is so intimately tied

to the very purposes, beliefs, and pronouncements of the

organization, that government regulation of its membership

criteria would constitute an infringement on its freedom

of expression. But that is certainly not the situation here.

Indeed, Rotary International does not really contend

that requiring local clubs to consider women for member-

ship would interfere with the achievement of any of the

organization’s commendable service objectives. Rather,

it asserts only that admitting women to membership in

local California clubs, as the Duarte chapter desires to do,

‘‘would comprise a material interference with deeply felt

choices of association preference of many Rotarians.’’

(App. Brief at 34.) Yet, this Court has time and again

rejected any notion that the First Amendment right of ex-

pressive association protects the social preferences of an

organization’s members, at least when those preferences

demand the exclusion of an entire category of individuals

based solely on their race or sex. Norwood v. Harrison,

cal

if

le

GET

:

ru

if

if

et

i

$7 if

oeiite

t

:

Tie

f

iH

z

oI

3

;

2

272

;

\ 4

ee

ak

i

5

uf

27

413 U.S. 455 (1973), accord, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S.

160, 175-76 (1976).

In sum, application of the Unruh Act to Rotary works

no infringement on the organization’s or its members’

freedom of expressive association. Like the Minnesota

law at issue in Roberts, the Unruh Act‘ Requires no change

in the [Rotary’s] creed . . . , and it imposes no restrictions

on the organization's ability to exclude individuals with

ideologies or philosophies different from those of its exist-

ing members.”’ Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 627.. Accordingly,

there is no First Amendment violation in this case.

This Court has often admonished that, however valued

the right to associate for expressive purposes may be, it

is not absolute. Rather, ‘‘{i)nfringemenis on that right

may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling

state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that

cannot be achieved through means significantly less re-

strictive of associational freedoms.’’ Jaycees, 468 U.S. at

623. (citations omitted). As disevssea ... Part IVR, swepre,

the Unruh Act—and its application to Rotary Internation-

al in this case—‘‘ plainly serves compelling state .nterests of

the highest order.’’ Jd. Here, as in Jayeees, to the extent

that application of the Unruh Act creates any burden on

Appellants’ right to associate, that impact is no greater

than is necessary to achieve the state’s goal of eradicating

discrimination. Jd. at 624."°

As discussed above, the law makes no attempt to inter-

fere with, and has no impact upon, the purposes and ac-

tivities of the Rotary organization. It demands only that

women be given the same opportunity as men to join

Rotary, that blacks be given the same opportunity as whites

to benefit from the commercial services and advantages

that membership in Rotary provides. The law seeks only

to remove an artificial barrier to membership that bears no

relationship to any legitimate functions or objectives of the

organization. As such, the Unruh Act ‘‘ ‘responds pre-

cisely to the substantive problem which legitimately con-

cerns’ the State and abridges uo more speech or associa-

tional freedom than is necessary to accomplish that pur-

pose.’’ Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 629 (quoting City Council v.

Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 810 (1984)).

10 Rotary International contends that the state’s interest in

eliminating discrimination is not sufficiently compelling

because Rotary is not engaged in the distribution of “pub-

licly available goods, services and other advantages.” See

App. Brief at 26-36. Rotary’s attempt to distinguish this

case from that in Jaycees by contrasting its allegedly selec-

tive availability of advantages with Jaycees’ references to

publicly available goods and services is misplaced. This

Court’s use of that phrase was occasioned by the langu-

age and breadth of Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which

makes specific reference to “publicly available’ goods,

services, etc. in vogee Fy. scope of its coverage. See

—" Stat. § 363.03, subd. 3 (1982) (quoted at 468 U.S.

at .

Se .

29

V.

CONCLUSION

California’s compelling interest in eliminating dis-

crimination in the availability of commercial opportunities

outweighs any freedom of intimate or expressive associa-

tion held by Rotary, especially given the substantial busi-

ness activities engaged in by Rotary and the substantial

commercial advantages available to its members. Amici

therefore submit that this Court should affirm the decision

below.

