United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Board, 59 N.Y.2d 401 (1983)

An organization offering public boating safety courses and extending membership to all males who pass the course is a place of public accommodation, and therefore cannot discriminate based on sex, regardless of its claim to be a private club.

Summary

The United States Power Squadrons (USPS), a boating safety organization, denied membership to women. The New York State Division of Human Rights found this to be unlawful sex discrimination, as USPS was a place of public accommodation and not a distinctly private club. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that USPS’s widespread public activities, including offering boating courses to the public, made it a place of public accommodation subject to anti-discrimination laws. The court emphasized that USPS’s membership practices were not genuinely selective, undermining its claim to be a private club.

Facts

Bertha Adler, Charlotte Arutt, and Leslie Mayer, all women interested in boating, applied for membership to the United States Power Squadrons (USPS) and its local squadrons. They met all membership criteria except one: USPS membership was limited to males. USPS is a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation dedicated to promoting boating safety and skill, with over 650 local squadrons across the U.S. Local squadrons offer free boating courses to the public, including women. The courses are advertised publicly, sometimes as part of local school programs, and usually taught in public school buildings. Passing the basic boating course was generally followed by an invitation to join USPS. Membership benefits included reduced insurance rates, boat show admissions, equipment discounts, and the right to fly the USPS flag.

Procedural History

The State Division of Human Rights found USPS guilty of unlawful discrimination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed the Division’s determination. USPS then filed suit, seeking to reverse the Board’s orders. The Appellate Division confirmed the orders and dismissed USPS’s petitions. The New York Court of Appeals granted USPS leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the United States Power Squadrons is a “place of public accommodation, resort or amusement” within the meaning of New York’s Human Rights Law.
2. Whether the United States Power Squadrons is a “distinctly private” club exempt from the Human Rights Law.
3. Whether applying the Human Rights Law to the United States Power Squadrons violates the constitutional rights of association and privacy of its members.

Holding

1. Yes, because the United States Power Squadrons systematically offers services and accommodations to the public through its extensive boating education programs.
2. No, because membership in the United States Power Squadrons is extended to nearly all males who pass the basic piloting course, indicating a lack of genuine exclusivity.
3. No, because the state’s interest in preventing discrimination outweighs the organization’s asserted right to discriminate based on sex.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that USPS met the definition of a “place of public accommodation” because it systematically offered services to the public, primarily through its boating safety courses. The court rejected USPS’s argument that it did not operate from a fixed “place,” noting that the statute included examples of accommodations that did not have a fixed location. “The place of the public accommodation need not be a fixed location, it is the place where petitioners do what they do.” The court also held that USPS was not a “distinctly private” club because its membership was not genuinely selective. “The essence of a private club is selectivity in its membership. It must have a ‘plan or purpose of exclusiveness’.” USPS extended membership to all males who passed the basic piloting course, demonstrating a lack of subjective membership criteria. Furthermore, USPS actively solicited public participation and did not limit its services to members only. The court emphasized USPS’s tax-exempt status as a non-profit educational organization and its relationships with government agencies as factors undermining its claim to be a private club. Finally, the court held that the application of the Human Rights Law to USPS did not violate the members’ constitutional rights of association and privacy. Quoting Norwood v. Harrison, “the constitution places no value on” private discrimination, and USPS was not entitled to affirmative protection to further its discriminatory practices. The court found that USPS’s public activities brought it within the reach of the statute, regardless of its nominal private status. The court noted that USPS’s attempts to change its policies after the complaints were filed were aimed at mimicking a private club model rather than facilitating female membership. The court concluded that without membership, women were denied the ability to participate fully in the governance of the squadrons and denied the “advantages, facilities and privileges” of a public accommodation (Executive Law, § 296, subd 2, par [a]).