IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

West Contra Costa USD prevailed on demurrer (a pleading in a lawsuit challenging the legal sufficiency of a cause of action), with the trial court dismissing the lawsuit and holding that the Unruh Act does not apply to public school districts, as they are not “business establishments” subject to the Act. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order.

The ELA filed an amicus brief with the court of appeal in support of the district, noting that the Superior Court correctly held that the Unruh Act does not apply to school districts. On Nov. 13, 2020, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s dismissal, finding that public school districts are not “business establishments” under the Unruh Act, and that districts are already subject to an array of antidiscrimination laws. Plaintiff subsequently appealed to the California Supreme Court. On Jan. 22, 2021, the ELA filed amicus letters opposing the Petition for Review and opposing depublication of the appellate court’s decision. On Feb. 24, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review.

On Sept. 15, 2021, the ELA filed an amicus brief in support of the district before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Superior Court and appellate court both correctly held that the Unruh Act does not apply to school districts and county offices of education. The California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) joined in the ELA’s brief in support of the district and CAJPA’s members.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court reviewed the Act’s legislative history. The Legislature enacted the Act in 1959 in response to several court decisions that limited the reach of the public accommodation statute. Its intent was to revise and expand the scope of the statute. After introduction, the bill was amended several times in a manner that demonstrated an intent to include public school districts. However, the final version of the bill entirely omitted schools from its coverage. The Court found this to demonstrate that the Legislature did not intend the Act to cover public schools. Rather, according to the Court, the history of the Act shows that it is “focused on the actions of private actors.” The Court found the same to be true when it reviewed its prior precedent with respect to the definition of “business establishments” in the Act. While the prior opinions addressed different entities, they each described “business establishments,” they set forth a uniform reading of the term — privately-owned, commercial enterprises whose function is to protect and enhance economic value. Public school districts simply do not fall within these parameters.

The Court also included a discussion of the important and competing policy arguments offered by the parties and amicus curiae, including CSBA’s ELA, but ultimately determined that those policy arguments were “within the province of the legislative, rather than the judicial branch.” The Court was careful to note that “[p]olicy arguments, no matter how persuasive, cannot overcome a clear legislative intent derived from statutory text and appropriate extrinsic sources.”

The Court also held that the Unruh Civil Rights Act’s incorporation of the Americans with Disabilities Act did not apply the Act to LEAs. The Court opted not to address Brennon’s claim that the Education Code incorporated the Unruh Civil Rights Act’s remedies because he had not made that argument in the lower courts.

“CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance consistently contributes to victories that protect local education agencies from overzealous and incorrect applications of the law, as seen by the recent decisions in Brennon B. v. West Contra Costa Unified School District and CP V Walnut v. Fremont Unified School District. In these cases, CSBA’s legal advocacy helped save California schools from potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue by reducing liability and securing access to critical development impact fees.”