Respectfully submitted,

Lorraine L. Lover

California Women Lawyers

649 South Olive Street

Suite 500

Los Angeles, California 90014

Telephone: (213) 624-8407

Attorney for Amici Curiae

Of Counsel:

Lynn Hecut ScHAFRAN

Saran EK. Burns

NOW Legal Defendant and

Education Fund

99 Hudson Street

New York, New York 10013

Telephone: (212) 925-6635

Bern H. Parker

San Francisco Women

Lawyers Alliance

Three Embareadero Center

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 393-2000

Frepertc D. WoocHErR

Center for Law In the

Public Interest

10951 W. Pico Boulevard,

Third Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90064-2166

Telephone: (213) 470-3000

Susan KE. Nasu

Women Lawyers’ Association

of Los Angeles

355 S. Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 683-9201

a

App. 1

APPENDIX

AMICI’S STATEMENT OF INTEREST

American Jewish Committee (‘‘AJC’’) is a * ational

organization of approximately 50,000 members wh.ch was

founded in 1906 for the purpose of protecting the civil and

religious rights of Jews. AJC believes this goal can best

be accomplished by helping to preserve and promote the

constitutional rights of all Americans. Specifically, AJC

supports equal rights under the law for women and is com-

mitted to the elimination of gender-based discrimination.

AJC appeared before this Court as amicus curiae in Rob-

erts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra.

American Women in Radio and Television, Inc.

(AWRT) is a not-for-profit, national organization of

women and men who work as professionals in radio, tele-

vision, cable, advertising, public relations and closely re-

lated fields. With nearly 3,000 members in more than 50

chapters coast to coast, AWRT, established in 1951, is the

oldest continuing professional broadcast organization in

the nation. Its membership is representative of the wide

spectrum of professionals in the electronic media and

allied fields and includes station and company owners and

managers, writers, producers, directors, account execu-

tives, media buyers, lawyers, engineers, on-air talent, edi-

tors, researchers, analysts, reporters, artists, and other

qualified professionals. The objectives of AWRT, as

stated in its Bylaws, are: to work worldwide to improve

the quality of the electronic media; to promote the entry,

development and advancement of women in the electronic

media and their allied fields; to serve as a medium of com-

munication and idea exchange; and to become involved in

community concerns. AWRT is committed to advancing

App. 2

the professional development of women in the industry and

to providing opportunities for networking among leaders

in the industry. AWRT’s membership is restricted, as is

Rotary’s, to business leaders and professionals. However,

male members of AWRT are eligible for membership in

Rotary International; but AWRT’s female members are

ineligible solely because they are women. AWRT’s female

members are denied the commercial and networking oppor-

tunities that are available to its male members in Rotary

International solely because of their gender.

California Women Lawyers (‘‘CWL’’) is a statewide

bar association representing the interests of the approxi-

mately 15,000 women lawyers in the State of California.

It has both individual members and 24 local affiliates

throughout the state. )Women Lawyers’ Association of Los

Angeles (‘*‘WLALA’’) is a county-wide bar association

affiliated with CWL. The membership of CWL and

WLALA includes both male and female lawyers, judges

an law students, all of whom are concerned with the legal

rights and equal treatment of women. The ability of

women to compete effectively in the marketplace has been

and is being hindered by their exclusion from discrimina-

tory private clubs and organizations that foster the busi-

ness goals of their all male, mostly all-white, membership.

For this reason CWL took an active role in urging the

California State Bar and the California Judicial Council

to adopt a resolution and an amendment to the code of

ethics, respectively, discouraging participation in private

clubs which discriminate on the basis of sex, race or re-

ligion.

Center For Constitutional Rights (‘*CCR’’) was born

of the civil rights movement in the South. CCR attorneys

Te

App. 3

have been active in many of the struggles for equality

waged by different groups in our society. CCR attorneys

have been involved in cases dealing with employment dis-

crimination, reproductive rights, voting rights and fair

housing. Through litigation and public education, CCR

has worked to protect and make meaningful the constitu-

tional and statutory rights of women, Blacks, Puerto Ri-

cans, Native Americans and Chicanos. CCR appeared be-

fore this Court as amicus curiae in Roberts v. U.S. Jay-

cees, supra.

Coalition of Labor Union Women (‘‘CLUW’”’) is a

membership organization of labor union women who are

interested in improving working conditions and eradicat-

ing sex discrimination in all aspects of employment and

employment related advancement. CLUW believes that

organized and unorganized women are entitled to full par-

ticipation in all facets of business and civic life. CLUW

appeared before this Court as amicus curiae in Roberts v.

U.S. Jaycees, supra.

Connecticut Womens Educational and Legal Fund

(‘“*CWEALF’’) is a non-profit public interest law firm

specializing in cases of sex discrimination. Since its in-

ception in 1975, CWEALF has represented women in num-

erous cases, including women seeking equal access to or-

ganizations with discriminatory membership policies.

CWEALF has also been active in educating women about

their legal rights. CWEALF appeared before this Court

as amicus curiae in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra.

Equal Rights Advocates (‘‘ERA’’) is a San Fran-

cisco-based public interest legal and educational corpora-

tion specializing in the area of sex discrimination. Since

its inception over twelve years ago, ERA has litigated cases

App. 4

aimed at the promotion of equality of the sexes under law.

ERA has worked to ensure the equal employment opportu-

nity rights of women and the enforcement of state and

federal legislation enacted to guarantee women freedom

from discrimination. ERA appeared before this Court as

amicus curiae in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra.

National Organization For Women (‘‘NOW”’) is a

national membership organization of 150,000 women and

men in over 750 chapters throughout the country dedicated

to assuring equal economic, social and political opportu-

nity for all women. Since its founding in 1967, NOW has

been the largest feminist membership organization dedi-

eated to combatting sex discrimination and removing bar-

riers to women’s full participation in all aspects of Ameri-

can society. NOW participated as amicus curiae before

this court in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, supra. NOW

recognizes the importance of equal access for women to

organizations like Rotary International which provide

business advice and assistance and entry into a network

of influential business and community leaders.

The NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (‘‘NOW

LDEF’’) is a not-for-profit civil rights organization that

performs a broad range of legal and educational services

in support of women’s efforts to eliminate sex-based dis-

crimination and secure equal rights). NOW LDEF was

founded in 1970 by leaders of the National Organization

for Women, a membership organization of over 150,000

women and men in more than 750 chapters throughout the

country.

Because the exclusion of women from clubs and organ-

izations which significantly impact the business and civic

life of the community affects far more women than is gen-

ead

ee

App. 9

erally supposed, this is an issue with vhich NOW LDEF

has been involved for many years. NOW LDEF worked

closely with the Minnesota Attorney General over a five

year period and filed several amicus briefs in the case

successfully challenging the sex discriminatory policies

of the Jaycees, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S.

609 (1984). NOW LDEF also represented NOW-NYS

when it participated as amicus before the New York Court

of Appeals in In re U.S. Power Squadrons, 59 N.Y.2d 401

(Ct.App. 1983) and is currently before the New York

Court of Appeals as amicus in New York State Club As-

sociation v. City of New York, — A.D.2d — (1st Dept.

July 31, 1986), both cases dealing with clubs and organi-

zations that discriminate against women.

Northwest Women’s Law Center (‘‘Law Center’’) is

a non-profit, membership-supported organization based in

Seattle, Washington, that seeks to promote the rights of

women through law. The Law Center conducts education-

al and informational referral programs to advise women

in the Pacific Northwest of their legal rights. It also

sponsors litigation working towards the total elimination

of sex discrimination, including the eradication of employ-

ment discrimination and of social and legal barriers that

deny women full participation in the business and pro-

fessional world. The Law Center appeared before this

court as amicus curiae in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra,

and is currently appearing as amicus curiae before the

United States District Court for the Western District of

Washinton in a case highly similar to the case at bar,

Rotary Club of Seattle-International District v. Rotary

International, (W.D. Wash., No. C 86-1475M) (1986).

App. 6

The San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance is a bar

association primarily comprised of women lawyers prac-

ticing in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Alliance was

formed in great part to advocate on behalf of women in

the community. The organization has filed a number of

amicus briefs and lobbied for state and local legislation

affecting economic and employment opportunities for wo-

men. This past year, the Alliance assumed a leadership

role in persuading both the Bar Association of San Fran-

cisco and the California State Bar Board of Governors

to adopt resolutions denouncing the discriminatory mem-

bership policies of private clubs.

Women’s Action Alliance, Inc., a national non-profit

organization, works towards full equality for women by

developing educational programs and services that assist

women and women’s organizations. The issues at stake

in this ease are critical to that equality which is denied

whenever women are barred from full participation in

institutions crucial to their development. Women’s Ac-

tion Alliance appeared before this Court as amicus curiae

in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra.

The Women’s Bar Association of the State of New

York (‘*‘WBASNY’’) is a statewide membership organ-

ization of more than 2,500 female and male lawyers, law

graduates, and law students committed to the goal of ad-

vancing the status of women under the law, in the work-

place, and in all fields of human endeavor. In support

of this goal, WBASNY has participated in cases which

seek to secure women’s rights under the law and to re-

move the barriers which prevent women from achieving

their full potential in society. Among the barriers which

WBASNY seeks to eliminate is women’s exclusion from

App. 7

clubs and organizations important to the business and

civie life of the community. In support of that goal,

WBASNY participated before this Court as an amicus

in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra, and has appeared before

the New York Court of Appeals as an amicus in In re Unit-

ed States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal

Board, supra, and New York State Club Association v. City

of New York, supra, both cases dealing with clubs and

organizations that discriminate against women.

Women Employed is a Chicago-based organization

with a membership of 3,000 women workers. Over the

past nine years, the organization has assisied working

women with problems of sex discrimination. Women [m-

ployed also monitors the enforcement, actions and policies

of the EEOC and Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs with regard to a broad range of sex discrimina-

tion issues. Women Employed appeared before this Court

as amicus curiae in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra,

Women’s Equity Action League (‘‘WIKAL’’) is a na-

tional non-profit membership organization specializing in

economic issues affecting women, and sponsors research,

education projects, litigation and legislative advocacy.

WEAL is committed to the full and effective enforcement

of anti-discrimination laws at both the federal and state

levels, to assure that all economic opportun ties are avail-

able to women as well as men. Women’s !iquity Action

League appeared before this Court as amicus curiae in

Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra.

Women in Business (‘‘WIB’’) was created originally

to provide a network through which successful women

would have the opportunity to encourage, enlighten, and

App. 8

support one another’s professional endeavors A small

group of successful women began to meet to share power

concepts, mutual concerns, and successes and to examine

the need for affiliation and collaboration with their peers

in the business world. WIB was officially incorporated

in March 1976. Today the membership of WIB is com-

prised of more than 250 prominent, influential Los Angeles

women in the corporate and business worlds, with repre-

sentation from academia, politics, government, the arts,

sports and science.

Women’s Law Project (‘‘WLP’’) is a non-profit femi-

nist law firm dedicated to eliminating sex discrimination

through litigation and public education. Since its founding

in 1973, WLP has been concerned with institutional barriers

to the advancemert of women at all levels of participation

in society. WLP has represented women seeking admission

to all male educational institutions and community organi-

zations, and strongly believes that participation in such

organizations is fundamental to the ability of women to

compete equally in business and community life. Women’s

Law Project appeared before this Court as amicus curiae

in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra.

Women’s Legal Defense Fund (‘‘WLDF’’) is a non-

profit, tax-exempt membership organization, founded in

1971 to provide pro bono legal assistance to women who

have been discriminated agaixst on the basis of sex. The

Fund devotes a major portion of its resources to com-

batting sex discrimination in employment, through litiga-

tion of significant employment discrimination cases, opera-

App. 9

tion of an e aployment discrimination counselling program,

and public education. WLDF’s experience and knowledge

—gained from its members who, as professionals, are dis-

advantaged by discriminatory membership policies and

from its clients who are similarly disadvantaged by exclu-

sion from community and business organizations—have

demonstrated that such exclusionary policies result in a

diminution of employment opportunities. Women’s Legal

Defense Fund appeared before this Court as amicus curiae

in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, supra.